UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


mv 


JCELfr 


:OF:CALIFOfe 


A  TREATISE 


LAW  OF  RAI 


CONTAINING  A  CONSIDERATION. QF>  THE  ORGANIZATION,  STATUS  AN! 

POWERS  OF  RAILROAD  CORPORATIONS^AND  OF  THE  RIGHTS 

,    AND  LIABILITIES  INCIE)EN7,VQ,JTfiE    \ 


LOCATION,  CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION 
OF  RAILROADS 


AND  ALSO  THE 


DUTIES,  RIGHTS  AND  LIABILITIES  OF  RAILROAD  COMPANIES 

AS  CARRIERS 

UNDER  THE  RULES  OF  THE  COMMON  LAW  AND  THE 
INTERSTATE  COMMERCE  ACT 

BY 

BYRON  K.  ELLIOTT 

AND 

WILLIAM  F.  ELLIOTT 

Authors  of  Roads  and  Streets,  Appellate  Procedure  and 
General  Practice 

flu  jfour  IDolumes 
VOLUME  I 

INDIANAPOLIS  AND  KANSAS  CITY 

THE  BOWEN-MERRILL  COMPANY 

1897 


COPYKIGHT  1897 
BY 

THE  BOWEN-MERRILL  CO. 


T 
ELT8JL* 

n 


PRESS  OF 

CAELON  &  HOLLENBECK, 
INDIANAPOLIS. 


1 


*. 

*  PREFACE 


A  treatise  on  the  law  of  railroads  necessarily  covers  a  wide 
field,  for  the  relations  in  which  railroad  companies  must  be 
considered  are  manifold  and  diverse.  The  law  of  railroads  has 
strikingly  developed  and  greatly  expanded  within  the  last  few 
years,  and  while  it  can  not,  perhaps,  be  said  with  strict  accu- 
racy that  new  principles  have  come  into  existence,  yet  it  can 
be  justly  said  that  the  application  of  old  principles  to  new  sit- 
uations, relations  and  conditions  has  wrought  radical  changes 
and  introduced  new  and  important  rules.  While  the  creative 
power  may  not  have  been  at  work,  that  of  evolution  has  been 
constantly  and  vigorously  exerting  its  influence.  Our  pur- 
pose has  been  to  consider  general  principles,  to  study  and 
record  the  progress  of  the  law  and  the  results  of  the  process  of 
evolution.  We  have  sought  to  find  and  give  the  modern  law 
upon  the  principal  subject  and  its  allied  topics. 

The  general  plan  of  our  work  has  been  to  gather  and  state 
the  rules  declared  by  the  adjudged  cases,  and  to  illustrate  them 
by  reference  to  the  decisions  which  seem  to  best  declare  the 
rules  and  most  clearly  show  their  application.  We  have 
quoted  from  the  decision  in  instances  where  the  judges  have 
laid  down  the  rules  with  clearness  and  applied  them  with  ac- 
curacy. We  have  cited  cases  for  the  twofold  purpose  of  illus- 
trating our  views  and  of  placing  conveniently  at  hand  the 
rules  of  law  and  supporting  decisions.  Where  we  have  found 
conflict,  as  we  have  often  done,  we  have  endeavored  to  ascer- 
tain and  state  the  rule  which  fundamental  principles  support. 

We  have  endeavored  to  cite  all  the  authorities  upon  contro- 

(iii) 


729431 


IV  PREFACE. 

verted  questions  as  well  as  those  illustrating  particular  or 
peculiar  applications  of  familiar  general  rules.  It  would  not 
have  been  difficult  to  cite  a  multitude  of  additional  authorities 
in  support  of  general  rules,  but  it  is  believed  that  the  citations 
are  copious  enough  for  all  practical  purposes,  and  that  the  num- 
ber of  cases  is  far  in  excess  of  that  to  be  found  in  any  other  work 
upon  the  subject.  In  selecting  authorities  in  support  of  general 
principles  we  have,  as  a  rule,  chosen  decisions  of  the  federal 
courts  and  the  leading  cases  and  more  recent  decisions  in  each 
state ;  but  we  have  also  cited  the  relevant  decisions  of  the  En- 
glish and  Canadian  courts: 

We  have  considered  and  discussed  many  matters,  not  ordi- 
narily considered  in  text-books  upon  the  subject  of  railroads, 
which  we  have  found  important  in  our  practice  as  attorneys 
both  for  and  against  railroad  companies.  We  have  thought 
that  such  a  course  was  essential  to  a  complete  and  systematic 
treatment  of  the  subject  as  well  as  necessary  to  make  the  book 
one  of  practical  utility.  The  consideration  of  these  incidental 
matters  not  only  adds,  as  we  believe,  to  the  usefulness  of  the 
book  as  one  of  reference,  but  also  adds  to  its  value  as  a  treatise 
insomuch  as  the  discussion  of  the  incidental  topics  serves  to 
exhibit  the  principal  topics  in  stronger  and  clearer  light. 

For  more  than  four  years  intelligent  and  painstaking  work 
was  put  upon  these  volumes  by  Evans  Woollen,  Esq.,  of  the 
Indianapolis  Bar,  a  lawyer  of  learning  and  ability  and  admira- 
bly equipped  for  the  work  done  by  him.  We  gratefully  ac- 
knowledge our  obligations  to  him  for  the  valuable  assistance 
given  us. 

BYRON  K.  ELLIOTT, 
WILLIAM  F.  ELLIOTT. 

Indianapolis,  January,  1897. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


VOLUME  I. 

THE  CORPORATION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

DEFINITIONS. 

PAGE. 

§    1.   Railroad  companies — Definition  and  characteristics 1 

2.  Dual  nature  of  railroad  corporations 3 

3.  "Railroad"  or  "railway" 5 

4.  What  are  railroads 5 

5.  "Railroad  track"— "Right  of  way" — "Roadbed"  and  "roadway"  .  7 

6.  Street  railways 8 

7.  Elevated  railroads 11 

8.  Electric  railroads 12 

9.  Cable  railroads 13 

CHAPTER  II. 

PROMOTION    AND    FORMATION    OF    THE    CORPORATION. 

10.  Promoters — Who  are 15 

11.  Fiduciary  relation  of  promoters — Duties  and  liabilities 16 

12.  Promoter  may  sell  property  to  the  corporation 18 

13.  Personal  liability  of  promoters — When  partners 19 

14.  Contracts  of  promoters — AVhen  binding  on  corporation 20 

15.  Legislative  authority  essential  to  creation  of  corporation 21 

16.  Creation  by  special  charter 22 

17.  Acceptance  of  charter 23 

18.  Incorporation  under  general  laws 24 

19.  Perfecting  the  organization 28 

20.  Defective  organization — Waiver — Collateral  attack 29 

(V) 


Vi  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   I. 

CHAPTER  III. 

LEGAL    STATUS. 

PAGE. 

§  21.   As  individual,  person,  citizen 31 

22.  Corporation  confined  to  jurisdiction  creating  it — Business  elsewhere 

—Comity 32 

23.  Citizenship — Removal  of  causes 33 

24.  Residence  and  domicile— Jurisdiction 34 

25.  Federal  corporations 36 

26.  Railroad  in  more  than  one  state — Citizenship 36 

27.  Control  of  railroads  in  more  than  one  state 37 

28.  Result  of  consolidation  or  concurrent  action  of  several  states  creat- 

ing new  corporations 39 

29    Railroad  only  a  citizen  or  domestic  corporation  of  the  states  that 

charter  it— Effect  of  mere  license 43 

30.  Foreign  corporations— Condition  of  admission  to  state 44 

31.  Railroads  as  property 46 

32.  Railroads  as  monopolies 47 

33.  Railroads  as  public  highways , 49 

CHAPTER  IV. 

CHARTERS. 

34.  Special  charters  and  general  laws 51 

35.  Acceptance  of  charter 52 

36.  Terms  upon  which  charter  is  granted  must  be  complied  with — Pro- 

visions in  general  laws 53 

37.  Particular  corporation  must  be  authorized 55 

38.  Construction  of  charter— General  rules 56 

39.  Grants  of  monopolies  and  powers  in  derogation  of  public  rights — 

Perpetuity " 58 

40.  Practical  construction 59 

41.  Charter  to  build  and  operate  a  railroad — What  powers  are  included  60 

42.  Other  powers  of  railroad  companies — Implied  powers  included  in 

certain  grants 63 

43.  Amendment — Power  must  be  reserved 65 

44.  Police  regulations 68 

45.  Material  amendments  require  unanimous  consent  of  stockholders 

— What  are  material 69 

46.  Statutory  provisions  authorizing  amendments 72 

47.  Forfeiture — Statutory  provisions   dispensing  with   judicial  deter- 

mination    73 

48.  Implied  condition  that  corporate  franchise  is  subject  to  forfeiture 

— Judicial  determination — Causes  for  forfeiture 74 

49.  Grounds  of  forfeiture — Illustrative  cases 76 


TABLE    OF   CONTENTS VOL.  I.  vii 

PAGE. 

§  50.   When  duty  to  declare  forfeiture  is  mandatory  and  when  discretion- 
ary   79 

51.  What  is  not  cause  for  forfeiture 79 

52.  Waiver  of  forfeiture — Collateral  proceedings 82 

53.  Proceedings  to  forfeit — Quo  warranto — Parties 84 

54.  Proceedings  must  generally  be  in  court  of  law— Statutory  provisions .  86 

55.  Collateral  proceedings— Pleadings  and  judgment  in  forfeiture  pro- 

ceedings    87 

56.  Repeal  of  charter — Reserved  power 88 

57.  Repeal  where  conditional  power  is  reserved 89 

58.  Rule  where  power  to  repeal  is  not  reserved 91 

59.  Effect  of  repeal 91 

60.  Repeal  of  by  general  laws 93 

61.  Charter  is  subject  to  general  laws  reserving  power  to  repeal 93 

62.  Expiration  of  charter 94 

CHAPTER  V. 

FRANCHISES. 

63.  Definition 96 

64.  Charter  and  franchise  distinguished 97 

65.  Grant  of  corporate  franchises 98 

66.  Consideration  for  the  grant  of  a  franchise 98 

67.  Nature  of  a  franchise  further  considered 99 

68.  Franchise  of  being  a  corporation 101 

69.  Difference  between  a  franchise  and  a  license 103 

70.  Sale  of  corporate  property  essential  to  exercise  of  franchises — Lim- 

itation of  right  to  sell 104 

71.  Effect  of  attempt  to  sell  franchise 104 

72.  Judicial  sale  of  franchises 105 

73.  Sequestration 106 

74.  Seizure  of  corporate  franchise  under  power  of  eminent  domain 108 

75.  Dissolution  effected  by  authorized  sale  of  franchises 108 

CHAPTER  VI. 

STOCK. 

76.  Definition 110 

77.  Classes  of  stock 112 

78.  Shares  of  stock— Certificates 112 

79.  Certificates— How  far  negotiable— Shares  are  personal  property...  114 

80.  New  certificates  in  place  of  lost — Fraud 116 

81.  Preferred  stock 118 

82.  When  preferred  stock  may  be  issued— Rights  and  remedies  of  dis- 

senting stockholders 1 

83.  Holder  of  preferred  stock  not  a  creditor— His  rights  and  remedies.  120 


Viii  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   I. 

PAGB. 

§  84.  Rights  of  preferred  stockholders  after  payment  of  guaranteed  divi- 
dend— Future  dividend 122 

85.  Rights  of  preferred  stockholders  on  dissolution 123 

86.  Guaranteed,  interest-bearing,  income  and  debenture  stock 123 

87.  Increase  and  reduction  of  capital  stock 126 

88.  Watered  stock 128 

89.  "Watered  stock  not  absolutely  void 129 

90.  Right  of  creditors  and  liabilities  of  holders  of  watered  stock 130 

91.  Stock  paid  for  by  overvalued  property — Sale  of  stock  on  market. . .  131 

92.  Sale  and  transfer  of  stock 133 

93.  Who  may  own  and  transfer  shares 136 

94.  Purchase  and  sale  by  trustees  and  fiduciaries 137 

95.  Right  of  corporation  to  buy  and  sell  stock 140 

96.  Gifts  and  bequests  of  stock '. 143 

97.  Formalities  of  transfer 143 

98.  Registry  of  transfer 145 

99.  Lien  of  corporation  on  stock 148 

100.  When  and  to  what  the  lien  attaches 149 

101.  Waiver  of  lien — Enforcement  of  lien ..                                                  .  150 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SUBSCRIPTIONS. 

102.  Preliminary  agreements  to  subscribe 153 

103.  Subscriptions  generally — Form 156 

104.  Construction  of  contract  of  subscription 158 

105.  Contracts  of  subscription  are  several 158 

106.  Effect  of  statutes  requiring  cash  deposit  to  complete  subscription . . .  159 

107.  Who  may  subscribe  for  stock 161 

108.  Presumption  that  one  whose  name  is  subscribed  is  a  stockholder. .  162 

109.  Implied  promise  to  pay  subscription — Consideration 163 

110.  Payment  of  subscription — Trust  fund  doctrine 164 

111 .  Conditional  subscription 167 

112.  Valid  and  invalid  conditions 170 

113.  Conditional  subscription  is  a  mere  offer  until  accepted 171 

114.  Subscriptions  in  escrow — Parol  evidence 172 

115.  Waiver  of  conditions ' 173 

116.  When  conditional  subscription  becomes  payable 175 

117.  Construction  of  conditional  subscriptions — What  is  a  sufficient  com- 

pliance with  conditions  as  to  time  of  beginning  and  completing 
road 177 

118.  Subscriptions  payable  as  work  progresses  or  upon  expenditure  of  a 

certain  amount 179 

119.  Failure  to  perform  parol  condition  will  not  defeat  subscription 180 

120.  Conditions  in  notes 181 

121.  Subscriptions  conditioned  upon  location   or  construction  of  the 

road .   182 


TABLE    OP   CONTENTS VOL.  I.  jx 

PAGE. 

§  122.  Effect  of  alteration  in  route  fixed  by  charter 184 

123.  Effect  of  abandonment  or  sale  of  road 185 

124.  Condition  as  to  terminus— Question  of  intention  for  jury 186 

125.  "What  is  sufficient  compliance  with  condition  as  to  terminus  or 

location  of  depot  at  a  certain  place 187 

126.  General  rule  of  construction— Performance  of  condition  by  con- 

solidated company 188 

127.  Fraudulent  representations  in  obtaining  subscriptions 190 

128.  Misrepresentations  in  prospectus  and  by  agents  generally 194 

129.  Fraud  may  be  shown  by  parol  evidence 196 

130.  Subscriber  must  be  free  from  negligence  in  order  to  be  released 

upon  the  ground  of  fraud 197 

131.  Subscription  induced  by  fraud  is  merely  voidable — When  it  will 

be  enforced 197 

132.  Ratification  and  estoppel — Rescission 198 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS. 

133.  When  payment  of  subscription  must  be  made 201 

134.  Calls— Nature  and  effect  of 203 

135.  Directors  may  make  calls — Delegation  and  ratification 204 

136.  Directors  must  act  as  a  body — De  facto  board — Illegal  calls 205 

137.  Discretion  of  board  in  making  calls 205 

138.  Charter  and  statutory  limitations  upon  discretion — Periodical  in- 

stallments    206 

139.  Call  should  affect  all  alike — Motive  and  expediency 206 

140.  Subscription  payable  upon  demand — Notice 207 

141.  Requisites  of  notice 208 

142.  Constructive  notice 209 

143.  Waiver  by  stockholder  of  notice  and  formalities  of  call — Estoppel.  210 

144.  Demand  and  suit  for  assessment 210 

145.  Assignment  of  right  to  collect  subscription  or  assessment 211 

146.  When  courts  may  compel  call  and  payment 211 

147.  Extent  of  stockholder's  liability  for  assessments— Agreements  as 

affecting  liability 212 

148.  Construction  of  charter  and  statutory  provisions  regarding  assess- 

ments      213 

149.  Remedies  where  stockholder  fails  to  pay  subscription  or  assess- 

ment— Forfeiture 213 

150.  Cumulative  remedies — Election 215 

151.  Effect  of  forfeiture ...217 

152.  Statutory  method  of  forfeiture  must  be  pursued 218 

153.  Notice  of  forfeiture 2 

154.  Defeating  and  annulling  forfeiture— Estoppel 221 


X  TABLE    OF   CONTENTS VOL.  I. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

STOCKHOLDERS. 

PAGE. 

§  155.  When  one  becomes  a  stockholder 224 

156.  Rights  of  stockholders— Right  to  vote 225 

157.  Who  has  right  to  vote — How  determined 226 

158.  Right  of  trustee  and  receivers  to  vote 229 

159.  Right  of  corporations  and  voting  trusts  to  vote 230 

160.  Number  of  votes  to  which  stockholder  is  entitled — Cumulative 

voting 230 

161.  Quorum  must  be  present 231 

162.  Voting  by  proxy 232 

163.  Other  powers  of  stockholders — Rights  of  minority 234 

164.  Stockholders'  meetings 235 

165.  Remedies  of  stockholders 238 

166.  Unregistered  assignees  and  third  persons  can  not  sue 240 

167.  When  stockholders  may  sue  or  become  parties 241 

168.  Right  to  recover  insurance 244 

169.  Other  rights  and  remedies  of  stockholders 244 

170.  Stockholders  as  agents  of  the  corporation 246 

171.  Notice  to  stockholders 247 

172.  Stockholders'  right  to  inspect  books 247 

173.  Stockholder  is  disqualified  to  serve  as  judge  or  juror  where  corpo- 

ration is  interested 248 

174.  Unlawful  combinations  and  conspiracies  to  vote  or  prevent  voting 

— Injunction  249 

175.  Liability  of  stockholders  for  unpaid  subscriptions 251 

176.  Release  of  stockholders — Withdrawal 253 

177.  Compromises  with  stockholders 255 

178.  Liability  where  stock  is  transferred 255 

179.  When  creditors  may  enforce  unpaid  subscriptions — Judgment  and 

execution  against  corporation 256 

180.  Effect,  as  against  stockholders,  of  judgment  against  the  corpora- 

tion    258 

181.  Stockholder's  defense 259 

182.  Methods  of  enforcing  stockholder's  liability 260 

183.  Contribution 262 

184.  Suits  by  assignees  and  receivers 264 

185.  Statutory  liability  of  stockholders 264 

186.  Defenses  to  actions  to  enforce  statutory  liability 266 

187.  Who  may  institute  action  to  enforce  statutory  liability 268 

188.  How  statutory  liability  is  enforced  —  Judgment  and  execution 

against  the  corporation 269 

189.  Priority  among  creditors — Forum — Contribution 270 

190.  When  stockholders  are  liable  as  partners 270 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  I.  xi 

CHAPTER  X. 

BY-LAWS,    RULES    AND    REGULATIONS. 

PAGE. 

§  191.   Power  to  make  by-laws 274 

192.  Who  are  affected  by  corporate  by-laws 275 

193.  Limits  of  power  to  make  by-laws — Eeasonableness  a  question  for 

the  court 276 

194.  Power  to  make  by-laws  resides  in  stockholders — When  directors 

may  make 278 

195.  Formalities  of  enactment — Proof 278 

196.  Amendment  and  repeal 279 

197.  Enforcement  of  by-laws 280 

198.  Rules  and  regulations  in  England 280 

199.  Distinction  between  by-laws  and  rules  and  regulations — Right  of 

railroad  company  to  make  rules  and  regulations 282 

200.  Examples  of  rules  and  regulations  which  railroad  companies  may 

make 283 

201.  Enforcement  of  rules — Penalties 287 

202.  Reasonableness  of  rules — When  a  question  of  fact  and  when  a 

question  of  law 287 

CHAPTER  XI. 

CORPORATE    REPRESENTATIVES. 

203.  Railroad  corporations  act  through  officers,  agents  or  other  repre- 

sentatives    289 

204.  Appointment  of  officers  and  agents — General  doctrine 290 

205.  Statutory  privileges  bestowed  on  agents 291 

206.  Officers  generally 291 

207.  Qualifications  of  officers 292 

208.  Election  of  officers— Generally 292 

209.  Agents  generally, 294 

210.  Proof  of  the  existence  of  the  relation  of  principal  and  agent 294 

211.  Proof  of  authority .". 295 

212.  Agency  inferred 296 

213.  Powers,  duties  and  authority  of  officers  and  agents  generally 297 

214.  Authority  of  agent — Line  of  duty 3 

215.  Scope  of  authority — General  conclusions 3 

216.  Contracts  by  agents— General  doctrine 305 

217.  Declarations  and  admissions  of  agents 307 

218.  Declarations  of  agents — Res  gestce 307 

219.  Declarations  must  relate  to  transaction  or  event  in  controversy. . .  309 

220.  Exercise  of  authority  by  agents — Illustrative  cases 3 

221.  Scope  of  authority — Illustrative  cases 3 

222.  Authority  of  agents— Employment  of  surgeons 312 


Xil  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   I. 

PAGE. 

§  223.   Physicians  and  surgeons 318 

224.  Delegation  of  power  by  directors 319 

225.  Employment  of  sub-agents  and  servants 320 

226.  Notice  to  agents  or  officers 320 

227.  Ratification 322 

228.  Acts  that  may  be  ratified 324 

229.  Ratification— What  constitutes 324 

230.  Compensation  of  officers 325 

231.  Liability  of  agents  for  their  torts 326 

232.  Bonds  of  officers  and  agents 327 

233.  Sureties — Bonds  of  officers  and  agents 330 

CHAPTER  XII. 

DIRECTORS. 

234.  Different  classes  of  officers— Generally 333 

235.  The  governing  board — Generally 333 

236.  Governing  board  not  the  corporation 334 

237.  The  board  of  directors  represents  the  corporation 335 

238.  Directors— Generally 336 

239.  Number  of  directors 337 

240.  Directors— How  chosen— Generally 337 

241.  Eligibility  to  the  office  of  director 337 

242.  Ineligibility  because  of  connection  with  competing  lines 338 

243.  Election  of  ineligible  person  to  office  of  director 339 

244.  Officers  de  facto— Generally 339 

245.  Election  of  ineligible  person — Who  may  question  right  to  office  . .  341 

246.  Directors  de  facto — Illustrative  cases 341 

247.  De  facto  directors— Two  boards 342 

248.  Holding  over— Failure  to  elect 343 

249.  Powers  of  directors — Source  of 343 

250.  Powers  of  directors — Generally 344 

251.  Powers  of  directors — Illustrative  cases 346 

252.  Directors — Powers  of — Organic  changes 348 

253.  Directors — Extent  of  authority— Generally 351 

254.  Powers  of  directors — General  conclusion.* 351 

255.  Directors — Official  action — Preliminary 352 

256.  Directors— Official  action 352 

257.  Directors — Delegation  of  authority 353 

258.  Directors — Delegation  of  authority — Illustrative  cases 355 

259.  Directors — Action  where  the  mode  is  prescribed 356 

260.  Directors— Meetings 358 

261.  Directors — Meetings— Stated  and  special 359 

262.  Directors— Meetings— Notice 359 

263.  Directors— Meetings— Proxies — Quorum 361 

264.  Directors — Meetings  outside  of  the  state 362 

265.  Directors — Proceedings — Record 363 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   I. 

PAGE. 

§  266.  Directors — Corporate  records  as  evidence 364 

267.  Proof  of  the  proceedings  of  the  board  of  directors 365 

268.  Notice  to  directors 36g 

269.  Directors — Admissions  and  declarations 367 

270.  Eatification  of  the  acts  of  directors 368 

271.  Directors — Removal  from  office 368 

272.  Compensation  of  directors 370 

273.  Directors — Relation  to  stockholders— Preliminary 372 

274.  Directors  considered  trustees 373 

275.  Directors  as  trustees — Illustrative  cases 374 

276.  Directors — Dealings  with  corporation 378 

277.  Termination  of  fiduciary  relations 381 

278.  Directors — Liability  of — Generally 381 

279.  ..Directors — Liability  in  matter  of  contract 383 

280.  Directors — Errors  of  judgment 384 

281.  Directors — Liability  for  negligence 384 

282.  Directors — Fraud  on  third  persons 385 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

EXECUTIVE    AND    MINISTERIAL   OFFICERS   AND    AGENTS. 

283.  President— Generally 389 

284.  President — Incidential  powers  of 391 

285.  President — Implied  powers 392 

286.  President — Powers  implied  from  grant  of  authority  by  the  board 

of  directors 394 

287.  President — Influence  of  usage 395 

288.  President — Apparent  authority 395 

289.  President— Ratification  of  unauthorized  acts 396 

290.  President — Dealings  with  corporation 396 

291.  President — Relation  to  shareholders 396 

292.  Treasurer— Generally 397 

293.  Treasurer— Duties— Liabilities '. . .  399 

294.  Treasurer — Care  of  corporate  funds 399 

295.  Secretary 400 

296.  Managing  agents 401 

297.  Superintendent 401 

298.  Superintendent — General  conclusion 404 

299.  Intermediate  agents 405 

300.  Intermediate  agents  —Agent  for  one  purpose  not  for  another 405 

301.  Intermediate  agents  and  servants  distinguished 406 

302.  Conductors 406 

303.  Station  agents 409 


XIV  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

DIVIDENDS. 

PAGE. 

§  304.   Rights  of  stockholders — Dividends 417 

305.  When  dividend  belongs  to  stockholder — Assignment 418 

306.  To  whom  dividend  should  be  paid 419 

307.  Rights  of  life  tenant  and  remainderman — Apportionment  of  divi- 

dends    421 

308.  Duties  of  life  tenant — Transfers 425 

309.  Dividend  is  not  property  of  the  corporation — Rights  of  creditors 

and  stockholders 425 

310.  Dividend  is  irrevocable — Actions  concerning 426 

311.  Demand — Necessity  and  effect  of *  . .  428 

312.  Declaration  of  dividend  discretionary  with  directors 429 

313.  Power  to  borrow  money  or  declare  stock  dividend 430 

314.  Remedies  for  abuse  of  discretion 431 

315.  Limitations  upon  authority  to  declare  a  dividend — Suits  to  reclaim .  432 

316.  Dividends  should  be  paid  out  of  the  profits 434 

317.  Enjoining  payment  of  dividends 435 

318.  Personal  liability  of  directors 437 

319.  Dividends  payable  in  scrip 439 

320.  Stock  dividends 439 

321.  Dividends  payable  without  discrimination 441 


VOLUME  II. 

THE  CORPORATION. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

CONSOLIDATION. 

PAGE. 

322.  Consolidation  must  be  authorized  by  legislature 443 

323.  Statutory  mode  must  be  pursued — Collateral  attack 445 

324.  Intention  to  consolidate — Difference  between  succession  and  con- 

solidation    448 

325.  Right  of  majority  to  effect  consolidation — When  minority  may 

prevent — Release  of  dissenting  subscribers 449 

326.  Statutory  provisions  for  consolidation 451 

327.  Rights  of  old  stockholders  and  their  relation  to  the  new  company  452 

328.  Remedies  of  old  stockholders .  454 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II.  XV 

PAGE. 

§  329.   Consolidated  company  succeeds  to  rights  and  liabilities  of  the  old 

companies 455 

330.  Special  privileges  and  immunities — When  they  pass  to  the  new 

company 457 

331.  When  special  privileges  do  not  pass 458 

332.  Duties  and  obligations  of  new  company 459 

333.  Liability  of  new  company  on  old  contracts 460 

334.  Liability  of    new  company  for  torts — Extent  of    liability — Gen- 

erally    461 

335.  Constituent  companies  are  usually  dissolved— When  not 462 

336.  Effect  of  consolidation  upon  liens 464 

337.  De  facto  consolidation — Estoppel — Liability  of  constituent  com- 

panies where  consolidation  is  set  aside 466 

338.  Effect  of  consolidation  upon  pending  suits 467 

339.  Consolidation  with  foreign  corporations 469 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

CONTRACTS. 

340.  Contracts — Power  to  make — Generally 474 

341.  Contracts — Scope  of  corporate  power 475 

342.  General  power  to  contract— Illustrative  instances 476 

343.  Power  to  contract — Control  of  by  courts 478 

344.  Effect  of  changes  in  charter 479 

345.  Contracts — Formal  requisites  of 480 

346.  Formal  defects 481 

347.  Contracts — Who  may  make — Generally 481 

348.  Contracts  by  interested  persons 482 

349.  Mode  prescribed  must  be  pursued 483 

350.  Contracts — Parties  bound  to  take  notice  of  charter  provisions 484 

351.  Contracts — Unauthorized — Notice 485 

352.  Estoppel— Generally 487 

353.  Ratification  of  unauthorized  acts— Rights  of  the  public  and  of 

creditors 488 

354.  Contracts  in  conjunction  with  other  parties 489 

355.  Pledge  of  corporate  securities 489 

356.  Contracts  between  connecting  lines — Division  of  fares 490 

357.  Contracts  permitting  use  of  part  of  road 491 

358.  Contracts  regarding  terminal  facilities 4 

359.  Traffic  contracts — Surrender  to  competing  line 492 

360.  Contracts  with  municipal  corporations  for  terminal  facilities 493 

361.  Use  of  tracks  constructed  under  grant  from  municipal  corporation  493 

362.  Contracts  for  location  of  stations 494 

363.  Location  of  tracks,  switches  and  the  like 495 

364.  Contracts  that  may  be  made  by  railroad  companies — Particular 

instances 4 

365.  Pooling  contracts — Generally 497 


XVI  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

PAGE. 

§  366.   Pooling  contracts— The  authorities 499 

367.  Pooling  contracts — Presumption 500 

368.  Contracts —  Ultra  vires 501 

369.  Contracts — Ultra  vires — General  doctrine 503 

370.  Contracts — What  are  ultra  vires — Generally 504 

371.  Contracts — Ultra  vires — Estoppel 505 

372.  Contracts — Ultra  fires — Executed  and  executory  contracts 507 

373.  Contracts — Ultra  vires — Cases  discriminated 509 

374.  Contracts — Ultra  vires — Illustrative  instances 511 

375.  Contracts  —  Ultra  vires  —  Rule  where  statute  prescribes  conse- 

quences    514 

376.  Contracts — Ultra  vires — Injunction 514 

377.  Contracts — Ultra  vires — Denial  of  relief — Laches 516 

378.  Contracts  —  Ultra  vires — Who  may  contest 516 

379.  Contracts — Ultra  vires — Creditors 518 

380.  Contracts — Ultra  vires — Non-assenting  stockholders 519 

381.  Prohibited  contracts — Effect  of  prescribing  penalties 520 

382.  Illegal  contracts— Generally 522 

383.  Illegal  contracts  and  ultra  vires  contracts  discriminated 522 

384.  Classes  of  illegal  contracts 524 

385.  Contracts  void  because  against  public  policy 524 

386.  Contracts  against  public  policy — Location  of  stations  and  tracks. .  526 

387.  Contracts  void  as  against  public  policy — General  conclusions 529 

388.  Contracts  void  as  against  public  policy — Illustrative  cases 531 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

REAL    ESTATE.    - 

389.  What  railroad  property  is  real  estate 535 

390.  Statutory  authority  requisite 536 

391.  Power  to  acquire  real  estate — Implied  power — Generally 537 

392.  Implied  power  to  acquire — General  rule 538 

393.  Implied  power — Illustrative  instances 538 

394.  Power  to  acquire  real  estate— Instances  of  denial  of  power 540 

395.  Title  to  real  estate  is  in  the  company 541 

396.  Title  once  vested  not  divested  because  property  subsequently  be- 

comes unnecessary 541 

397.  Effect  of  conveyance  to  corporation  of  land  it  has  no  power  to 

hold 542 

398.  Right  of  foreign  corporation  to  hold  real  estate 543 

399.  The  power  to  acquire  by  grant  broader  than  the  power  to  acquire 

by  condemnation 544 

400.  Acquisition  of  the  fee  by  private  grant 544 

401.  Acquisition  of  title  by  adverse  possession 546 

402.  Possession  of  land — To  what  right  referred 548 

403.  Rights  of  company  where  land  is  owned  in  fee 549 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II.  Xvii 

PAGE. 

§  404.   Effect  of  conveyance  of  property  the  company  is  not  authorized  to 

acquire 549 

405.  Questioning  the  right  to  hold  real  estate 550 

406.  Enjoining  purchase  of  real  estate  where  no  power  to  receive  and 

hold 550 

407.  Executory  contract  of  purchase  not  enforceable  where  there  is  no 

power  to  hold  the  land 551 

408.  Estoppel  of  parties  to  deeds  to  deny  corporate  existence 551 

409.  Deed  to  company  not  in  existence  551 

410.  Formal  execution  of  conveyances  and  agreements  relating  to  real 

estate 553 

411.  Contracts  under  corporate  seal — Effect  as  evidence 554 

412.  Acceptance  of  deed 555 

413.  Distinction  between  a  donation  of  lands  and  a  sale 556 

414.  Deeds  of  company — By  whom  executed 556 

415.  Construction  of  deeds  to  railroad  companies — Generally 557 

416.  Deeds  to  railroad  companies— Construction  of  conditions 558 

417.  Grants — Beneficial — Presumption  of  acceptance 559 

418.  Incidents  pass  with  principal  thing  granted 560 

419.  Effect  of  designating  in  the  deed  the  purpose  for  which  the  land 

is  granted 560 

420.  Covenants  that  run  with  the  land 561 

421.  Merger  of  preliminary  agreement  in  deed 562 

422.  Bonds  for  conveyance — Specific  performance 562 

423.  Presumption  that  there  is  power  to  hold  the  land 563 

424.  Power  to  convey  real  estate 563 

425.  Dedication  of  land  for  use  as  a  highway 564 

426.  Disposition  of  property  corporation  has  no  power  to  receive  and 

hold— Escheat " 565 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

LEASES. 

427.  Power  to  lease — Generally 567 

428.  What  the  legislature  may  prescribe 568 

429.  Power  to  lease  not  an  implied  one— Legislative  authority  requisite  568 

430.  The  power  to  lease — General  rule '. 569 

431.  The  foundation  of  the  rule 570 

432.  Power  to  accept  a  lease 570 

433.  Statutes  asserted  to  confer  power  to  lease  are  not  aided  by  con- 

struction    571 

434.  Statutes  strictly  construed — Illustrative  instances 572 

435.  Statutes — Construction  of 573 

436.  What  is  included  in  the  authority  to  execute  a  lease 574 

437.  Scope  of  authority  to  lease 575 

438.  Statutes  conferring,  power  to  lease  must  be  strictly  followed 575 

CORP.  I — ii 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  II. 

PAGE. 

§439.  Consent  of  stockholders — Statutory  requirement  must  be  obeyed .  576 

440.  Concurrence  of  stockholders  necessary 576 

441.  What  number  of  stockholders  must  assent  to  the  lease 580 

442.  Consent  of  stockholders — Waiver  of  objections 581 

443.  Lease  where  parties  are  corporations  of  different  states 581 

444.  Authority  to  execute  lease  has  no  extra-territorial  effect 582 

445.  Eights  of  foreign  lessors 582 

446.  Leases  to  connecting  lines 583 

447.  Lease  to  competing  lines — Effect  of  statutes  prohibiting 584 

448.  Effect  of  executing  unauthorized  lease 585 

449.  Lease — Construction 586 

450.  Lease — Dependent  and  independent  contracts 587 

451.  Contract  to  permit  use  of  track  not  necessarily  a  lease 589 

452.  Traffic  contract  not  valid  if  it  is  in  effect  a  lease 590 

453.  Contract  granting  right  to  use — Effect  and  construction  of 591 

454.  Part  performance — Effect  of 592 

455.  Duration  of  lease 593 

456.  Effect  of  lease  on  taxation 593 

457.  Public  duties  of  lessee  under  an  unauthorized  lease— Mandamus.  595 

458.  Authorized  lease — Duty  of  lessee  to  operate  the  road — Mandamus  595 

459.  Lessee  not  liable  for  wrongs  committed  prior  to  the  execution  of 

the  lease 596 

460.  Effect  of  a  lease  upon  rights  of  creditors 597 

461.  Authorized  lease— Rights  and  duties  to  which  lessee  company  suc- 

ceeds   598 

462.  Contract  obligation  of  lessor— Lessee  not  liable  thereon 599 

463.  Recovery  of  rent  under  unauthorized  lease 600 

464.  Improvements  of  road  by  lessee  operating  under  an  unauthorized 

lease 600 

465.  Receiver's  power  to  lease 601 

466.  Unauthorized  lease— Liability  of  lessor — Generally 601 

467.  Authorized  lease — Liability  of  lessor  for  injuries  caused  by  neg- 

ligence of  lessee — Cases  holding  lessor  liable 603 

468.  Authorized  lease — Liability  of  lessor  for  negligence  of  lessee  in 

operating  the  road— Authorities 604 

469.  Authorized  lease — Liability  of  lessor  for  negligence  of  lessee  in 

operating  the  road— Views  of  the  authors 605 

470.  Control  reserved  by  lessor 607 

471.  Liability  of  lessee  under  authorized  lease — Illustrative  cases 608 

472.  Unauthorized  lease — Liability  of  lessor  to  employes  of  lessee — 

Generally 609 

473.  Unauthorized  lease — Liability  of  lessor — General  rule 611 

474;   Liability  of  lessee  for  injuries  resulting  from  negligence  in  operat- 
ing the  road 612 

475.  Contracts  of  the  lessee 613 

476.  Joint  liability 613 

477.  Liability  of  company  where  it  permits  another  company  to  use 

track  in  common  with  itself .  614 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

PAGE. 

§  478.  Fraudulent  leases 615 

479.  Unauthorized  lease — Injunction 616 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

RAILROAD    SECURITIES. 

480.  Power  of  railroad  companies  to  issue  notes  and  bonds 618 

481.  Power  to  guarantee  bonds 620 

482.  Income  bonds 621 

483.  Convertible  bonds 623 

484.  Negotiability  of  bonds — Bona  fide  purchasers 625 

485.  Form  and  manner  of  issuing  bonds — Effect  of  irregularities 630 

486.  Interest  coupons 632 

487.  Payment  of  bonds  and  interest 635 

488.  No  power  to  mortgage  without  legislative  authority 637 

489.  Legislative  authority  to  mortgage 638 

490.  Distinction  between  authority  to  mortgage  franchises  and  author- 

ity to  mortgage  property 639 

491.  Who  may  execute  the  mortgage 640 

492.  Ratification  by  stockholders  of  unauthorized  or  improperly  exe- 

cuted mortgage 642 

493.  When  ultra  vires  mortgage  may  be  made  effective 643 

494.  Recording  mortgages 644 

495.  Generally  as  to  what  property  is  covered  by  the  mortgage 645 

496.  What  is  covered  by  a  mortgage  of  the  undertaking 649 

497.  Mortgage  of  after-acquired  property 650 

498.  Fixtures 654 

499.  Reserved  power  to  create  prior  lien  or  dispose  of  unnecessary 

property 655 

500.  Priority  of  mortgages 655 

501.  Trust  deeds 658 

502.  Equitable  and  defective  mortgages 659 

503.  Statutory  mortgages 660 

504.  Debentures 661 

CHAPTER  XX. 

FORECLOSURE. 

505.  Foreclosure — Default 662 

506.  Option  to  declare  whole  debt  due — Election 664 

507.  Foreclosure  for  default  in  payment  of  interest 666 

508.  Parties  to  foreclosure  suit— Plaintiffs 668 

509.  Bondholders  as  plaintiffs 669 

510.  Pledgees,  assignees  and  others  as  plaintiffs 674 

511.  Defendants  in  foreclosure  suits — Generally 676 

512.  When  other  lien-holders  should  be  made  defendants 678 


XX  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

§  513.  Defenses  to  foreclosure  suit .' 681 

514.  Effect  of  provisions  giving  trustees  the  right  to  take  possession 

and  sell 682 

515.  The  decree 686 

516.  Consent  decree 687 

517.  Deficiency  decree 688 

518.  Final  and  appealable  decrees 689 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

SALE    AND    REORGANIZATION. 

519.  Railroad  company  can  not  sell  franchise  and  necessary  property 

without  statutory  authority 692" 

520.  Execution  sales 695 

521.  Foreclosure  sales — Authority — Purchasers 697 

522.  Sale  on  default  in  payment  of  interest — Sale  of  road  as  an  entirety  69& 

523.  Sale  of  consolidated  road — Sale  by  receiver  pending  foreclosure. .   700 

524.  Discretion  of  trustees  and  officers  as  to  time  and  manner  of  sale. .  700 

525.  Effect  of  sale— Purchaser's  title 701 

526.  When  purchaser  takes  title  free  from  liabilities  and  liens 703 

527.  Disposition  of  proceeds  of  sale 706 

528.  Preferred  claims — Six  months'  rule 707 

529.  Setting  sale  aside 710 

530.  Redemption 715 

531.  Reorganization  by  purchasers  at  sale — Power  of  legislature  to  pro- 

vide for 717 

532.  Statutory  reorganization — Liability  of  new  corporation 719 

533.  Reorganization  by  agreement — Rights  of  minority 722 

534.  Rights  and  obligations  of  the  parties — Laches  and  estoppel 724 

535.  Fraud  in  the  sale  or  reorganization 725 

536.  Reorganization  by  the  courts 728 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

RECEIVERS. 

537.  Receivers  generally >. 731 

538.  Jurisdiction  of  courts  of  equity — Statutory  provisions 732 

539.  Jurisdiction  is  sparingly  exercised — Purpose  of  appointment 735 

540.  General  rules  as  to  when  receivers  of  railroads  will  be  appointed.  736 

541.  Receivers  will  not  be  appointed  merely  because  parties  consent. .  739 

542.  Extent  to  which  jurisdiction  has  been  exercised 740 

543.  Insolvency  as  ground  for  appointment  of  receiver 741 

544.  When  insolvency  is  sufficient  without  default 742 

545.  Default  in  payment  of  indebtedness  as  ground  for  appointment. . .  743 

546.  Appointment  in  foreclosure  proceedings 745 

547.  Other  grounds  for  appointment 748 

548.  Appointment  upon  application  of  unsecured  creditor 750 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  II. 

PAGE. 
§  549.   Appointment  upon  application  of  secured  creditor 753 

550.  Appointment  upon  application  of  stockholders 757 

551.  Appointment  upon  application  of  corporation 758 

552.  What  court  may  appoint 760 

553.  Court  first  obtaining  jurisdiction  retains  it — Conflict  of  jurisdic- 

tion    762 

554.  Extra-territorial  jurisdiction 767 

555.  Ancillary  appointment  —  Comity -. 769 

556.  Procedure — Ex  parte  application 773 

557.  Parties  to  proceedings  for  appointment  of  receiver. 775 

558.  Appointment  upon  motion  or  petition  and  notice— Affidavits 776 

559.  Who  may  appoint — Appointment  in  vacation 778 

560.  Suit  must  generally  be  pending 779 

561.  Who  may  be  appointed  receiver 780 

562.  Order  appointing  receiver 783 

563.  Effect  of  appointment 784 

564.  Collateral  attack  on  appointment 786 

565.  Title  and  possession  of  receiver 787 

566.  Authority,  rights  and  duties  of  receiver — Control  by  court 788 

567.  Contracts  of  receiver 790 

568.  Suits  by  receivers — Authority  to  sue 792 

569.  When  receiver  may  maintain  suit— Defenses  to  receiver's  suit 795 

570.  Right  of  receiver  to  sue  in  other  jurisdictions — Comity 796 

571.  Suits  against  receivers — Leave  to  sue  must  be  obtained 799 

572.  Effect  of  failure  to  obtain  leave  to  sue 802 

573.  Effect  of  recent  act  of  congress 804 

574.  Rule  where  suit  has  been  commenced  before  appointment  of  re- 

ceiver    807 

575.  Protection  of  receiver  by  the  court 808 

576.  Liability  of  receivers — Generally 811 

577.  Liability  for  torts 812 

578.  Receiver  is  bound  to  perform  public  duties— Mandamus 815 

579.  Liability  on  contracts 8 

580.  Liability  on  claims  arising  from  operation  of  the  road 817 

581.  Liability  of  corporation 819 

582.  Receivers  of  leased  lines 8 

583.  Receivers'  accounts 8 

584.  Compensation  of  receiver 8 

585.  Attorney's  fees 826 

586.  Removal  and  discharge 828 

587.  Effect  of  removal  or  discharge 831 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 
RECEIVER'S  CERTIFICATES. 

588.  Definition  and  nature  of  receiver's  certificates 832 


589.  Power  of  courts  to  authorize . 


833 


XXli  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

PAGE. 

§[590.  Purposes  for  which  receiver's  certificates  may  be  issued — Extent 

of  power 834 

591.  Order  giving  authority  to  issue 838 

592.  Lien  created  by  receiver's  certificates 840 

593.  Statutory  provisions  as  to  lien 841 

594.  Negotiability  of  receiver's  certificates 842 

595.  Rights  of  holders  of  receiver's  certificates 843 

596.  Who  may, question  validity  of  receiver's  certificates 844 

597.  Payment  and  redemption  of  certificates 846 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

INSOLVENCY   AND    DISSOLUTION. 

598.  Scope  of  the  chapter 848 

599.  Railroad  company  is  subject  to  state  insolvency  law 848 

600.  Trust  fund  doctrine 849 

601.  When  a  corporation  is  deemed  insolvent — Effect  of  insolvency. . .  851 

602.  Assignments  by  corporations 853 

603.  Preferences  by  corporations 854 

604.  Preference  of  stockholders  and  officers 854 

605.  Statutory  preference  of  employes 857 

606.  What  constitutes  a  dissolution 858 

607.  Judicial  determination  of  dissolution 860 

608.  Voluntary  dissolution — Surrender  of  charter 861 

609.  Proceedings  to  dissolve 863 

610.  Dissolution  in  case  of  consolidated  company 865 

611.  Effect  of  dissolution 865 

612.  Corporation  may  have  a  qualified  existence  after  dissolution 866 

613.  Disposition  of  property  on  dissolution 868 

614.  Rights  of  creditors  upon  dissolution 869 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

ACTIONS  BY  AND  AGAINST   CORPORATIONS. 

615.  Generally — Suits  by  corporations 871 

616.  When  incorporation  must  be  alleged 872 

617.  Actions  and  suits  against  corporations 874 

618.  Power  of  corporation  over  litigation — Power  to  compromise  and 

arbitrate 875 

619.  Estoppel  to  deny  corporate  existence 876 

620.  When  stockholders  may  sue 877 

621 .  Service  of  process 878 

622.  Return  of  service 882 

623.  Venue  of  actions  against,  corporations 883 

624.  Attachment  and  garnishment 88ft 

625.  Duty  and  liability  of  garnishee .  889- 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

PAGE. 

§  626.  What  may  be  reached  in  garnishment 890 

627.  Garnishment  of  employes'  wages 893 

628.  Injunctien — Generally 895 

629.  Injunction  where  the  company  seeks  to  take  or  condemn  lands. . .  897 

630.  Injunction  where  railroad  is  laid  in  a  street 899 

631.  Enjoining  a  nuisance 9^2 

632.  Injunction  at  suit  of  the  company 904 

633.  Enjoining  strikers 908 

634.  Injunction  at  suit  of  stockholder 911 

635.  Mandatory  injunction — English  cases 913 

636.  Rule  in  the  United  States — Illustrative  cases 913 

637.  Mandamus— Generally 915 

638.  Mandamus  to  compel  completion  and  operation  of  road 916 

639.  Mandamus  to  compel  restoration  of  highway  and  construction  of 

crossings  or  viaducts * 918 

640.  Mandamus  to  compel  carriage  of  freight ; 919 

641.  Mandamus  to  compel  the  company  to  maintain  stations  and  fur- 

nish increased  facilities 920 

642.  When  mandamus  will  not  lie 923 

643.  Who  may  be  relator 925 

644.  Quo  warranto 926 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

REMOVAL     OF     CAUSES. 

645.  When  removal  is  authorized — Statutes  now  in  force 928 

646.  What  are  suits  of  a  civil  nature  under  the  removal  acts 929 

647.  Parties 932 

648.  Rights  of  removal  as  affected  by  amount  in  controversy 934 

649.  Diverse  citizenship  as  a  ground  for  removal 935 

650.  Separable  controversy 937 

651.  Prejudice  or  local  influence  as  a  ground  for  removal 931> 

652.  Removal  where  federal  question  is  involved 941 

653.  Time  and  manner  of  making  application  for  removal 943 

654.  Effect  of  application  on  jurisdiction  of  state  and  federal  court 945 

655.  Remanding  and  dismissing  cause 947 

656.  Pleading  and  practice  in  federal  court  after  removal 949 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

GOVERNMENTAL    CONTROL. 

657.  Introductory 95° 

658.  Effect  of  the  commerce  clause  of  the  federal  constitution  upon  the 

power  of  the  states 951 

659.  Legislative  power  over  private  rights  of  railroad  companies — Na- 

ture of  . .  95- 


XXIV  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

PAGE. 

§  660.  Constitutional  protection 954 

661.  The  limits  of  legislative  power  unduly  extended 955 

662.  Regulations  affecting  acts  and  duties  of  a  public  nature 956 

663.  Corporate  rights  are  subject  to  the  police  power 958 

664.  The  police  power  is  fettered  by  limitations 959 

665.  The  subject  must  be  one  over  which  the  police  power  extends — 

Cases  adjudging  statutes  invalid 962 

666.  Police  power — Legislative  and  judicial  questions 964 

667.  The  police  power  and  the  commerce  clause  of  the  federal  consti- 

tution   966 

668.  Regulations  that  have  been  held  valid 967 

669.  The  power  to  impose  penalties  in  favor  of  private  persons — Con- 

stitutional questions 972 

670.  Regulating  speed  of  trains 974 

671.  Grade  crossings 974 

672.  Requiring  services  and  denying  compensation 975 

673.  Federal  corporations —State  can  not  transform  into  a  domestic 

corporation 976 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

STATE    RAILROAD    COMMISSIONERS. 

674.  Introductory , 978 

675.  Nature  of  state  railroad  commissions 979 

676.  The  power  to  create  railroad  commissions 980 

677.  Strictly  judicial  powers  can  not  be  conferred  upon  administrative 

or  ministerial  officers 982 

678.  Granting  authority  to  make  regulations  not  a  delegation  of  legis- 

lative power 983 

679.  Legislature  can  not  authorize  a  railroad  commission  to  make  un- 

just discriminations 983 

680.  Members  of  railroad  commission  are  public  officers 985 

681 .  Qualifications  of  commissioners 986 

682.  Powers  of  railroad  commissioners — Illustrative  cases 986 

683.  Jurisdiction  of  railroad  commissioners 988 

684.  Jurisdiction  of  commissioners  not  extended  by  implication — Gen- 

eral rule 990 

685.  Incidental  powers  of  a  railroad  commission 991 

686.  Right  of  railroad  companies  to  a  hearing 991 

687.  Orders  of  commissioners  not  contracts 992 

688.  Certificates  of  commissioners  that  rates  are  reasonable — Effect  of.  992 

689.  Regulation  of  charges  for  transporting  property  and  passengers. .  993 

690.  Domestic  commerce 994 

691.  Reasonableness  of  freight  and  fare  tariff  of  rates — How  far  a  ju- 

dicial question 996 

692.  Regulation  of  charge?— Teet  of  resonableness 998 

693.  Tariff  of  rates— Test  of  resonableness ..  .  998 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  II.  XXV 

PAGE. 
:§  694.    Stations — Power  to  order  company  to  provide 1002 

695.  Procedure  before  the  commissioners 1004 

696.  Effect  of  the  decision  of  the  commissioners  that  a  company  has 

not  committed  an  act  authorizing  a  forfeiture 1005 

697.  Enforcing  the  orders  of  the  commissioners — Generally 1006 

698.  Enforcing  the  orders  of  the  commissioners — Mandamus 1007 

699.  Mandamus  enforcing  orders  of  commissioners — Illustrative  cases.  1008 

700.  Suits  against  railroad    commissioners  are    not  ordinarily    suits 

against  the  state 1010 

701.  Eemedies  for  illegal  acts  of  railroad  commissioners 1011 

702.  Specific  statutory  remedy 1011 

703.  Parties  to  suits  against  railroad  commissioners 1013 

704.  Review  by  certiorari 1014 

705.  Injunction  against  commissioners — Generally 1014 

706.  Where  commissioners  exceed  their  jurisdiction  injunction  will  lie.  1015 

707.  Vacating  orders  of  commissioners  on  the  ground  of  fraud 1016 

708.  Federal  question — Removal  of  causes  from  state  courts 1016 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

PENAL    OFFENSES    BY   AND    AGAINST    RAILROAD   COMPANIES. 

709.  Penal  offenses  by  railroad  companies — Generally 1018 

710.  Penal  statutes  strictly  construed — No  extra-territorial  effect 1021 

711.  Right  of  action  as  affected  by  penal  statutes — Effect  of  violation 

as  proof  of  negligence 1023 

712.  Action  for  enforcement  of  penal  statutes 1026 

713.  The  informer's  rights— Parties 1027 

714.  The  penalty — Computation 1029 

715.  When  "penalty"  and  when  "liquidated  damages" 1031 

716.  Indictment  of  railroad  companies  for  causing  death 1034 

717.  Violation  of  Sunday  laws 1035 

718.  Indictment  of  railroad  company  for  maintaining  a  nuisance 1036 

719.  Obstruction  of  highways 1038 

720.  Failure  to  maintain  accommodations  at  stations 1040 

721.  Statutory  signals — Stops  at  crossings 104 

722.  Blackboards  and  bulletins  at  stations 1042 

723.  Unlawful  speed 1° 

724.  Other  penal  regulations 1^44 

725.  Violation  of  federal  regulations 10 

726.  Penalty  for  confinement  of  live  stock 1046 

727.  Offenses  against  railroads— Obstructing  mails  and  interfering  with 

interstate  commerce 1047 

728.  Sale  of  tickets  without  authority— Scalpers 1° 

729.  Climbing  on  car  — Evading  payment  of  fare 1° 

730.  Placing  obstruction  on  track ^ 

731.  Shooting  or  throwing  missiles  at  car ™ 

732.  Breaking  into  depot  or  car — Burglary 


XXVI  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  II. 

PAGE. 

§  733.   Injury  to  railroad  property — Malicious  trespass 1052" 

734.  Other  crimes  against  railroad  companies 1053 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

TAXATION    OF    RAILROAD    PROPERTY. 

735.  Taxation  of  railroads — Preliminary 1055 

736.  Legislative  power 1056 

737.  Appropriate  method  of  assessing 1057 

738.  Methods  of  taxation 1058- 

739.  Statutory  method  of  assessment  exclusive 1059 

740.  Legislative  discretion — Classification 1059- 

741.  Equality  and  uniformity 1060- 

742.  Duties  of  corporation — Rights  of  stockholders 1060 

743.  Failure  of  the  corporation  to  make  return — Effect  on  stockholder.  1061 

744.  Discrimination 1062 

745.  Lien  of  assessment 1063 

746.  Relinquishment  of  the  power  of  taxation 1063 

747.  Exemption  from  taxation — Consolidation 1064 

748.  Right  of  exemption  non-assignable 1066 

749.  Immunity  from  taxation  not  a  franchise 1066- 

750.  Exemption  of  property  used  in  operating  railroad 1067 

751.  Remedies — Injunction 1069 

752.  Tender  of  amount  of  taxes  owing  is  required 1071 

CHAPTER  XXXI. 

TAXATION    AS   AFFECTED    BY   THE    FEDERAL   CONSTITUTION. 

753.  Taxing  interstate  commerce  railroads 1072: 

754.  Interstate  commerce — Obstruction  of 1073 

755.  Railroad  property  used  in  interstate  commerce  is  taxable  by  the 

states 1074 

756.  Interstate  commerce — Taxation  of    property  brought   from  one 

state  into  another 1076 

757.  Railroad  in  more  than  one  state 1076 

758.  Mileage  basis  of  valuation 1077 

759.  License  tax 1078 

760.  Privilege  tax  on  interstate  railroads 107$ 

761.  Privilege  tax  discriminated  from  a  property  tax 1079 

762.  Excise  tax 1081 

763.  Tax  on  passengers  carried 1083 

764.  Tax  on  interstate  freight '. 1083 

765.  Tax  on  gross  receipts  of  interstate  commerce  corporations 1084 

766.  Fees  for  the  right  to  be  a  corporation  not  taxes 1085 

767.  Municipal  tax  as  compensation  for  use  of  streets 1085 

768.  Impairing  obligation  of  a  contract 1086 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  II.  XXVU 

PAGE. 

§  769.  Impairing  obligation  of  contracts — Tax  on  bonds 1088 

770.  Exemption  of  railroad  property— Contract— Alteration  of  charter.  1089 

771.  Due  process  of  law  in  tax  proceedings 1091 

772.  Equal  protection  of  the  laws 1091 

773.  Equal  protection  of  the  laws — Corporations  are  persons 1092 

774.  Equal  protection  of  the  laws — What  is  a  denial  of 1093 

775.  Fourteenth  amendment — Unequal  protection  generally 1094 

776.  Classification  not  a  denial  of  equal  protection 1095 

777.  Fourteenth  amendment — Tax  for  salaries  of   railroad  commis- 

sioners   1095 

778.  Corporations  deriving  rights  from  the  United  States 1096 

779.  Land  grants 1096 

780.  Domestic  commerce 1097 

CHAPTER  XXXII. 

LOCAL    ASSESSMENTS. 

781.  Assessments  and  taxes — Distinction 1099 

782.  Local  assessments— Power  to  levy 1101 

783.  Statute  must  be  complied  with 1103 

784.  Property  subject  to  local  assessment— General  rule 1105 

785.  Property  of  railroad  companies 1106 

786.  Right  of  way — Whether  subject  to  assessment 1107 

787.  Abutting  property — Right  of  way  is  not 1110 

788.  Right  of  way — Mode  of  assessing 1111 

789.  Lien  of  the  assessment 1112 

790.  Assessment  of  right  of  way — Enforcing  assessment 1114 

791.  Procedure 1116 

CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

LAND    GRANTS. 

792.  The  ground  upon  which  public  aid  to  railroads  rests 1117 

793.  Land  grants 1118 

794.  Construction  of  land  grants 1118 

795.  Construction  of  land  grants — Illustrative  cases 1120 

796.  Effect  of  grant 1123 

797.  Effect  of  grant— Illustrative  cases 1125 

798.  Reserved  lands I126 

799.  Indemnity  lands H27 

800.  Priority  of  rights H28 

801.  Breach  of  condition — Forfeiture H 

802.  Legislative  declaration  of  forfeiture 1 130 

803.  Cancellation  of  grants  and  entries H 

804.  Staking  and  surveying  line  does  not  conclude  the  company 1 

805.  Aid  to  two  companies  by  same  grant 1132 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

PAGE. 

§  806.   Grants  by  the  government— Estoppel 1132 

807.  Where  state  renders  performance  of  condition  impossible  grant  is 

not  defeated 1134 

808.  Partial  failure  to  perform  conditions 1134 

809.  Notice  by  possession 1135 

810.  Injunction  on  the  application  of  company 1135 

811.  Effect  of  reservation  of  right  to  use  railroad  as  a  highway 1136 

CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

PUBLIC    AID. 

812.  State  aid 1138 

813.  State  aid— Lien  of  state 1139 

814.  Constitutionality  of  statutes  authorizing  municipal  aid  to  railroads. 1139 

815.  Construction  of  constitutional  provisions 1141 

816.  Corporate  power — Constitutional  limitation 1141 

817.  Constitutional  prohibitions 1143 

818.  Direct  limitations  upon  the  state  not  limitations  upon  power  to 

authorize  municipalities  to  grant  aid 1143 

819.  Constitutional  restrictions  operate  prospectively 1145 

820.  Limitation  upon  the  power  of  municipalities  to  incur  debts 1146 

821.  Constitutional  questions — Delegation  of  legislative  power 1147 

822.  Submission  to  vote 1147 

823.  Submission  to  popular  vote — Constitutional  requirements 1148 

824.  Constitutional  power — Compelling  public  corporations  to  aid  rail- 

way companies 1149 

825.  Scope  of  the  legislative  power •„ 1150 

826.  Scope  of  the  legislative  power — Illustrative  cases 1151 

827.  Power  to  aid  railroads — Statutory  authority 1153 

828.  Power  to  grant  aid  is  continuous 1154 

829.  Railroad  aid  laws  not  restricted  to  new  companies 1156 

830.  Taxing  the  property  of  one  railroad  company  to  aid  in  the  con- 

struction of  the  road  of  another  company 1156 

831.  Construction  of  statutes  conferring  authority  to  aid  railroad  com- 

panies   1157 

832.  Impairment  of  contract  rights 1158 

833.  Impairment  of  contract  rights — Illustrative  cases 1159 

834.  Construction  of  statutes— Implied  powers 1160 

835.  Construction  of  statutes  conferring  authority  to  aid  railroad  com- 

panies—Illustrative instances 1161 

836.  Construction  of  enabling  acts— Adjudged  cases 1163 

837.  Means  and  methods 1166 

838.  Requirements  of  statute — Classes  of  cases 1166 

839.  Power  to  aid  by  subscription  does  not  authorize  the  execution  of 

bonds 1167 

840.  Levy  of  taxes— Withdrawal  of  power — Time 1168 

841.  Donations  and  subscriptions 1169 

842.  Repeal  of  enabling  act— Withdrawal  of  authority 1170 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  II.  XX  ix 

PAGE. 

§  843.  Validating  proceedings— Retrospective  laws 1171 

844.  Legislative  power  to  authorize  ratification 1174 

845.  Curative  statutes — Requisites  of 1176 

846.  Division  of  municipality  for  purpose  of  voting 1177 

847.  What  corporations  may  be  authorized  to  grant  aid 1178 

848.  Subscription  to  unorganized  company 1178 

849.  Votes — Voters — Majority  of  votes 1179 

850.  Failure  to  conform  to  the  requirements  of  the  enabling  act — Illus- 

trative cases 1181 

851.  Conditions— Performance   of — Excuse  for    non-performance — Il- 

lustrative cases 1183 

852.  Conditions— Power  of  municipality  to  prescribe 1185 

853.  Change  of  municipality 1186 

854.  Limitations  upon  the  amount 1187 

855.  Valuation  of  property 1188 

856.  Conditions  must  be  performed 1189 

857.  Preliminary  survey '. 1190 

858.  Petition — Requisites  of — Petitioners  — Qualifications  of 1191 

859.  Notice  of  election 1194 

860.  Influencing  voters 1195 

861.  Vote  does  not  of  itself  constitute  a  contract 1196 

862.  Aid  authorized  by  popular  vote — Duty  of  local  officer 1197 

863.  Contract  granting  aid — Subscription — Enforcement 1198 

864.  Power  of  municipal  officers  where  statute  required  submission  to 

popular  vote 1201 

865.  Decision  of  local  officers  as  to  jurisdictional  facts 1201 

866.  Acceptance  of  aid 1203 

867.  Ratification  of  subscription 1204 

868.  Stock  subscribed  by  municipality— Legislative  control  of 1204 

869.  Rights  and  liabilities  of  municipal  corporations  as  stockholders  .  .1206 

870.  Defenses  to  municipal  subscriptions 12 

871.  Estoppel  of  tax-payers 1207 

872.  Remedies  of  tax-payers 1208 

873.  Remedies  of  municipalities 12 

874.  Remedies  of  railroal  companies 1211 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 

MUNICIPAL   AID    BONDS. 

875.  Power  to  issue  aid  bonds 12 

876.  Legislative  authority  requisite 12 

877.  Constitutional  questions  -  Completed  road 12 

-   878.  Governmental  subdivision  may  be  authorized  to  issue  bonds 12 

879.  Execution  of  the  power  to  issue  aid  bonds— Generally 

880.  Execution  of  the  power  to  issue  aid  bonds— Implied  powers 121 

1O9f) 

881.  Formal  execution  of  bonds 

882.  Nature  of  municipal  aid  bonds 


XXX  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   II. 

PAGE. 

§  883.  Proceedings  of  municipal  officers  must  conform  to  the  statute 1222 

884.  Want  of  power -Definition 1222 

885.  Conflict  of  authority '. 1223 

886.  Consolidation  does  not  take  away  right  to  bonds 1223 

887.  Purchasers  of  aid  bonds — Duty  to  ascertain  that  power  to  issue 

bonds  exists 1225 

888.  Bonds  issued  in  excess  of  the  limits  prescribed  by  the  constitu- 

tion  1225 

889.  Limitation  of  amount — Construction  of  statute 1226 

890.  Bonds  in  excess  of  the  limit  prescribed  by  statute 1227 

891.  Bonds  running  beyond  time  prescribed 1228 

892.  Bonds  payable  out  of  a  specific  fund 1228 

893.  Performance  of  conditions 1229 

894.  Ratification  of  bonds  irregularly  issued 1230 

895.  When  bonds  are  void 1231 

896.  Sana  fide  holders  of  aid  bonds 1234 

897.  Estoppel  by  recitals  in  bonds — General  doctrine 1235 

898.  Estoppel  by  recitals  in  bonds — Illustrative  cases 1237 

899.  Recitals  in  bonds  not  always  conclusive 1240 

900.  Official  certificates — Conclusiveness  of 1241 

901.  Recitals  in  bonds  to  constitute  an  estoppel  must  be  of  facts 1242 

902.  No  estoppel  where  the  officer  ordering  bonds  to  issue  had  no  juris- 

diction   1243 

903.  Estoppel  otherwise  than  by  recital — Illustrative  instances 1244 

904.  Estoppel  by  retention  of  stock 1246 

905.  Recitals  in  bonds — Effect  of  against  bondholders 1247 

906.  Refunding— Substitution 1248 

907.  Discretionary  powers  and  peremptory  duty .1249 

908.  Registration 1250 

909.  Rights  of  bonafide  holders  not  affected  by  sale  of  bonds-  at  less 

sum  than  that  prescribed  by  statute 1251 

910.  Subrogation  of  holder  of  invalid  bonds 1251 

911.  Liability  of  municipality  to  purchaser  of  invalid  bonds 1252 

912.  Right  of  municipality  to  recover  money  paid  because  of  wrongful 

acts  of  the  railroad  company 1252 

913.  Defenses  to  aid  bonds 1253 

914.  Bondholders  not  bound  by  proceedings  to  which  they  are  not 

parties 1255 

915.  Following  state  decisions 1255 

916.  Jurisdiction  of  federal  courts 1255 

917.  Compelling  the  issue  of  bonds 1257 

918.  Remedies  of  bondholders  . .  . .  1257 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS  -  VOL.  III. 


VOLUME  III. 

LOCATION,     CONSTRUCTION    AND    OPERATION. 


CHAPTER  XXXVI. 

LOCATION    OF   THE    ROAD. 

PAGB. 
§  919.   Choice  of  location — How  determined 1263 

920.  Discretion  of  company  in  determining  location — How  exercised.  .1264 

921.  Conflicting  grants — Priority  of  location 1266 

922.  Location  of  road  upon  property  already  devoted  to  public  use 1267 

923.  Branch  and  lateral  roads 1270 

924.  Exempt  property 1271 

925.  Preliminary  survey 1273 

926.  Perfecting  location — Map  of  proposed  route 1273 

927.  Effect  of  location — When  location  is  complete 1276 

928.  Contracts  to  influence  location 1279 

929.  Change  of  location — When  authorized 1281 

930.  Change  of  location  after  first  location  is  finally  completed 1282 

931.  Abandonment  of  location 1286 

CHAPTER  XXXVII. 

ACQUISITION    OF    RIGHT   OF   WAY. 

932.  How  right  of  way  may  be  acquired 1291 

933.  Authority  to  purchase 1291 

934.  Who  may  convey 1293 

935.  Enforcement  of  agreement  to  sell — Specific  performance 1296 

936.  When  specific  performance  will  not  be  enforced 1299 

937.  Effect  of  conveyance  or  release  of  damages 1300 

938.  What  estate  is  taken 1302 

939.  Conditional  conveyances 1304 

940.  Difference  between  conditions  precedent  and  conditions  subse- 

quent-Effect of  failufe  to  perform  conditions  precedent 1306 

941.  Conditions  subsequent — What  is  sufficient  performance— Effect  of 

failure  to  perform 1307 

942.  Remedies  of  grantor  for  failure  of  company  to  perform  conditions 

subsequent 1309 

943.  Construction  of  conditions  subsequent— Compliance  with  condi- 

tions   13H 

944.  When  equity  will  interfere  in  case  of  a  breach  of  conditions  subse- 

quent   , , , , •  • 1312 


XXX11  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  III. 

PAGE. 

§  945.   Covenants  running  with  the  land 1313 

946.  Other  covenants 1315 

947.  Dedication  of  land  to  the  use  of  railroad 1316 

948.  Title  by  adverse  possession 1320 

949.  Rights  of  railroad  company  acquired  by  entry  under  license 1323 

CHAPTER  XXXVIII. 

APPROPRIATION    UNDER   THE    EMINENT    DOMAIN. 

950.  Definition  and  nature  of  the  eminent  domain 1330 

951.  Constitutional  provisions  and  questions 1335- 

952.  Public  use  and  necessity — Who  determines 1337 

953.  Delegation  of  the  power  of  eminent  domain 1341 

954.  Delegation  of  the  power  to  railroad  companies — Extent  of  au- 

thority   1342 

955.  Construction  of  statute  granting  right  to  condemn 1346 

956.  Right  of  foreign  and  consolidated  companies  to  condemn 1347 

957.  Exercise  of  the  right  by  de  facto  corporations 134& 

958.  Right  to  condemn  where  road  is  leased  or  in  hands  of  a  receiver.  1350 

959.  Right  to  condemn  can  not  be  delegated  to  contractor  or  construc- 

tion company 1352 

960.  Purposes  for  which  a  railroad  company  may  condemn 1353 

961.  Condemnation  for  roads  to  mines  or  manufacturing  establish- 

ments . 1360 

962.  Condemnation  of  land  for  future  use — Second  appropriation 1368 

963.  What  may  be  appropriated— Generally 13691 

964.  Property  of  other  corporations 1371 

965.  Property  of  state  or  United  States 1374 

966.  Property  devoted  to  another  public  use 1376 

967.  Franchises 1379 

968.  Exclusive  grants  and  franchises 1381 

969.  Exempt  property 1382 

970.  Extent  of  taking 1383 

971.  Taking  additional  property 1385 

972.  Title  or  interest  acquired 1386 

973.  Width  taken  for  right  of  way 1380 

974.  Taking  right  of  way  of  another  road 1392 

975.  Crossing  another  road 1396 

976.  What  constitutes  a  taking — Generally 1397 

977.  What  constitutes  a  taking — Illustrative  cases 1402 

978.  Property  damaged  or  injured— Constitutional  provisions 1409 

CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

COMPENSATION    AND    DAMAGES. 

979.  Compensation — Constitutional  right 1412 

980.  Provisions  of  the  federal  constitution— Federal  powers 1413 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  III.  XXxiii 

PAGE. 

§981.   Constitutional  right  to  compensation  does  not  extend  to  general 

damages 1416 

982.  Compensation  must  be  made  in  money — Principle  not  violated  by 

deducting  special  benefits 1417 

983.  The  measure  of  compensation  is  a  judicial  question 1418 

984.  Right  to  compensation  not  lost  by  conditional  grant 1419 

985.  Time  at  which  compensation  is  computed 1420 

986.  Time  of  payment  of  compensation 1422 

987.  Benefits — General  survey  of  the  subject 1423 

988.  Benefits— The  different  lines  of  decision 1425 

989.  Benefits — General  and  special 1427 

990.  Benefits  confined  to  parcel  or  tract  actually  taken 1428 

991.  Remote  or  conjectural  damages  can  not  be  allowed 1428 

992.  Damages  con  fined  to  a  particular  tract 1429 

993.  Injuries  to  part  of  tract  or  parcel  of  land  not  actually  taken 1431 

994.  Elements  of  value 1432 

995.  Measure  of  damages — Illustrative  cases 1435 

996.  Matters  to  be  considered  in  estimating  damages — Illustrative  in- 

stances   1439 

997.  Improvements  made  by  company  under  unauthorized  entry — 

Views  of  the  authors 1444 

998.  Improvements  made  by  company  under  unauthorized  entry — Il- 

lustrative cases 1445 

999.  Deviation  from  proposed  line — Change  of  route 1448 

1000.  Owner  at  time  of  possession  is  entitled  to  damages — Vendor  and 

vendee 1449 

1001.  Who  is  entitled  to  the  compensation  where  the  land  is  conveyed 

after  appropriation  proceedings  are  commenced— Vendor  and 
vendee 1449 

1002.  Notice  to  purchaser  by  existence  of  railroad 1451 

1003.  To  whom  compensation  should  be  paid 1451 

1004.  Effect  of  assessment  of  damages 1453 

1005.  Award  of  compensation  does  not  cover  negligent  acts 1455 

1006.  Interest— Allowance  of 1456 

1007.  Presumption  of  payment  of  compensation 1458 

1008.  Waiver— Estoppel 1459 

CHAPTER  XL. 

PROCEDURE  IN  APPROPRIATION  CASES. 

1009.  Procedure — Introductory  .' 1462 

1010.  Nature  of  the  proceedings 1462 

1011.  Tribunals— Generally 1464 

1012.  Nature  of  the  tribunal  for  assessment  of  benefits  and  damages. .  .1-164 

1013.  Creation  of  the  tribunal — Legislative  power 146< 

1014.  Tribunals— Jurisdiction— Decision  of  majority 1467 

CORP.  I — iii  *» 


XXXI V  TABLE    OF   CONTENTS VOL.  III. 

PAGE. 

§  1015.  Appointment  of  appraisers  or  commissioners  to  assess  benefits 

and  damages 1469 

1016.  Duty  to  appoint  appraisers  or  commissioners — Mandamus 1470 

1017.  Qualification  of  jurors,  appraisers  or  commissioners 1471 

1018.  Oath  must  be  taken  by  jurors  or  commissioners 1474 

1019.  Notice — General  doctrine 1476 

1020.  Notice— Requisites  of 1478 

1021.  Notice— Political  questions — Expediency 1480 

1022.  Notice— Description 1481 

1023.  Service  of  notice 1482 

1024.  Summoning  the  jury  or  commissioners 1484 

1025.  Parties 1485 

1026.  Parties— Amendments 1492 

1027.  Effort  to  agree 1493 

1028.  Petition  or  articles  of  appropriation 1496 

1029.  Contents  of  the  petition 1499 

1030.  Title 1502 

1031.  Effect  of  pendency  of  proceedings  to  condemn 150?. 

1032.  Dismissal  of  proceedings— Effect  of 1504 

1033.  Abandonment  of  proceedings 150(5 

1034.  Meetings  of  commissioners  or  jurors 1010 

1035.  Open  and  close 1511. 

1036.  Evidence  of  value — Illustrative  instances 1512 

1037.  Competency  of  witnesses 1510 

1038.  Opinions  of  witnesses 1520 

1039.  Power  of  commissioners  to  act  upon  their  own  knowledge 1522 

1040.  View 1524 

1041.  Report  of  commissioners 1525 

1042.  Report  of  commissioners— Requisites  of — Illustrative  cases 1529 

1043.  Time  within  which  report  must  be  made 1531 

1044.  Objections  to  report 1532 

1045.  Confirmation  or  rejection  of  report — Modification 1533 

1046.  Misconduct  of  jurors  or  commissioners 1534 

1047.  Waiver  of  objections  1535 

1048.  Remedies  to  enforce  payment  of  compensation 1536 

1049.  Remedies  of  land-owner 1540 

1050.  Possession  pending  appeal 1547 

1051 .  Tender 1549 

1052.  Acceptance  of  damages — Estoppel 1551 

1053.  Appeal 1552 

1054.  Certiorari 1557 

1055.  Company  a  trespasser  when  proceedings  are  void 1559 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  III.  XXXV 

XLI. 

CONSTRUCTION. 

PAGE. 

1056.  Duty  to  construct— Authority  and  care  required  in  construction.  1562 

1057.  Liability  for  injuries  caused   by  construction  —  Consequential 

damages 1563 

1058.  Construction  contracts 1568 

1059.  Engineers'  estimates  and  certificates 1572 

1060.  Extra  work 1578 

1061.  Subcontractors 1580 

1062.  Breach  of  contract— Remedies 1583 

1063.  Liability  of  the  company  for  injuries  resulting  from  negligence 

of  contractor  or  his  servants 1586 

1064.  Liability  of  contractor — Joint  liability 1592 

1065.  Rights  of  laborers 1593 

1066.  Mechanics'  liens — General  laws  do  not  include  railroads 1595 

1067.  Statutes  authorizing  liens '. 1596 

1068.  For  what  lien  may  be  obtained 1597 

1069.  Upon  what  lien  may  be  acquired 1598 

1070.  Who  may  acquire  lien 1599 

1071.  Mode  of  acquiring  lien 1601 

1072.  Priority  of  liens 1603 

1073.  Assignability  of  lien 1605 

1074.  Enforcement  of  lien 1605 

1075.  Waiver  of  lien 1606 

CHAPTER  XLII. 

RAILROADS    IN    STREETS. 

1076.  Authority  to  use  streets 1610 

1077.  Implied  authority  of  municipality  to  grant  right  to  use  streets. .  .1613 

1078.  How  and  by  whom  grant  should  be  made  or  consent  given 1616 

1079.  Nature  and  effect  of  grant  by  municipality 1617 

1080.  Construction  of  grant — Illustrative  cases 1618 

1081 .  Right  of  municipality  to  impose  conditions 1621 

1082.  Municipal  regulation  and  control 1622 

1083.  Rights  of  rival  companies  in  streets 1625 

1084.  Right  of  one  company  to  use  another's  track 1626 

1085.  Rights  of  abut ters— Generally 1628 

1086.  Rights  of  land-owners  other  than  abutters 1629 

1087.  Commercial  railroad  is  an  additional  burden 1632 

1088.  Street  railways — When  an  additional  burden 1635 

1089.  Railroads  in  narrow  streets 1636 

1090.  Obstruction  of  highways — Nuisance • 1638 

1091.  Bridges,  viaducts  and  approaches 1639 

1092.  Duty  of  company  to  restore  and  repair  street 1640 


XXXVI  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  III. 

PAGE. 

§  1093.  Respective  rights  of  the  company  and  of  the  public 1643 

1094.  Duty  to  travelers  upon  the  street < 1644 

1095.  Liability  for  negligence — Contributory  negligence 1646 

1096.  Remedies  for  unlawful  use  of  street 1649 

CHAPTER  XLIII. 

HIGHWAY     CROSSINGS. 

1097.  What  is  included  in  highway  crossing 1652 

1098.  Right  to  lay  out  highway  across  railway 1653 

1099.  Right  to  construct  railway  across  highway 1655 

1100.  Proceedings  by  municipality 1656 

1101.  Proceedings  by  railway  company 1658 

1102.,  Construction  of  crossing 1659 

1103.  Damages  when  highway  is  opened  across  a  railroad 1661 

1104.  Impairing  rights  of  rail  way  company 1663 

1105.  Restoring  condition  of  highway 1664 

1106.  Mandamus  to  compel  restoration 1667 

1107.  Approaches,  embankments  and  other  structures 1668 

1108.  Grade  crossings 1670 

1109.  Crossings  above  grade 1670 

1110.  Crossings  below  grade 167:' 

1111.  Mandamus  to  compel  construction  of  viaduct 1672 

1112.  Keeping  crossing  in  repair 1674 

1113.  Rights  of  abutters 167.> 

1114.  Gates,  watchmen  and  signals  at  crossings 1677 

1115.  Accidents  and  injuries  at  crossings 1679 

CHAPTER  XLIV. 

CROSSING    OF    RAILROADS    BY    RAILROADS. 

1116.  Right  of  one  railroad  to  cross  another 1680 

1117.  Crossings  secured  by  agreement  of  companies 1683 

1118.  Enforcing  agreement  as  to  crossing 1684 

1119.  Crossings  secured  under  statutory  authority 1686 

1120.  Location  of  crossing 1690 

1121.  Franchise  must  not  be  impaired 1691 

1122.  Crossings  at  grade 1693 

1 123.  Crossings  above  or  below  grade 1695 

1124.  Number  of  crossings 1697 

1125.  Enjoining  construction  of  crossings 1697 

1126.  Compensation — Taking  property 1699 

1127.  Damages— Elements  of 1701 

1128.  Expense  of  constructing  crossings 1704 

1129.  Watchmen  and  flagmen  at  crossing 1705 

1130.  Stopping  at  crossings — Duty  imposed  by  contract 170(> 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  III.  XXXvii 

PAGE. 
1 1131.   Stopping  at  crossings — Duty  imposed  by  statute 1707 

1132.  Collisions  at  crossings 1708 

1133.  Priority  of  passage 1710 

1134.  Maintenance  and  repair  of  crossings 1711 

1135.  Street  railway  crossings  of  steam  railroads 1713 

CHAPTER  XLV. 

PRIVATE    CROSSINGS. 

1136.  Definition 1716 

1137.  Who  entitled  to 1716 

1138.  Effect  of  conveyance  of  right  of  way  by  land-owner 1717 

1139.  Right  to  crossing  where  right  of  way  has  been  condemned 1719 

1140.  Private  crossings  by  prescription 1720 

1141.  Private  crossings  by  agreement 1721 

1142.  Private  crossings  under  statutory  authority 1722 

1143.  Location  and  number  of  crossings 1725 

1144.  Construction  of  crossing— Sufficiency 1727 

1145.  Enforcing  construction 1727 

1146.  Repair  and  maintenance 1728 

1147.  Passways  and  subways  under  the  track 1729 

1148.  Damages  for  destruction  or  impairment  of  crossing  by  railway 

company 1730 

1149.  When  right  to  private  crossing  runs  with  the  land 1731 

1150.  Care  required  on  part  of  railway  company  at  private  crossings. .  .1732 

1151.  Accidents  and  injuries  at  private  crossings 1734 

CHAPTER  XL VI. 

INJURIES    AT    CROSSINGS. 

1152.  Introductory 1736 

1153.  Mutual  rights  and  duties  of  company  and  traveler  at  crossings — 

Generally 1736 

1154.  Duty  of  company  at  private  crossings  and  at  crossings  by  custom 

or  license 1740 

1155.  Statutory  duties  of  company  at  crossings — Violation  as  negli- 


gence 


.1743 


1156.  Common  law  duties  of  company  at  crossings — Degree  of  care 1747 

1157.  Sign  boards,  gates  and  flagmen  at  crossings 1750 

1158.  Signals  on  approach  to  crossings 1755 

1159.  Duty  of  company  to  keep  a  lookout — Lights 1759 

1 160.  Rate  of  speed — When  negligence 1760 

1161.  Duty  of  company  where  view  is  obstructed 1762 

1162.  Backing  and  "kicking"  cars 1763 

1163.  Contributory  negligence  generally 1765 

1164.  Contributory  negligence— Illustrative  cases 176* 


XXXV111  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  III. 

PAGE. 

§  1165.  Duty  of  traveler— Generally 177O 

1166.  Duty  of  traveler  to  look  and  listen 1773 

1167.  Duty  of  traveler  to  stop,  look  and  listen 1776 

1168.  Attempting  to  cross  in  front  of  an  approaching  engine  or  train.  .1778 

1169.  Passing  under,  over,  or  between  cars 1779 

1170.  Smoke  and  like  obstructions  to  view 1781 

1171.  Misleading  traveler — Invitation  to  cross 1782 

1172.  Children  and  infirm  persons 1785 

1173.  Sudden  peril  as  affecting  the  duty  of  the  traveler 1788 

1174.  Negligence  of  driver  of  vehicle  not  imputed  to  passenger  therein . .  1790 

1175.  Injury  after  discovery  of  traveler's  danger — Willfulness 1792 

1176.  Injuries  at  defective  crossings 1794 

1177.  Evidence  of  subsequent  repairs  and  other  accidents  at  the  same 

place 1796 

1178.  Collisions  with  street  cars 1798 

1179.  Directing  a  verdict  in  crossing  cases 1800 


CHAPTER  XLVII. 

DUTY  TO  FENCE. 

1180.  Common  law  rule v 1802 

1181.  Statutory  duty  to  fence 1807 

1182.  Statutes  rest  upon  police  power 1809 

1183.  Constitutionality  of  statutes  imposing  duty  to  fence 1811 

1184.  Kind  of  fence  required 1814 

1185.  Repair  of  fences — Casualties  and  trespassers 1816 

1186.  Transfer  of  duty  to  fence 1820 

1187.  Fences  erected  by  land-owner 1820 

1188.  Agreement  to  fence 1821 

1189.  Waiver  of  duty  to  fence 1824 

1190.  To  whom  duty  to  fence  is  owing 1825 

1191.  Injuries  to  passengers  resulting  from  neglect,  of  duty  to  fence  . . .  1828 

1192.  Injuries  to  employes  resulting  from  neglect  of  duty  to  fence 1830 

1193.  Places  allowed  to  remain  unfenced — Highways  and  crossings  . .  .1831 

1194.  Fences  at  depot  and  station  grounds 1834 

1195.  Fences  in  cities,  towns  and  villages 1837 

1196.  Fences  at  embankments 1838 

1 197.  Fences  at  oblique  approaches  to  highways 1839 

1198.  Cattle  guards 1840 

1199.  Wing  fences 1843 

1200.  Gates  and  bars 1844 

1201.  Place  of  entry  of  animals  on  railway  track 1846 

1202.  Determining  places  where  fences  required — Questions  of  law  and 

fact 1848 

1203.  Injuries  to  animals  on  highway 1849 

1204.  Rate  of  speed — Stopping  train 1850> 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  III.  XXxix 

PAGE. 

§  1205.  Duty  to  look  out  for  animals 1854 

1206.  Signals 185$ 

1207.  Actual  collision  with  animal — Injuries  caused  by  fright 1858 

12Q8.  Liability  of  lessees,  mortgagees  and  receivers I860 

1209.  Contributory  negligence 1862 

1210.  Animals  abandoned  by  their  owner 1867 

1211.  Animals  attracted  to  railroad  tracks 1868 

1212.  Ownership  of  animals 1869 

1213.  Presumption  of  negligence 1869 

1214.  Burden  of  proof — Evidence 1872 

1215.  Pleading  and  practice 18~,> 

1216.  Notice  and  demand  for  damages  . 1877 

1217.  Appraisement  of  damages : 1878 

1218.  Measure  of  damages 1879 

1219.  Double  damages 1882 

1220.  Attorney's  fees 1885 

CHAPTER  XLVIII. 

FIRES    SET    BY    RAILWAY    COMPANIES. 

I 

1221.  Common  law  liability 1887 

1222.  Statutory  liability 1890 

1223.  Constitutionality  of  statutes  imposing  liability 18^1 

1224.  Equipment — Spark  arresters — Ash-pans — Fuel 1894 

1225.  Management  of  engines 1899 

1226.  Duty  as  to  right  of  way —Combustible  material 1900 

1227.  Fires  set  to  burn  off  right  of  way 1903 

1228.  Extra  precautions — Dry  seasons — Wind — Exposed  property 1905 

1229.  Fires  started  on  right  of  way 1906 

1230.  Fires  started  off  the  right  of  way , . . .  .1907 

1231.  Remote  fires 1908 

1232.  Duty  to  extinguish  fires 1911 

1233.  Ownership  of  property  burned 1912 

1234.  Effect  of  insurance  on  property  burned 1914 

1235.  Property  on  right  of  way % 1916 

1236.  Contracts  limiting  liability 1918 

1237.  Liability  where  road  is  operated  under  lease 1920 

1238.  Contributory  negligence  of  owner 1922 

1239.  Measure  of  damages  for  property  destroyed  by  fire 1928 

1240.  Pleading— Parties 1932 

1241.  Pleading — Sufficiency  of  complaint 1933 

1242.  Burden  of  proof — Presumption  of  negligence 1935 

1243.  Proof  that  company  set  out  fire 1938 

1244.  Proof  that  company  negligently  set  out  fire 1941 

1245.  Evidence  to  rebut  presumption  of  negligence . 1943 

1246.  Attorney's  fees 1945 

1247.  Personal  and  other  injuries  caused  by  fires 1946 


xl  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS— VOL.  III. 

CHAPTER   XLIX. 

INJURIES   TO    TRESPASSERS,    LICENSEES    AND    STRANGERS. 

PAGE. 

§  1248.   Who  are  licensees 1947 

1249.  Difference  between  invitation  and  license 1950 

1250.  Duty  to  licensees 1951 

1251.  Liability  for  injuries  to  licensees 1954 

1252.  Who  are  trespassers 1957 

1253.  Duty  to  trespassers 1959 

1254.  Liability  for  injuries  to  trespassers 1960 

1255.  Trespassers  on  cars 1961 

1256.  Strangers  at  stations 1964 

1257.  Injuries  to  trespassers  upon  track 1966 

1258.  Injuries  to  persons  in  company's  yards 1970 

1259.  Liability  for  injury  to  trespassing  children 1972 

1260.  Injury  to  trespassing  children — Illustrative  and  conflicting  cases .  1975 

1261.  Contributory  negligence  of  children 1977 

1262.  Imputable  negligence 1981 

1263.  Liability  lor  injury  to  persons  on  adjacent  highway 1983 

1264.  Liability  for  frightening  horses 1985 

J  265.   Liability  to  strangers  for  willful  acts  of  employes 1988 

i 

CHAPTER  L. 

INJURIES    TO    EMPLOYES. 

1266.  Introductory 1995 

1267.  Contract  the  basis  of  the  employer's  duty 1996 

1268.  Employer's  duty  to  furnish  a  reasonably  safe  working  place 1997 

1269.  Structures  near  the  track 1998 

1270.  Failure  to  fence 2001 

1271.  Bridges 2003 

1272.  Negligence  of  employer  in  failing  to  keep  premises  safe — Switch 

yards 2005 

1273.  Machinery  and  appliances — Master's  duty  respecting .2007 

1274.  Appliances  generally  used  sufficient 2008 

1275.  Latent  defects 2009 

1276.  Delegation  of  master's  duty 2009 

1277.  Employer  not  bound  to  abandon  appliances  because  newer  ones 

are  in  use 2011 

1278.  Inspection— Duty  of 2011 

1279.  Foreign  cars — Duty  of  inspection 2014 

1280.  Employer's  duty  to  promulgate  rules 2016 

1281.  Time-tables  or  schedules 2018 

1282.  Violation  of  rules  by  employes 2019 

1 283.  Duty  to  warn  employe  of  danger 2021 

1284.  Duty  to  employ  competent  servants 2025 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   III.  xli 

PAGE. 

1285.  Presumption  of  competency  of  employe 2026 

1286.  Burden  of  proof  where incompetency  of  fellow-servant  is  alleged. 2026 

1287.  Trains  to  be  provided  with  a  sufficient  crew 2027 

1288.  Assumption  of  risks  of  service — General  doctrine 2028 

1289.  Assumption  of  risks — Employer's  method  of  conducting  busi- 

ness   2030 

1290.  Risks  of  service — Illustrative  cases 2031 

1291.  Duty  of  employe  to  acquaint  himself  with  employer's  business 

methods 2034 

1292.  Duty  of  employe  in  regard  to  competency  of  co-employes 2034 

1293.  Employe  bound  to  use  ordinary  care  to  remedy  defects 2036 

1294.  Duty  of  employe  to  acquaint  himself  with  rules  of  employer 2037 

1295.  Promise  to  repair 2038 

1296.  Brakeman — Assumption  of  risks 2039 

1297.  Engineers  and  firemen — Assumption  of  risks 2045 

1298.  Dangers  from  running  of  trains 2048 

1299.  Injuries  from  explosions 2049 

1300.  Injuries  from  collisions 2051 

1301.  Cars  negligently  loaded 2052 

1302.  Dangerous  service 2054 

1303.  Performing  work  outside  of  scope  of  the  contract  of  employment — 

Permissive  privilege 2056 

1304.  Work  outside  of  the  ordinary  line  of  duty — Special  orders 2058 

1305.  Volunteers 2060 

1306.  Concurrent  negligence 2062 

1307.  The  rule  as  to  the  master's  knowledge  of  defects 2062 

1308.  Test  of  the  employer's  liability 2063 

1309.  Evidence  of  employer's  negligence 2064 

1310.  Employer  not  liable  to  employe  unless  the  negligence  was  the 

proximate  cause  of  the  injury 2065 

1311.  Knowledge  of  defects  on  part  of  employe— Averment  and  proof .  .2067 

1312.  Knowledge  of  defects  on  part  of  employe — Evidence  of 2067 

1313.  Contributory  negligence  of  employes 206 

1314.  Contributory  negligence  of  employes— Illustrative  instances 2070 

1315.  Contributory  negligence— Violation  of  statutory  duty 2073 

CHAPTER  LI. 

FELLOW-SERVANTS. 

1316.1  Survey  of  the  fellow-servant  rule— General  doctrine 2075 

1317.  Vice-principal— Superior  agent— Views  of  the  authors 

1318.  Vice-principal— Superior  agent— Illustrative  cases 2080 

1319.  Vice-principal  as  to  particular  subjects 20 

1320.  What  constitutes  a  common  employment 20 

1321 .  General  managers — Superintendents 20 

1322.  Train  dispatcher 20 

1323.  Master  mechanic . . 


xlii  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  III. 

PAGE, 

§  1324.   Road  masters 2086 

1325.  Train  masters 2087 

1326.  Station  masters 2087 

1327.  Inspectors 2088 

1328.  Telegraph  operators 2089 

1329.  Foremen 2091 

1330.  Trainmen  engaged  in  operating  the  same  train 2093 

1331.  Trainmen  operating  different  trains 2094 

1332.  Trainmen  and  switchmen  and  laborers  and  sectionmen 2095 

1333.  Recent  federal  cases. .  .  .2097 


CHAPTER  LII. 
EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  ACTS. 

1334.  Changes  in  the  law  of  master  and  servant  by  legislation — Gen- 

erally   2099 

1335.  Validity  of  statutes 2101 

1336.  Invalid  legislation 2102 

1337.  Construction  of  employers'  liability  statutes — Generally 210& 

1338.  Construction  of  employers'  liability  acts — Definitions 2104 

1339.  The  effect  of  the  statute  upon  the  contractual  element  in  the       ,. 

relation  of  employer  and  employe 210$ 

1340.  Railroad  companies  owning  lines  partly  within  the  state  and 

partly  within  other  states 210£ 

1341.  Railroad  operated  by  receivers 2108- 

1342.  The  relation  of  master  and  servant  must  exist 2109* 

1343.  Care  required  by  statute  of  employer  respecting  machinery  and 

.  appliances   2110- 

1344.  Who  are  within  the  statute 2110- 

1345.  Assumption  of  risks — Effect  of  the  statute 2112: 

1346.  Who  are  fellow-servants  under  employers'  liability  acts 2114 

1347.  Defects  in  appliances  or  machinery 2115- 

1348.  Latent  defects— Rule  under  the  statute 2116- 

1349.  Rule  where  the  defect  is  not  attributable  to  the  negligence  of  the 

employer ' 2116 

1350.  Presumption  of  negligence •. 2117 

1351.  Selection  of  co-employes 2115 

1352.  Superintendents  within  the  meaning  of  the  employers'  liability 

acts 2119 

1353.  What  constitutes  negligence  in  superintendence 2120 

1354.  Cars — Trains — Meaning  of  term  "cars"  as  used  in  statutes  en- 

larging liabilities  of  railroad  companies 2120- 

1355.  Use  and  operation  of  .railway — Meaning  of  term 2121 

1356.  "Charge  and  control" 2122 

1357.  Contributory  negligence — Doctrine  of  as  affected  by  the  statute. 2123 

1358.  Contracts  waiving  right  of  action  invalid 2124 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS  -  VOL.  III.  xliii 

CHAPTER  LIII. 

INJURIES    RESULTING    IN    DEATH. 

PAGE! 
f§  1359.   Introductory  ...........  .........................................  2125 

1360.  Constitutional  questions  ...................................  ....  .2127 

1361.  Construction  of  statutes  ..........................  ,  .............  2128 

1362.  Limiting  the  right  to  sue  —  Designating  the  forum  ...............  2130 

1363.  Instantaneous  death  ...........................................  2131 

1364.  Statutes  have  no  extra-territorial  effect  .........................  2132 

1365.  The  right  and  the  remedy  ......................................  2132 

1366.  Conflict  of  law  .................................................  2133 

1367.  Who  may  recover—  Generally  ..................................  2135 

1368.  Who  may  recover  —  Illustrative  cases  ...........................  2136 

1369.  What  must  be  shown  to  constitute  a  cause  of  action  .............  2138 

1370.  Year  and  a  day  ................................................  2139 

1371.  Actions  for  injuries  causing  death  are  transitory  ................  2140 

1372.  Actions  by  administrators  and  executors  ........................  214*1 

1373.  Limitations  —  Time*  within  which  actions  must  be  brought  .......  2143 

1374.  Statutes  do  not  deny  the  right  to  rely  upon  defense  of  contribu- 

tory negligence  ..............................................  2144 

1375.  One  recovery  merges  cause  of  action  .................  ..........  2145 

1376.  Release  —  Compromise  ..........................................  2147 

1377.  Avoiding  releases  and  compromises  .............................  2149 

1378.  Measure  of  damages  ...........................................  2151 

CHAPTER   LIV. 

RELIEF    DEPARTMENTS    AND    HOSPITALS. 

1379.  Power  of  railroad  company  to  establish  relief  department  .......  2154 

1380.  Relief  association  not  an  insurance  company  ...................  2155 

1381.  Effect  of  rule  that  company  can  not  contract  against  negligence..  2156 

1382.  Contract  that  employe  may  elect  to  accept  benefits  and  thereby 

release  company  not  void  as  against  public  policy  .............  2156 

1383.  Consideration  and  mutuality  of  contract  ........................  2158 

1384.  Acceptance  of  benefits  under  such  contract  after  injury  releases 


company  ......................  f 

1385.  Release  of  railroad  company  may  be  a  pre-requisite  to  action 

against  a  relief  association  ...................................  2159 

1386.  Suit  against  company  or  compromise  with  it  releases  the  relief  as- 

sociation —  Beneficiary  barred  ................................  •* 

1387.  Acceptance  of  benefits  by  widow  or  child—  When  a  bar  to  action 

against  the  company  .........................................  "1 

1388.  Hospitals  and  medical  attendance  ..............................  21 

1389.  When  company  is  liable  for  negligence  of  surgeon  in  its  hosptial  .2162 

1390.  When  release  of  claim  against  company  will  not  include  claim 

for  negligent  treatment  in  hospital  ...........................  2 


TABLE    OF   CONTENTS VOL.  IV. 

VOLUME  IV. 
CARRIERS. 


CHAPTER  LV. 

• 

RAILROADS    AS    CARRIERS. 

PAGE. 

1391.  Nature  of  duty  as  common  carriers 2166 

1392.  Implied  duties  as  carriers 2166 

1393.  Railroads  as  carriers — Generally 2167 

1394.  Carriage  for  other  carriers 2168 

1395.  Breaking  bulk — Transfer  of  goods  from  cars  of  one  company  to 

cars  of  another  company 2170 

1396.  Railroad  companies  as  private  carriers 2172 

1397.  Right  to  prescribe  extent  of  liability  where  a  railroad  company 

undertakes  service  as  a  private  carrier 2174 

1398.  Switching  companies 2175 

1399.  Transfer  companies 2175 

1400.  Bridge  companies 2177 

1401.  Express,  dispatch  and  fast  freight  companies 2177 

1402.  Street  railway  companies 2179 


CHAPTER   LVI. 

DELIVERY   AND   ACCEPTANCE. 

1403.  Liability  begins  with  delivery 2181 

1404.  What  constitutes  complete  delivery 2182 

1405.  Effect  of  requirement  that  shipper  shall  load 2185 

1406.  Delivery  to  authorized  agent 2186 

1407.  Delivery  to  unauthorized  person 2187 

1408.  Delivery  by  agent  of  shipper 2188 

1409.  Delivery  must  be  for  immediate  shipment 2189 

1410.  Notice  of  delivery 2190 

1411.  Place  of  delivery 2191 

1412.  Delivery  to  connecting  carrier 2193 

1413.  Evidence  of  delivery 2194 

1414.  Delivery  to  carrier  passes  title  to  consignee 2195 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   IV. 

CHAPTER   LVII. 

BILLS    OF    LADING. 

PAGE. 

§  1415.   Definition — Two-fold  character 2197 

1416.  Power  of  agent  to  issue  bills  of  lading 2199 

1417.  Execution  of  bills  of  lading 2200 

1418.  Premature  issuance  of  bill 2202 

1419.  Bills  of  lading  as  evidence  of  receipt  of  goods — Bona  fide  pur- 

chasers   2203 

1420.  As  evidence  of  condition,  weight  or  contents 2205 

1421.  As  evidence  of  value 2207 

1422.  Misdescription  in  bill 2208 

1423.  As  evidence  of  contract— Not  variable  by  parol 2209 

1424.  Construction  of  bills  of  lading 2212 

1425.  Construction  of  particular  words  and  phrases 2212 

1426.  As  muniments  of  title— Delivery  by  carrier 2214 

1427.  Effect  of  direction  in  bill  of  lading  to  notify  some  designated 

person 2215 

1428.  Bills  of  lading  assignable  but  not  negotiable 2217 

1429.  Rights  of  bona  fide  purchasers  and  other  third  persons  who  hold 

bills  of  lading ." 2219 

1430.  Duplicate  bills 2221 

1431.  Change  of  consignment  by  shipper 2222 

CHAPTER   LVIII. 

THE    INITIAL   CARRIER. 

1432.  Duties  of  initial  carrier  generally 2223 

1433.  No  extra-terminal  liability  unless  by  contract 22 

1434.  There  may  be  liability  by  contract 222-> 

1435.  What  constitutes  such  a  contract 2226 

1436.  Illustrative  cases 

1437.  Authority  of  agents  as  to  extra-terminal  liability 

1438.  Exclusion  of  liability  by  contract 223 

1439.  Rule  when  statute  makes  initial  carrier  liable  for  negligence  of 

others 

1440.  Liability  for  deviation  or  failure  to  obey  instructions 

1441.  Actions  on  account  of  extra-terminal  defaults 2238 


CHAPTER  LIX. 

CONNECTING    CARRIERS. 


1442.   Definition. 


.  2240 


1443.   Commencement  of  connecting  carrier's  liability 2241 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  IV. 

PAGE. 

§  1444.  Liability  for  defaults  of  the  initial  or  of  other  connecting  car- 
riers " 2242 

1445.  Liability  as  partner — What  constitutes .2243 

1446.  Effect  of  initial  carrier's  contract  on  connecting  carrier 2245 

1447.  Liability  for  defaults  of  common  agent 2246 

1448.  Liability  for  their  own  defaults 2246 

1449.  Extent  and  termination  of  liability 2247 

1450.  Presumption  against  last  carrier 2250 

1451.  Rights  and  liabilities  as  to  charges 2252 

1452.  Liability  of  carriers  as  between  themselves — Action  over. .         .  .2255 


CHAPTER  LX. 

COMMON    LAW    DUTIES    OF    COMMON    CARRIERS. 

1453.  Who  are  railroad  carriers — Fast  freight  lines — Union  depot  com- 

panies— Express  companies 2259 

1454.  General  nature  of  the  common  law  duty 2261 

1455.  Act  of  God— What  constitutes 2264 

1456.  Act  of  God— Express  contract 2266 

1457.  Burden  on  carrier  tp  prove  that  act  of  God  caused  loss — Concur- 

ring negligence 2266 

1458.  Public  enemies 2268 

1459.  Public  enemies— Mobs— Strikes 2269 

1460.  Mobs — Violence  of  does  not  relieve  where  there  is  an  express 

contract 2271 

1461.  Public  authority — When  exercise  of  exonerates  carriers 2271 

1462.  When  the  liability  of  the  company  as  a  common  carrier  attaches. 2272 

1463.  Railroad  company  as  a  warehouseman — General  doctrine 2274 

1464.  When  the  liability  of  a  railroad  company  is  that  of  a  warehouse- 

man   2276 

1465.  The  duty  to  carry 2279 

1466.  Refusal  to  carry— Excuses  for 2280 

1467.  Discrimination — Unjust  forbidden , 2283 

1468.  Discrimination — Like  facilities  to  be  furnished  to  all  where  like 

conditions  exist 2285 

1469.  Discrimination — Effect  on  stipulations  limiting  liability 2286 

1470.  Duty  to  furnish  cars 2287 

1471.  Refusal  to  carry — Duty  to  state  grounds  of  refusal 2288 

1472.  Duty  of  carriers  as  to  cars  and  equipment — Standard  of 2288 

1473.  Express  contract  to  furnish  cars 2289 

1474.  Goods  requiring  unusual  facilities — Refrigerator  cars 2290 

1475.  Acceptance  of  perishable  property— Cars  and  equipments 2292 

1476.  Failure  to  furnish  cars— Offer  of  goods 2293 

1477.  Cars — Inability  to  furnish — Burden  on  carrier  to  prove  an  excuse 

for  failure  to  furnish 2294 

1478.  Duty  of  carrier  as  to  cars  and  equipments — Influence  of  breach 

of  duty  on  contracts  limiting  liability 2294 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  IV.  xlvii 

PAGE. 

§  1479.   Facilities  for  transportation — Yards — Depots 2296 

1480.  Selection  of  cars  by  shipper 229g 

1481.  Negligence — Handling  goods 2299 

1482.  Delay  in  transporting  goods — General  doctrine 2302 

1483.  Unreasonable  delay — What  constitutes — Evidence  of 2303 

1484.  Delay — Accidents  and  obstructions 2304 

1485.  Accidents  do  not  terminate  the  duty  of  the  carrier 2304 

1486.  Care  of  goods  during  delay 2305 

1487.  Delay — Notice  to  the  owner 2305 

1488.  Delay — Destruction  of  goods  while  awaiting  transportation  by 

fire  2306 

1489.  Delay  in  transporting  goods  caused  by  the  act  of  the  owner 2307 

1490.  Directions  and  instructions  of  shipper— Duty  of  obedience  to 2308 

1491.  Fraud  of  shipper 2309 

1492.  Negligence  of  owner — Packing  and  loading  goods 2309 

1493.  Placing  goods  in  an  exposed  position 2311 

1494.  What  law  governs — Law  of  the  place — Conflict  of  laws 2312 


CHAPTER  LXI. 

CONTRACTS    LIMITING    LIABILITY. 

1495.  The  English  rule 2314 

1496.  Conflict  among  the  American  decisions 2315 

1497.  No  right  to  contract  against  liability  for  negligence  in  most  juris- 

dictions   2316 

1498.  Right  to  contract  against  liability  for  negligence  in  some  juris- 

dictions   2318 

1499.  Right  to  limit  liability  prohibited  by  statute  in  some  states 2319 

1500.  Right  to  limit  liability  by  special  contract  in  most  jurisdictions.  .2320 

1501.  Nature  of  special  contract  required 2321 

1502.  Limitation  in  receipt  or  bill  of  lading 2323 

1503.  Parol  limitation 2325 

J504.    Consideration  necessary 2326 

1505.  Construction  of  contract 2328 

1506.  Conflict  of  laws 2329 

1507.  Power  of  agents  to  agree  to  limitations 2331 

1508.  Stipulation  exempting  carrier  from  liability  for  loss  by  fire 2332 

1509.  Stipulations  as  to  insurance 2333 

1510.  Stipulations  as  to  value  and  amount  of  damages 2 

1511.  Stipulation  exempting  carrier  from  liability  incase  of  live  stock. 2339 

1512.  Stipulations  as  to  manner  and  time  of  presenting  claims 

1513.  Miscellaneous  stipulations 2343 

1514.  Waiver  of  stipulation  limiting  liability  or  fixing  time  and  man- 

ner of  presenting  claims 23 

1515.  Benefit  of  exemption  lost  by  deviation 

1516.  Burden  of  proof 2345 


xlviii  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  IV. 

CHAPTER  LXII. 

DELIVERY    BY    THE    CARRIER. 

PAGE. 

§  1517.   Generally 2350 

1518.  Personal  delivery 2351 

1519.  Place  of  delivery 2352 

1520.  Time  of  delivery 2354 

1521.  Manner  of  delivery 2355 

1522.  Custom  and  usage 2358 

1523.  Delivery  must  be  to  right  person 2359 

1524.  Delivery  to  agent 2361 

1525.  Right  of  carrier  to  require  identification  of  consignee 2362 

1526.  Misdelivery 2362 

1527.  Notice  to  consignee  or  his  agent 2365- 

1528.  Reasonable  time  to  inspect  and  remove 2371 

1529.  Rule  where  goods  are  to  be  held  until  called  for 2373 

1530.  Rule  where  goods  are  not  to  be  delivered  until  paid  for 2374 

1531.  Waiver  by  consignee 2375 

1532.  Carrier's  right  to  receipt  or  surrender  of  bill  of  lading 2376 

1533.  Duty  to  store — Liability  as  warehouseman . . . ! 2377 

CHAPTER  LXIII. 

EXCUSES    FOR    FAILURE    TO    DELIVER. 

1534.  Difference  between  cases  not  within  the  scope  of  duty  and  cases 

involving  excuses  for  non-delivery 2379 

1535.  Excuses  for  non-delivery  arising  from  acts  of  the  shipper,  owner 

or  consignee 2380 

1536.  Countermanding  original  shipping    directions — Change    of  in- 

structions   2383 

1537.  Seizure  under  legal  process — Generally 2385 

1538.  Attachment — Garnishment 2387 

1539.  Stoppage  in  transitu 2389 

1540.  Who  may  exercise  the  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu 2391 

1541.  Against  whom  the  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu  may  be  exercised .  2392 

1542.  Mode  of  exercising  the  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu — Duty  of  car- 

rier to  give  notice 2393 

1543.  Termination  of  the  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu 2393 

1544.  Adverse  claimants— Procedure  on  part  of  carrier — Interpleader.. 2396 

CHAPTER  LXIV. 

CARRIERS    OF    LIVE    STOCK. 

1545.  Railroad  companies  are  common  carriers  of  live  stock 2398 

1546.  No  liability  for  injuries  arising  from  inherent  nature  of  stock 2399 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   IV. 

PAGE. 

§  1547.   Duty  to  receive  and  carry 2401 

1548.  Liability  for  negligence — Burden  of  proof 2401 

1549.  Rule  where  owner  accompanies  the  stock .2404 

1550.  Contributory  negligence  of  owner 2405 

1551.  Cars  and  appliances — Terminal  charges 2407 

1552.  Loading  and  unloading 2410 

1553.  Duty  to  feed,  water  and  care  for  stock 2411 

1554.  Statutory  regulations 2412 

1555.  Liability  for  delay 2414 

1556.  Liability  for  loss  or  failure  to  deliver 2416 

1557.  Limiting  liability 2417 


CHAPTER  LXV. 

FREIGHT    CHARGES    AND    DEMURRAGE. 

1558.  Generally 2419 

1559.  Who  is  liable  for  freight  charges 2421 

1560.  Amount  of  compensation 2423 

1561.  How  compensation  is  calculated 2425 

1562.  Compensation  pro  rata  itineris 2426 

1563.  Excessive  and  unreasonable  charges 2428 

1564.  Rights  and  remedies  where  excessive  charges  are  demanded 2430 

1565.  Discrimination — Rebates 2432 

1566.  Compensation  for  special  services 2434 

1567.  Demurrage 2436 

1568.  Car  service  associations 2440 

1569.  Collecting  charges — Connecting  carriers 2440 

1570.  Carrier's  lien  for  freight 2442 

1571.  Enforcement  of  lien 2444 

1572.  Waiver  and  loss  of  lien 2445 

CHAPTER  LXVI. 

RAILROADS    AS    CARRIERS    OF    PASSENGERS. 

1573.  The  general  doctrine 2448 

1574.  The  duty  to  carry 2451 

1575.  Refusal  to  carry — Extraordinary  press  of  business 2451 

1576.  Excuses  for  refusal  to  carry— Disregard  of  rules  and  regulations . 2452 

1577.  Excuses  for  refusal  to  carry— Improper  or  unfit  persons 2454 

1578.  Who  are  passengers 2455 

1579.  The  relation  of  passenger  and  carrier — When  it  begins 2459 

1580.  Relation  of  passenger  and  carrier— Authority  of  subordinate  em- 

ployes to  create 2460 

1581.  Trespassers  and  intruders 2462 

CORP.  I — iv 


1  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  IV. 

PAGE. 

§  1582.  Taking  passage  on  freight  trains,  hand-cars  and  the  like 2465 

1583.  Nature  of  the  liability  as  a  carrier  of  passengers 2466 

1584.  Accidents 2467 

1585.  Degree  of  care  required  of  railroad  passenger  carriers — General 

rule 2469 

1586.  Duty  as  to  road-bed  and  tracks 2471 

1587.  Duty  as  to  engines,  cars,  equipments  and  appliances 2472 

1588.  Duty  to  provide  and  equip  trains  with  modern  and  improved  ap- 

pliances   2474 

•  1589.   Care  required  in  operation  of  trains 2474 

1590.  Station  buildings— Depots — Negligence  in  maintaining 2477 

1591.  Duty  to  protect  passengers  from  injury  by  third  persons 2480 

1592.  Termination  of  the  relation  of  carrier  and  passenger 2480 


CHAPTER  LXVII. 

TICKETS,    FARES    AND    PASSES. 

1593.  Tickets  and  fares— Generally 2482 

1594.  Ticket  as  evidence  of  passenger's  rights — Loss  of  ticket 2487 

1595.  Stop-over  privileges 2491 

1596.  Through  tickets— Coupons 2493 

1597.  Round  trip  tickets 2495 

1598.  Limited  tickets 2496 

1599.  Non-transferable  tickets 2499 

1600.  Commutation  and  mileage  tickets 2500 

1601.  Excursion  tickets 2503 

1602.  Conductor's  checks 2504 

1603.  Fare  paid  on  train 2506 

1604.  When  person  riding  on  pass  is  a  passenger  and  when  not 2508 

1605.  Drovers  riding  on  passes 2510 

1606.  Duty  to  person  riding  on  pass 2511 

1607.  Conditions  in  passes „, 2513 

1608.  Validity  of  stipulation  exempting  carrier  from  liability  for  negli- 

gence   2513 

1609.  Injury  to  person  riding  on  pass 2516 

1610.  Person  other  than  the  one  entitled  to  use  a  pass  riding  thereon — 

Fraud 2518 

1611.  Contract  to  give  passes 2519 

1612.  Interstate  commerce  law 2521 

1613.  Statutes  prohibiting  the  granting  of  passes 2523 

1614.  Rights  of  persons  holding  passes  to  be  carried  in  sleeping  and 

parlor  cars 2524 

1615.  Baggage  of  person  riding  on  pass 2524 


•TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  IV.  H 

CHAPTER  LXVIII. 

SLEEPING    CAR   COMPANIES. 

PAGE. 
§  1616.   General  nature  of  sleeping  car  companies 2526 

1617.  Duty  to  furnish  accommodations 2527 

1618.  Duties  and  liabilities  of  sleeping  car  and  parlor  car  companies — 

Generally 2528 

1619.  Refusal  to  furnish  berth — Right  of  railroad  company  to  deter- 

mine on  what  trains  or  tickets  sleeping  car  berths  shall  be 
furnished 2530 

1620.  Tickets— Berths 2531 

1621.  Duties  of  sleeping  car  companies  to  passengers — Illustrative  in- 

stances   2533 

1622.  Duty  as  to  property  of  passengers 2535 

1623.  Baggage  of  passengers — Loss  of — Negligence 2537 

1624.  Contributory  negligence — Loss  of  baggage  or  property 2539 

1625.  Relation  of  railroad  companies  to  passengers  traveling  in  sleep- 

ing car  or  parlor  car 2540 

1626.  Railroad  companies  may  require  compensation  for  sleeping  car 

accommodations 2541 

1627.  Limiting  liability— Contract— Notice 2542 


CHAPTER   LXIX. 

INJURIES   TO    PASSENGERS. 

1628.  Boarding  and  alighting  from  trains 2544 

1629.  Injuries  received  on  freight  trains 2551 

1630.  Injuries  to  passengers  on  platforms  and  steps 2556 

1631.  Injuries  to  passengers  riding  in  baggage  car 2559 

1632.  Injuries  to  passengers  riding  in  other  dangerous  and  improper 

places 2561 

1633.  Injuries  received  by  passengers  occupying  an  improper  position 

in  car 2562 

1634.  Injuries  caused  by  derailment 2565 

1635.  Collisions 2568 

1636.  Injuries  from  obstructions 2571 

1637.  Ejection  of  passengers 2572 

1638.  Assault  and  injuries  by  employes '. 2578 

1639.  Injuries  caused  by  other  passengers  and  third  persons 2584 

1640.  Injuries  received  in  sleeping  cars 2586 

1641.  Injuries  received  at  stations -2588 

1642.  Contributory  negligence 2592 

1643.  Effect  of  direction  by  trainmen  to  occupy  dangerous  position 2594 

1644.  Burden  of  proof 2596 

1645.  Contracts  limiting  liability 2600 


Ill  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.  IV. 

CHAPTER  LXX. 

BAGGAGE. 

PAGE. 
§  1646.   Definition 2604 

1647.  What  things  are  personal  baggage 2605 

1648.  When  a  question  for  the  jury  and  when  for  the  court 2609 

1649.  Merchandise  as  baggage ,2611 

1650.  Excess  of  baggage 2614 

1651.  When  company  is  liable  as  a  common  carrier 2614 

1652.  When  company  is  liable  as  a  warehouseman 2616 

1653.  Delivery  to  the  company 2619 

1654.  Rule  where  passenger  retains  custody  of  baggage 2620 

1655.  Baggage  checks 2622 

1656.  Baggage  on  one  train  and  owner  on  another 2624 

1657.  Rule  where  baggage  is  received  by  mistake 2625 

1658.  Baggage  shipped  over  connecting  roads 2626 

1659.  Delivery  by  company — Duty  of  owner 2628 

1660.  Liability  for  loss,  injury  or  delay 2630 

1661.  Limiting  liability 2632 

1662.  Carrier's  lien  on  baggage 2634 


CHAPTER  LXXI. 

THE    INTERSTATE    COMMERCE    ACT. 

1663.  The  source,  nature  and  extent  of  the  federal  power  over  interstate 

railroads 2635 

1664.  Commerce  clause  of  the  federal  constitution — Generally 2640 

1665.  State  power  as  limited  by  the  commerce  clause  of  the  federal 

constitution— Generally 2641 

1666.  The  interstate  commerce  act — Generally 2644 

1667.  Construction  of  the  interstate  commerce  act 2645 

1668.  The  police  power  as  affected  by  the  commerce  clause 2647 

1669.  State  statutes  held  to  be  regulations  of  interstate  commerce 2650 

1670.  State  statutes  held  not  to  be  regulations  of  interstate  commerce  .2652 

1671.  Interstate  commerce 2655 

1672.  The  interstate  commerce  commission 2657 

1673.  Railroads  engaged  in  domestic  commerce — When  a  railroad  is 

interstate 2659 

1674.  Commerce   and  manufactures  —  Monopolies  —  Trusts — Conspira- 

cies   2662 

1675.  Combinations— Pooling 2663 

1676.  Discrimination — Undue  preference — What  is  under  the  interstate 

commerce  act 2666 

1677.  Preference — Discrimination — When    not  unjust — Differences  in 

circumstances  and  conditions . .  . .  2668 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS VOL.   IV.  1111 

PAGE. 

§  1678.  Undue  preference — Discrimination — Illustrative  instance 2669 

1679.  Undue  preference — Question  one  of  mixed  law  and  fact 2672 

1680.  Rebates  as  affected  by  the  interstate  commerce  act 2673 

1681.  Formation  of  connecting  lines — Preference — Terminal  facilities .  2674 

1682.  Long  and  short  haul 2675 

1683.  Group  rates 2680 

1684.  Reasonable  charges 2682 

1685.  Interchange  of  business 2684 

1686.  Joint  tariffs— Through  rates 2685 

1687.  Party  rates— Mileage  and  commutation  tickets 2687 

1688.  Violations  of  the  interstate  commerce  act — Indictment. .  .  .2687 


CHAPTER  LXXII. 

ACTIONS    AGAINST    RAILROAD    COMPANIES. 

1689.  Generally— Scope  of   chapter 2690 

1690.  Remedy  for  breach  of  duty  as  public  or  common  carrier — Man- 

damus  2691 

1691.  Remedy  for  refusal  to  carry — Action  for  damages 2692 

1692.  Actions  against  common  carriers — Parties 2694 

1693.  Actions  against  common  carriers — Form  of  action 2696 

1694.  Actions  against  common  carriers — Pleading 2698 

1695.  Actions  against  common  carriers — Evidence 2701 

1696.  Actions  for  injuries  to  passengers 2702 

1697.  Actions  for  injuries  to  employes 2705 

1698.  Pleading  ordinances 2710 

1699.  Inspection  and  physical  examination  of  party 2713 

1700.  Experiments  and  practical  tests — Real  evidence 2714 

1701.  Presumptions 2715 

1702.  Withdrawing  the  case  from  the  jury 2719 

1703.  Physical  facts 2723 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


(  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-MS,  Vol.  II,  pp.  M3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp. 

Aaron  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  27  Weekly  L. 

Bull.  183,  2375 

Abbe  v.  Eaton,  51  N.  Y.  410,  2203,  2206 

Abbey  v.  W.  B.  Grimes  Dry  Goods  Co.,  44 

Kan.  415,  265 

Abbitt  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ind.) 

40  N.  E.  R.  40,  2049,  2573 

Abbot  v.  American  Hard  Rubber  Co.,  33 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  578,  350,  378,  578 

Abbot  v.  McCadden,  81  Wis.  563,  2031,  2065 
Abbott  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Md.  Ch. 


542, 


489,  518 
2621 
1777 
1900 


Abbott  v.  Bradstreet,  55  Me.  530, 
Abbott  v.  Dwinnell,  74  Wis.  515, 
Abbott  v.  Gore,  74  Wis.  509, 
Abbott  v.  Hapgood,  150  Mass.  248, 

20,  21, 154, 155 
Abbott  v.  Johnstown,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  N.  Y. 

27,  524,  525,  568,  569,  600,  612 

Abbott  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83 

Mo.  271,  1404, 1405 

Abbott  v.  Lindenbower,  42  Mo.  162,  1197 

Abbott  v.  New   York,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  145 

Mass.  450,  1347, 1350 

Abbott  v.  Omaha,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Neb.  416,          25 
Abel  v.  President,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  N.  Y. 

581,  2016 

Abell  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Md.  433,    2512 
Abend  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  111. 

202,  2019,  2144,  2601 

Abendroth  v.  Manhattan  Ry.  Co.,  122  N. 

Y.  1,  19,  901,  1397, 1629, 1632 

Aberdeen  R.  Co.  v.  Blakie,  1  Macq.  461, 

373,  378,  399 
Abraham  v.  Meyers,  (N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.)  29 

Abb.  N.  C.  384,  897 

Abrahams  v.  Deakin,  L.  R.  (1891)  1  Q.  B. 

516,  1992 

Abrams  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.    Co.,  87 

Wis.  485,  2318,  2337,  2402,  2410,  2411,  2412 

Acker,  In  re,  66  Fed.  R.  290,  911 

Acker  v.  Alexander,  etc.,  Railroad  Co.,  84 

Va.  648,  603,  693 

Ackerman  v.  Halsey,  37  N.  J.  Eq.  356,          795 

(IV) 


U64,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2/65-2725.] 
Ackerman  v.  Huff,  71  Tex.  317,  1551 

Ackerson  v.  Lodi  Branch  R.  Co.,  28  N.  J. 

Eq.  542,  674 

Achley's  Case,  4  Abb.  Pr.  R.  35,  1469 

Ackley  v.  KeUogg,  8  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  223, 

2237,2277 

Acres  v.  Moyne,  59  Tex.  623,  778 

Acton  v.  Blundell,  12  Mees.  &  W.  324,         1891 
Adair  County  v.  Ownby,  75  Mo.  282,  823 

Adamantine  Brick  Co.  v.  Woodruff,  4  Mc- 

Arthur  (D.  C.)  318,  369 

Adams  v.  Blankenstein,  2  Cal.  413,     2360,  2364 
Adams  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Nat.  Bank 

Reg.  (314)  99,  106 

Adams  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Minn. 

286,  901, 1629 

Adams  v.  Fort  Plain  Bank,  36  N.  Y.  255,      429 
Adams  v.  Goodrich,  55  Ga.  233,  266 

Adams  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  74  Mo.  553,    308 
Adams  v.  Haskell,  6  Cal.  475,  825 

Adams  v.  Haught,  14  Tex.  243,  2427 

Adams  v.  Iron  Cliffs  Co.,  78  Mich.  271, 

1742,2075,2717 

Adams  v.  Kehlor,  etc.,  Co.,  35  Fed.  R.  433,     855 
Adams  v.  Lamson,  etc.,  Co.,  59  Hun  (N.Y.) 

127,        .  873 

Adams  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  4 

C.  P.  739,  2592 

Adams  v.  Logan  Co.,  11  111.  336,  561 

Adams  v.  London,  etc.,  Blackwall  R.  Co., 

2  McN.  &  G.  118,  1537 

Adams  v.  London  and  Blackwall  R.  Co., 

18  L.  J.  Ch.  (N.  S.)  357,  1537 

Adams  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Ky. 

603,  2549 

Adams  v.  Mercantile  Trust  Co.,  66  Fed.  R. 

617,  763, 765 

Adams  v.  Newfane,  8  Vt.  271,  1557 

Adams  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  N.  Y. 

Supp.  681,  1769 

Adams  v.  O'Conner,  100  Mass.  515,  2254 

Adams  v.  San  Angelo,  etc.,  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),25S.  W.  R.  165,  1474,1475 

Adams  v.  Schlessinger,  75  Pa.  St.  246,        2445 


Ivi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-126%,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-316U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Adams  v.  Scott,  104  Mass.  164,  892,  2388 

Adams  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  10  N.  Y. 

328,  1494, 1559 

Adams  v.  St.  Johnsbury,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  57 

Vt.  240,  1452,  1487, 1538 

Adams  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  K.  Co.  (Mo.),  28 

S.  W.  R.  496,  1894 

Adams  v.  Walker,  34  Conn.  466,  1405 

Adams  v.  Woods,  8  Cal.  306,  823 

Adams  County  v.  Quincy  (111.),  6  L.  R.  A. 

155,  1102 

Adams,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jackson,  92  Tenn.  326,  2261 
Adams  Ex.  Co.  v.  Board,  etc.,  65  How.  Pr. 

72,  2651 

Adams  Ex.  Co.  v  Cressap,  6  Bush  572,  2377 
Adams  Ex.  Co.  v.  Harris,  120  Ind.  73, 

874,  2245,  2326,  2446 
Adams  Ex.  Co.  v.  Haynes,  42  111.  89, 

2201,  2324,  2345,  2:381 

Adams  Ex.  Co.  v.  Hoeing,  88  Ky.  373,  2337 
Adams  Ex.  Co.  v.  Nock,  2  Duv.  (Ky.)  562, 

2320,  2324,  2332 

Adams  Ex.  Co.v.  Reagan,  29  Ind.  21,  2321, 2342 
Adams  Ex.  Co.  v.  Stettaners,  61  111.  184, 

2319,  2322,  2324,  2347,  2381 

Adams  Ex.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  81  111.  339,  2227 
Adamson's  Case,  L.  R.  18  Eq.  Cas.  670,  202 
Adden  v.  White  Mts.  R.  Co.,  55  N.  H.  413, 

1429, 1438, 1442, 1443 

Addison  v.  Lewis,  75  Ya.  701,  651,  709, 1604 
Adler  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Wis.  57, 

212,  261,  751 
Adolph  v.  Central  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65 

N.  Y.  554,  1644 

Adolph  v.  Central  Park  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y. 

530,  1643,  1649 

Adriance  v.  Roome,  52  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  399, 

298,390 

Adriatic,  The,  16  Blatch.  (C.  C.)  424,  2205 

Adsit  v.  Lieb,  76  111.  561,  1091 

Aerkfetz  v.  Humphreys,  145  U.  S.  418, 

1971, 1997,  2005 

Aetna,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

3  Dill.  1,  1915 

Aetna  Ins.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  49  N.  Y.  616, 

2229,  2241,  2245 

Aetna  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mabbett,  18  Wis.  667,  328 
Aetna  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Middleport,  124  U.S. 

534,  1226 

Aetna  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Pleasant  Township, 

62  Fed.  R.  718,  1143 

Aetna  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Pleasant  Township, 

53  Fed  R.  214,  1143 

Aetna  Mills  v.  Waltham,  126  Mass.  422,  1494 
Aetna  Nat.  Bank  v.  Water  Power  Co.,  58 

Mo.  App.  532,  2202 


Africa  v.  Board,  etc.,  70  Fed.  R.  729, 

1616,  1618,  1626 
African,  etc.,  Church  v.  Conover,  27  N.  J. 

Eq.  157,  553 

Agar  v.  Regents'  Canal,  Cooper  Ch.  77,  515 
Agawam  Bank  v.  Strever,  18  N.  Y.  502,  2037 
Agawam  Nat.  Bank  v.  South  Hadley,  128 

Mass.  503,  1231, 1252 

Agnew  v.  Steamer  Costa  Rica,  27  Cal.  425, 

2267,  2399 
Agricultural  Ass'n  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  Co., 

70  Ala.  120,  30 

Agricultural  Bank  v.  Wilson,  24  Me.  273,  113 
Agricultural,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  V.Winchester, 

13  Allen  (Mass.)  29,  70,  71, 184, 1224 

Ahlbeck  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Minn. 

424,  2622, 2623 

Ahlhauser  v.  Butler,  50  Fed.  R.  705,  946 

Aigen  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132  Mass. 

423,  2238, 2243 

Aiken  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Iowa, 

363,  2181, 2183 

Aiken  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  130  Pa.  St. 

380,  1774 

Aiken  v.  Steamboat,  40  Mo.  257,  1608 

Aikin  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  289,       1300, 1305, 1310,  1313,  1314,  1315 
Aikin  v.  Frankford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142  Pa. 

St.  47,  2557,  2572 

Aikin  v.  Westcott,  123  N.  Y.  363,  2619 

Aikin  v.  Western  R.  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  370, 

7,  1382 

Akerman  v.  Humphrey,  1  Car  &  P.  2389,  2392 
Akers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Minn.),  60 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  30,  1970 

Akers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Minn.  540, 

1947,  1952 

Akers  v.  Veal,  66  Ga.  302,  822 

Alabama,  Ex  parte,  71  Ala.  363,  929 

Alabama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Robinson,  56  Fed.  R. 

690,  665, 669 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arnold,  84  Ala. 

159,  2014,  2025,  2479,  2590 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co',  v.  Bailey  (Ala.)  20  S. 

W.  R.  313,  2705 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bloom,  71  Miss. 

247,  1638 

Ala.  &  V.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Bolding,  69  Miss.  255,  5 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Brichetto,  72  Miss. 

891,  2271 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burkett,  42  Ala. 

83,  1424, 1426, 1550 

Alabama  Gold  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Central, 

etc.,  Assn.,  54  Ala.  73,  474 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carroll,  97  Ala. 

126,  2104,  2105,  2107,  2148 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ivii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-V&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-1715.] 


Alabama,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Chapman,  80  Ala. 

615,  1853 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chumley,  92  Ala. 

317,  890 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  69  Miss.  444, 

1792, 1799 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.Co.v.  Drummond  (Miss.) 

20  So.  R.  7,  2573 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eichofer,  100  Ala. 

224,  2302 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frazier,  93  Ala. 

45,  1963 

Alabama  Gt.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Gilbert, 

71  Ga.  591,  1347, 1389 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grabfelder,  83 

Ala.  200,  2377,  2700 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  (Ala.)  17  So. 

R.  176,  2012,  2058 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  71  Miss. 

74,  1990 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawk,  72  Ala.  112, 

2475,  2547,  2555 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hill,  90  Ala.  71, 

308,  2713 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  71  Ala.  487, 

1805, 1855 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kenney,  39  Ala. 

307,  1333, 1370,  1371,  1381, 1489 

Alabama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kidd,  29  Ala.  221, 

290,296 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kidd,  35  Ala.  209, 

2278,  2361 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Killian,  69  Ala. 


277, 


1877 


Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Little,  71  Ala. 

611,  2321 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe,  (Miss.)  19 

So.  R.  96,  1789 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  100  Ala. 

511,  1587 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McAfee,  71  Miss. 


70, 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McAlpine,  71  Ala. 


1990 


545 


1805,  1853,  1856,  1879, 1882 


Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moody,  90  Ala. 

46,  1853 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moody,  92  Ala. 


279, 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mt.  Vernon  Co., 


1854 


84  Ala.  173, 


2218,  2227,  2241,  2695 


Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newton,  94  Ala. 

443,  1506 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Odeneal,  (Miss.) 


19  So.  R.  202, 


1723, 1726 


Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  70  Miss. 
14, 


1744 


Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Powers,  73  Ala. 

244,  185T 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richie,  99  Ala. 

346,  2072 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roebuck,  76  Ala. 

277,  1872, 1877 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rowley,  9  Fla.  508, 

202,  210,  218 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searles,  71  Miss. 

744,  2247 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  85  Ala. 

208,  1852 

Alabama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

84  Ala.  570,  396,  478, 1684 

Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  South  &  N.  A.  R. 

Co.,  85  Ala.  570,  590 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sparks,  71  Miss. 

757,  2401, 2411 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Cof  v.  Stacy,  68  Miss. 

463,  2590 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Summers,  68 Miss. 

566,  1764 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  83  Ala. 

343,  2233 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  89  Ala. 

294,  2212,  2237,  2247,  2262,  2308,  2411 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. Waller,  48  Ala.  459,  2126 
Alabama,  etc  ,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  92  Ala. 

277,  1591, 1676 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yarbrough,  83 

Ala.  238,  2464,  2465 

Alair  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  53  Minn. 

160,  2337 

"Alaska,"  The.  130  U.  S.  201,  2135,  2142 

Albany,  City  of,  v.  Watervliet,  etc.,  Co., 

108  N.  Y.  14,  162* 

Albany   City    Bank    v.    Schermerhorn,  9 

Paige  (N.  Y.)  Ch.  373, 

Albany,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Canaan,  16  Barb.  244,  1058 
Albany,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Osborne,  12  Barb.  223,  1058 
Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brownell,  24  N.  Y. 

345,  92, 1378, 1379, 1659, 1663 

Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dayton,  10 Abb.  Pr. 


(N.  S.)  182, 


1435,1530 


Albany  Northern  R.  Co.  v.  Lansing,  16 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  68,  1445, 1463, 1511,  1524 

Albany  Street,  In  re,  11  Wend.   (N.  Y.) 

149,  1339, 1387 

Alberger  v.  Nat.  Bank,  123  Mo.  313,  850 

Albert  v.  Grosvenor  Investment  Co.,  L. 

R.  3  Q.  B.  123, 
Albert  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Hun 

152,  2006, 2040 

Albert  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  N.  Y. 

Supp.  1089, 

Albert  v.  State,  65  Ind.  413, 
Albert  v.  Sweet,  116  N.  Y.  363,  1709 


664 


Iviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  l-Utg,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S166-i7SB.] 


Albion,  Town  of,  v.  Hetrick,  90  Ind.  545,  1790 
Albion,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Martin,  1  Ch.  Div.  580,  373 
Albion  Lumber  Co.  v.  DeNobra,  72  Fed. 

B.  739,  2448 
Albrecht  v.  Foster  Lumber  Co.,  126  Ind. 

318,  1606 

Albrecht  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  87 

Wis.  105,  2149,  2150 

Albuquerque  Nat.  Bank  v.  Perea,  147  U. 

S.  87,  1070, 1071 

Alcorn  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  108  Mo.  81, 

2038 

Alden  v.  Carver,  13  Iowa  253,  2439,  2444 

Alden  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  44  N.  Y. 

478,  2466 

Alden  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  26  N.  Y. 

102,  2468, 2473 

Alden  v.  Pearson,  3  Gray  (Mass.)  342,  2346 
Alder  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Wis.  57,  164 
Alderman  v.  Eastern  E.  Co.,  115  Mass.  233, 

2215,  2216,  2219,  2221,  2360 

Alderson,  Ex  parte,  1  Madd.  39,  659 

Aldrich  v.  Anchor  Coal,  etc.,  Co.,  24  Ore. 

32,  270 

Aldrich  v.  Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  100  Mass. 

31,  2370 

Aldrich  v.  Cheshire  E.  Co.,  21  N.  H.  359, 

1358, 1406, 1453, 1454, 1539, 1564 
Aldrich  v.  Drury,  8  E.  I.  554,  61 

Aldrich  v.  Howard,  7  E.  1. 199,  1023 

Aldridge  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  15 

C.  B.  (N.  S.)  582,  1936,  2332,  2377 
Aldridge  v.  Tuscumbia,  etc.,   E.  Co.,  2 

Stew.  &  P.  (Ala.)  199,  1338, 1340, 1354, 1466 
Alexander's  Cotton,  2  Wall.  404,  2269 

Alexander  v.  Bennett,  60  N.  Y.  204,  982 

Alexander  v.  CauldweU,  83  N.  Y.  480,  324,  484 
Alexander  v.  Central  E.  Co.,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.) 

487,  669, 685 

Alexander  v.  Dennison,  2  McArthur  562,  1070 
Alexander  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  76  Mo. 

494,  1857 

Alexander  v.  Greene,  7  Hill,  533,  2175 

Alexander  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  83 

Ky.  589,  2026, 2037 

Alexander  v.  McDowell  County,  70  N.  Car. 

208,  1231 

Alexander  v.  Eelfe,  9  Mo.  App.  133,  793 

Alexander  v.  Eelfe,  74  Mo.  495,  141 

Alexander  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  112 

N.  Car.  720,  1769, 1779 

Alexander  v.  Searcy,  81  Ga.  536,  242,  677,  678 
Alexander  v.  Southey,  5  B.  &  Aid.  247,  2362 
Alexander  v.  Toronto,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  33  U. 

C.  Q.  B.  474,  2515,  2601 

Alexander  v.  West  End,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  31  L. 

J.  E.  (Ch.)  500,  1272 


Alexander  Ave.,  In  re,  17  N.  Y.  933,  1107 

Alexandria  Canal  Co.  v.  Swann,  5  How. 

(U.  S.)  83,  875 

Alexandria,  etc.,  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Alexandria, 

etc.,  Co.,  75  Va.  780, 

61, 1267, 1268, 1336, 1341, 1378, 1393, 1463 
Alexandria,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Herndon,  87 

Va.  193,  2479,  2589,  2590 

Alexandria, etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  McHugh  (Ind.), 

40  N.  E.  Eep.  80,  1603 

Alford  v.  Miller,  32  Conn.  543,  578 

Allan  v.  Gillette,  127  U.  S.  589,  726 

Allan  v.  State  Steamship  Co.,  132  N.  Y. 

91,  318, 2162 

Allard  v.  Lobau,  3  Martin  (La.)  N.  S.  293,    1490 
Alleghany,  City  of,v.  Millville,  etc.,  E.  Co., 

159  Pa.  St.  411,  1616, 1621, 1622 

Alleghany,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eehan,  118  Pa. 

St.  223,  2077 

Allegheny  County  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  E.  E. 

Co.,  51  Pa.  St.  228,  40,  936 

Allegheny,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Western,  etc.,  Co., 

138  Pa.  St.  375,  1108 

Allegheny  Nat.  Bank  v.  Bailey,  147  Pa.  St. 

Ill,  272 

Allemong  v.  Simmons,  124  Ind.  199, 

246,  353,  367 

Allen,  In  re,  19  Fed.  E.  809,  980 

Allen  v.  Am.  Bldg.,  etc.,  Ass'n,  49  Minn. 

544,  221 

Allen  v.  Archer,  49  Me.  346,  1197 

Allen  v.  Armstrong,  16  Iowa  508,  993 

Allen  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  54  Ga.  503,  2126 
Allen  v.  Bates,  1  Hilt.  (N.  Y.)  229,  2426 

Allen  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  57  Iowa, 

623,  1999 

Allen  v.  Cape  Fear,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  100  N. 

Car.  397,  2419 

Allen  v.  Central  E.  E.  Co.,  42  Iowa,  683, 

732,  785,  802,  804 

Allen  v.  Curtis,  26  Conn.  456,  397,  438 

Allen  v.  Dallas,  etc.,  E.,  Co.,  3  Woods 

(U.  S.),  316,  628,  683,  740,  744,  745,  747,  749, 

754, 1584 

Allen  v.  Dillingham,  60  Fed.  E.  176,  815 

Allen  v.  Drew,  44  Vt.  174,  1102 

Allen  v.  Fairbanks,  45  Fed.  E.  445,  130. 

Allen  v.  Gaillard,  1  S.  Car.  (Eich.  N.  S.) 

279,  138 

Allen  v.  Galveston,  51  Tex.  302,  1100, 1104, 1105 
Allen  v.  Gilby,  3  Dowl.  P.  C.  143,  2397 

Allen  v.  Goodwin,  92  Tenn.  385,  2079 

Allen  v.  Hanks,  136  U.  S.  300,  617 

Allen  v.  Harris,  4  Lea  190,  760 

Allen  v.  Hill,  16  Cal.  113,  226 

Allen  v.  Jackson,  122  111.  567,  726 

Allen  v.  Jones,  47  Ind.  438,  1336,  1346 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


lix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-M2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  MS-1S62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263- 


it,  Vol.  iv,  pp.  zws-ms.] 


Allen  v.  Logan  City,  10  Utah  279,  2034 

Allen  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  K.  6  Q.  B. 

65,  1991 

Allen  v.  Londonderry,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  25 

W.  R.  524,  123 

Allen  v.  Louisiana,  103  U.  S.  80, 

1158, 1232, 1242 

Allen  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Me.  327, 

2391,  2393 

Allen  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Me.  Ill,  1774 
Allen  v.  Montgomery,  etc.,  Co.,  11  Ala.  437, 

216,  218,  261,  639 
Allen  v.  New  Jersey  Southern  R.  R.  Co., 

49  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  14,  859 

Allen  v.  Pegram,  16  Iowa  163,  114 

Allen  v.  South  Boston  R.  R.  Co.,  150  Mass. 

200.  117, 118, 145,  322 

Allen  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.  C.  App.) 

27  S.  W.  R.  943,  1982 

Allen  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Utah  239,  2012 
Allen  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Mo.  646,  1538 
Allen  v.  Willard,  57  Pa.  St.  374,  •  1588 

Allen  v.  Williams,  12  Pick.  297,  2218,  2360 

Allen  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  N. 

C.  381,  1493, 1539 

Allender  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Iowa 

264,  2460 

Allentown  v.  Henry,  73  Pa.  St.  404,  1104 

Allentown  School  Dist.  v.  Derr,  115  Pa.  St. 

439,  636 

Allerton  v.  Allerton,  50  N.  Y.  670,  2149 

Allerton  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  146  Mass. 

241,  1784, 2481 

Allerton  v.  Lang,  10  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  362,  144 
Allibone  v.  Hager,  46  Pa.  St.  48,  140, 162 

Ailing  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126  Mass.  121, 

2611,  2613 

Ailing  v.  Ward  (111.),  24  N.E.R.  551,  864 
Ailing  v.  Ward,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas. 

133,  133 

Ailing  v.  Wenzel,  133  111.  264,  133,  865 

Ailing  v.  Wenzell,  27  111.  App.  511,  379 

Allis  v.  Jones,  45  Fed.  R.  148,  364.  511,  631 
Allison  v.  Coal  Co.,  87  Tenn.  60,  365 

Allison  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Bush 

(Ky.)  247,  1175. 1179 

Allison  v.  State,  42  Ind.  354,  1050 

Allison,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McCormick,  118  Pa.  St. 

519,  2008, 2009 

Allman  v.  Havana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  111.  521,  168 
All  Saint's  Church  v.  Lovett,  1  Hall  (N. 

Y.  Sup.  Ct.),191,  341 

Allyn  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Mass.  77, 

1771, 1772,  2720 

Allyn  v.  Willis,  65  Tex.  65,  2390 

Almy  v.  State,  24  How.  (U.  S.)  169,    1079,  2656 


Alsager  v.  St.  Katherine's  Dock  Co.,  14 

M.  &  W.  794,  2447 

Alsopv.  Southern,  etc.,  Co.,  104  N.  Car. 

278,  2261 

Alta,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Alta,  etc.,  Co.,  78Cal.  629, 

393,642 
Altee  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  21  S.  Car. 

550,  2004 

Altgelt  v.  City  of  San  Antonio,  81  Tex.  436,  1615 
Althorf  v.  Wolfe,  22  N.  Y.  355,  2060,  2151 

Alton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carpenter,  14  111.  190,  1424 
Alton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Deitz,  50  111.  210,  1564 
Alton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northcott,  15  111.  49,  1575 
Altoona,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tyrone,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  160  Pa.  St.  623,  1697 

Alvis  v.  Whitney,  43  Ind.  83,  1208 

Alvord  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  Bank,  98  N.Y.599,  1246 
Alward  v.  Holmes,  10  Abbott  (N.  C.)  96  543 
Amacker  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  58  Fed 

R.  850,  1131 

Amato  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Fed. 

R.  561,  2069 

Ambergate,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  4  Ex. 

R.  540,  203,  204 

Ambrose  v.  Raley,  58  111.  506,  1321 

Ambrose,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  14  Ch.  Div. 

390,  129 

American  Bank  v.  Adams,  12  Pick.  (Mass.) 

303,  330 

American  Bank  v.  Cooper,  54  Me.  438,  785 
American  Bank  Note  Co.  v.  N.Y.  El.  R.  R. 

Co.,  129  N.  Y.  252,  12, 1320 

American  Bank  Note  Co.  v.  New  York, 

etc.,  R.  Co.  50  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  292,      547 
American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Board,  etc.,  43  Fed. 

R.  609,  966 

American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Consolidation  Co., 

46  Md.  15,  913,  2430 

American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Minneapolis,  St. 

Paul,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Minn.  93,  298 

American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Norris,  43  Fed.  R. 

711,  335 

American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Oakley,  9  Paige  496, 

393 
American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sands,  55  Pa.  St. 

140,  2381 

American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Taylor  Manuf.  Co., 

46  Fed.  R.  152,  335,  336,  541 

American  Cont.  Co.  v.  Jacksonville,  etc., 

Ry.  Co.,  52  Fed.  R.  937, 
American,  etc.,  Christian  Union  v.  Yount, 

101  U.  S.  352,  H30 

American,  etc.,  Express  Co.  v.  Schier,  55 

111.  140,  ^l2-  2213 

American  Ex.  Co.  v.  Balwin,  26  111.  504,  2178 
American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Fletcher,  25  Ind.  492, 

2362,  2364,  2383 


Ix 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1^3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1265-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Greenhalgh,  80  111. 

68,  2375 

American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Lesem,  39  111.  312, 

2211,  2373,  2374 
American,  etc.,  Exp.  Co.  v.  Milk,  73  I1L 

224,  2359, 2364 

American  Express  Co.  v.  Patterson,  73 

Ind.  430,  2578 

American  Express  Co.  v.  People,  133  111. 

649,  2310 

American  Express  Co.  v.  Perkins,  42  111. 

458,  2209 

American  Ex.  Co.  v.  Second  Nat.  Bank,  69 

Pa.  St.  394,  2229,  2233 

American  Ex.  Co.  v.  Smith,  33  Ohio  St. 

511,  2248, 2266 

American  Ex.  Co.  v.  Stack,  29  Ind.  27, 

2359,2383 
American  Finance  Co.  v.  Bostwick,  151 

Mass.  19,  931 

American  Fur  Co.  v.  United  States,  2  Pet. 

(U.  S.)  358,'  246 

American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Canter,  1  Pet.  511,      2638 
American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Oakley,  9  Paige  (N. 

Y.)  496,  872 

American  Inv.  Co.  v.  Yost,  25  Abb.  N.  C. 

(N.  Y.)  274,  229 

American  Legion  of  Honor  v.  Perry,  140 

Mass.  580,  275 

American  Livestock  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

Exchange,  143  111.  210,  276 

American  Loan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  &  W.  E. 

Co.,  37  Fed.  R.  242,  46,  679 

American  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  etc., 

R.  Co.  (III.)  42  N.  E.  R.  153,      1292,  1348, 1350 
American  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  42  Fed.  R.  819,  629 

Am.  Loan  &  T.  Co.  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

29  Fed.  R.  416,     738,  739,  743,  744,  746,  747,  754 
American  Nat.  Bank  v.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  96 

Ga.  665,  2255 

American  Nat.  Bank  v.  Oriental  Mills,  17 

E.  I.  551,  145 

American  Pastoral  Co.,  Re,  62  L.  T.  R.  625,  123 
American  Print  Works  v.  Lawrence,  23  N. 

J.  L.  9  and  590,  1332 

American  R.  Frog  Co.  v.  Haven,  101  Mass. 

398,  141, 142, 229,  236 

American  Rapid  Tel.  Co.  v.  Connecticut 

Telephone  Co.,  49  Conn.  352,  532 

American  Rapid  Tel.  Co.  v.  Hess,  125  N.  Y. 

641,  971 

American,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Huntington,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  130  Ind.  98,  1530 

American,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  60  Fed. 

B.  503,  2129 


American  Salt  Co.  v.  Heidenheimer,  80 

Tex.  344,  272 

American  Steamship  Co.  v.  Bryan,  83  Pa. 

St.  446,  2621 

American  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pearce,  71  Md.  535,    1408 
American  T.  Co.  v.  Moore,  5  Mich.  368, 

2201,  2265,  2325,  2332 
American  Tube,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  etc., 

Co.,  51  Fed.  R.  826,  665,  669 

American  Tube  Works  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co., 

139  Mass.  5,  120,  124 

American  Water- Works  Co.  v.  Farmers, 

etc.,  Co.  (Col.),  25  L.  R.  A.  338,  38 

American  Wire  Nail  Co.  v.  Bayless,  91  Ky. 

94,  117, 147 

American  Wire  Nail  Co.  v.  Gedgo  (Ky.), 

29  S.  W.  R.  353,  429 

Ameriscoggin  Bridge  Co.  v.  Bragg,  11  N. 

H.  102,  1327 

Ames  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Fed.  R. 

881,  938, 939 

Ames  v.  First  Div.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

12  Minn.  412,  2694 

Ames  v.  Kansas,  111  U.  S.  449,    84,  926,  930,  942 
Ames  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  135  Ind. 

363,  2029 

Ames  v.  Lake  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

Minn.  241,  1465, 1467, 1473 

Ames  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  2 

Woods  (U.  S.)  206,  637 

Ames  v.  Palmer,  42  Me.  197,  2443 

Ames  v.  Trustees,  20  Beav.  332,  785 

Ames  v.  Union  Co.,  17  Ore.  600,  1500 

Ames  v.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  60  Fed.  R. 

674,  792 

Ames  v.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  62 Fed.  E.  7,      792 
Ames  v.  Union,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  60  Fed.  R. 

966,  773,  791 

Ames  v.  Union  Pac.  E.  Co.,  64  Fed.  E.  165, 

998, 1000, 1012,  2425,  2640,  2647,  2652 
Amherst  Bank  v.  Root,  2  Mete.  (Mass.) 

522,  327, 328 

Amies  v.  Stevens,  1  Stra.  128,  2268 

Ammant  v.  New  Alexandria,  etc.,  Co.,  13 

Serg.  &  R.  210,  107,  695 

Ammant  v.  President,  etc.,  13  Serg.  &  R. 

212,  105, 1114 

Ammenclale,  etc.,  Inst.  v.  Anderson,  71  Md. 

128,  1601 

Amesbury  v.  Bowditch,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Gray 

(Mass.)  596,  278 

Amos  v.  Temperley,  8  M.  &  W.  798,  2422 

Amoskeag  Bank  v.  Town  of  Ottawa,  105 

U.  S.  667,  1157 

Amoskeag,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Worcester,  60  N.  H. 

522,  1348 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixi 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216&,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-W5.] 


Amsden  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  44  Fed. 

R.  515,  936 

Amsinck  v.  Balderston,  41  Fed.  R.  641,  931 
Amy  v.  Dubuque,  98  U.  S.  470,  633 

Amy  v.  Manning,  38  Fed.  R.  536,  941 

Anbrush  v.  Town  of  Oakdale,  28  Minn.  61,  1427 
Anchor  Line  v.  Dater,  68  111.  ^69,  2238,  2246 
Ancona  v.  Becker,  14  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  73,  1059 

Ander  v.  Ely,  158  U.  S.  312,  643 

Anderson's  Case,  L.  R.  7  Ch.  Div.  75,  131 

Anderson  v.  Bennett,  16  Ore.  515, 

2030,  2077,  2078,  2079 
Anderson  v.    Birmingham,    etc.,   R.  Co. 

(Ala.),  19  So.  R.  661,  1876 

Anderson  T.  Bowers,  40  Fed.  R.  708,  933 

Anderson  v.  Caldwell,  91  Ind.  451,  1465 

Anderson  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  17  Ont. 

R.  747,  2633 

Anderson  v.  Cape  Fear,  etc..  Co.,  64  N. 

Car.  399,  1895 

Anderson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Wis. 

195,  1948, 1953, 1958, 1967 

Anderson  v.  Cincinnati  S.  R.  Co.,  86  Ky.  44,  693 
Anderson  v.  Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.,  12  Ind. 

App.  194,  2547 

Anderson  v.  Clark,  2  Bing.  20.  2215 

Anderson  v.  Des  Moinos,  etc.,  Co  (Iowa), 

66  N.  W.  R.  64,  2450 

Anderson  v.  Dunn,  C  Wheat.  204,  979 

Anderson  v.  Jett,  39  Ky.  375,  2664 

Anderson  v.  Longden,  1  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 

85,  294 

Anderson  v.  Middle  &  East  Tenn.  Central 

R .  Co. ,  91  Tenn.  44,    29, 72, 169, 173, 175, 179, 191 
Anderson  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  37 

Wis.  321,  2134 

Anderson  v.  Minneapolis  St.  R.  Co.,  42 

Minn.  490,  1647 

Anderson  Y.  New  Castle,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

12  Ind.  376,  153,  252 

Anderson  v.  North  Pac.  R.  Co.,  21  Ore.  281, 

2721 
Anderson  v.  Ogden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Utah 

396,  2091 

Anderson  v.  Pemberton,  89  Mo.  61,  1491, 1531 
Anderson  v.  Santa  Ana,  116  U.  S.  356, 

1087, 1171, 1178, 1234, 1255 

Anderson  v.  Stewart,  76  Wis.  43,  1835 

Anderson  v.  Turbevttle,  6  Coldw.  (Tenn.) 

150,  1339, 1465 

Anderson  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Iowa 

131,  2622,  2627,  2631 

Anderson  v.  Wasatch,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Utah 

518,  1936 

Anderson  v.  Y/mston,  31  Fed.  R.  528,  2079 

Anderson  County  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

52  Tex.  228,  1208, 1236  I 


Anderson  County  Comrs.  v.  Beal,  113  U. 

S.  227,  1235, 1236, 1247 

Anderson,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kernodle,  54  Ind. 

314,  1544, 1560 

Andes  v.  Ely,  158  U.  S.  312,          1222, 1231, 1237 
Andover,  The,  3  Blatchf.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  303, 

2426 
Andre  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Iowa  107, 

1833,1840 

Andrews  v.  Bacon,  38  Fed.  R.  777,  264 

Andrews  v.  Beane,  15  R.  I.  451.  1197 

Andrews  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99 

Ala.  436,  2072 

Andrews  v.  Capitol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Mackey 

137,  2557 

Andrews  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  86  Ga.  192,        1780 
Andrews  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Iowa 

677,  2567 

Andrews  v.  Dieterich,  14  Wend.  (N.Y.)  31,  2254 
Andrews  v.  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.), 

25  S.  W.  R.  1040,  2459 

Andrews  v.  Hart,  17  Wis.  297,  198 

Andrews  v.  National  Foundry  and  Pipe 

Works,  61  Fed.  R.  782,  101, 1616 

Andrews  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Conn.  293, 

1748, 1763 
Andrews  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Ind.  169, 

193,  203,  204,  209 

Andrews  v.  Pratt,  44  Cal.  309,  377 

Andrews  v.  Smith,  19  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  100,    767 
Andrews  v.  Worcester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159 

Mass.  64,  113, 116 

Andrews,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co., 

3  Interst.  Com.  R.  77,  2671 

Androscoggin,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Androscoggin 

R.  Co.,  52  Me.  417,  490 

Androscoggin,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bethel,  etc.,  Co., 

64  Me.  441,  1019 

Androscoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  17 

Me.  434,  35 

Androscoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  28 

Me.  434,  35 

Angel  v.  Hume,  17  Hun  (N.Y.)  374,     1191, 1203 
Angell  v.  Silsbury,  19  How.  Pr.  48,  107 

Angle  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  U.  S.  1,   2688 
Angle  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  Railroad,9  Iowa 

487,  2227 

Angle  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Iowa 

555,  412,  2361,  2381 

Anglin  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Fed.  R. 

553,  2029,  2031,  2033 

Anglo-Californian,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Mahoney, 

etc.,  Co.,  5  Sawy.  255,  342 

Annacker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Iowa, 

267,  1?61 

Annapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  60  Md. 


Ixii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  a^c  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  12GS-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165- 


Annapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gantt,  39  Md. 

115,  1909, 1937, 1939 

Annapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pumphrey,  72 

Md.82,  1732,1871 

Annapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ross,  68  Md. 

310,  1574 

Annas  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Wis. 

46,  2148,  2319,  2514,  2517,  2543,  2601 

Anness  v.  Providence,  13  R.  I.  17,  990 

Anniston,    etc.,  R.    Co.  v.    Jacksonville, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Ala.  297, 

1267, 1394, 1688, 1698, 1700 
Anniston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ledbetter,  92  Ala. 

326,  2377 

Ansell  v.  Waterhouse,  6  M.  &  S.  385,          2698 
Anspach  v.  Mahanoy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Phila. 

(Pa.),  491,  1282 

Anthony  v.  American  Glucose  Co.  (N.Y.), 

41  N.  E.  R.  23,  453 

Anthony   v.    County    Commrs.,  14  Pick. 

(Mass.)  189,  1533 

Anthony  v.  County  of  Jasper,  101  U.  S. 

693,  1217, 1225, 1235,  1238, 1239, 1242, 1250 

Anthony  v.  Household,  etc.,  Co.,  16  R.  I. 

571,  120 

Anthony  v.  Jasper  County,  4  Dill.  136, 

1222, 1250 

Anthony  v.  Leeret,  105  N.  Y.  591,  2030 

Anthony  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Fed. 

R.  724,  2473 

Anthony  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160 

Mass.  60,  1913 

Anthony  Salt  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 

4  Insterst.  Com.  R.  33,  2675 

Antonio  v.  Jones,  28  Tex.  19,  74 

Anvil  Mining  Co.  v.  Sherman,  74  Wis.  226,    29 
Appeal  of  Ashhurst,  60  Pa.  St.  290, 

245,  377,  378,  379,  713 

Appeal  of  Aultman,  98  Pa.  St.  505,         134,  270 
Appeal  of  Bachler,  90  Pa.  St.  207,  1332 

Appeal  of  Baker,  109  Pa.  St.  461,  231,  349 

Appeal  of  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Pa.),  10 

W.  N.  C.  530,  1694 

Appeal  of  Bell,  115  Pa.  St.  88,  154,  256 

Appeal  of  Biddle,  99  Pa.  St.  278,  421,  425 

Appeal  of  Black,  83  Mich.  513,  858 

Appeal  of  Borough  of  Verona,  108  Pa.  St. 

83,  1545 

Appeal  of  Borough  of   South    Waverly 

(Pa.),llAtl.  R.245,  1655 

Appeal  of  Bunn,  105  Pa.  St.  49,  260,  891 

Appeal  of  Butler,  73  Pa.  St.  448,  1335 

Appeal  of  Central  R.  Co.,  102  Pa.  St.  38,    1479 
Appeal  of  Cornwall,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  Pa. 

St.  232,  907, 1683, 1685, 1707, 1710 

Appeal  of  Cumberland  Valley  R.  Co.,  62 

Pa.  St.  218,  508,  2166 


Appeal  of  Cunningham,  108  Pa.  St.  546, 

127,  441 

Appeal  of  Damson,  119  Pa.  St.  287,  1272 

Appeal  of  Dean  &  Son,  98  Pa.  St.  101,  870 

Appeal  of  Durach,  62  Pa.  St.  491,  1060 

Appeal  of  Earp,  28  Pa.  St.  368,  418,  421,  422 
Appeal  of  Edgewood  R.  Company,  79  Pa. 

St.  257,  1270, 1332, 1337, 1353, 1366 

Appeal  of  Ervine,  16  Pa.  St.  256,  965 

Appeal  of  Fidelity  Insurance,  etc.,  Co., 

106  Pa.  St.  144,  720,  725 

Appeal  of  Getz,  65  Pa.  St.  1,  7 

Appeal  of  Getz,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  186, 

1270, 1355 

Appeal  of  Go  wen,  10  Week.  N.  Cas.  85,  232 
Appeal  of  Hammond,  123  Pa.  St.  503,  381 

Appeal  of  Hartman  Steel  Co.,  (Pa.)  18 

Atl.  Rep.  553,  1350 

Appeal  of  Hodge,  84  Pa.  St.  359,  706 

Appeal  of  Houghton,  42  Cal.  35,  1552 

Appeal  of  Huckenstine,  70  Pa.  St.  102,  904 
Appeal  of  Huston,  18  Atl.  R.  419,  720,  724 

Appeal  of  Ihmsen,  43  Pa.  St.  431,  138 

Appeal  of  Kemble  (Pa.),  901 

Appeal  of  Kisterbock,  127  Pa.  St.  601, 

115,  117, 149 

Appeal  of  Lawrence,  78  Pa.  St.  365,  1450 

Appeal  of  Limerick  &  C.  Turnp.  Co.,  80 

Pa.  St.  425,  1405 

Appeal  of  Mack  (Pa.)  7  Atl.  R.  481,  175 

Appeal  of  McAboy,  107  Pa.  St.  548,  1271 

Appeal  of  McCandless,  70  Pa.  St.  210,  1353 
Appeal  of  McCarty,  110  Pa.  St.  379,  795 

Appeal  of  McCurdy,  65  Pa.  St.  290,  640,  642 
Appeal  of  McElhenny,  61  Pa.  St.  188,  17,  375 
Appeal  of  Mean,  85  Pa.  St.  75,  264,  269,  795 
Appealof  Miller,  1  Pennypacker  (Pa.  Sup. 

Ct.)  120,  254 

Appeal  of  Moosic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Pa.),  13 

Atl.  R.  915,  1694 

Appeal  of  Morgan,  39  Mich.  675,  1446, 1527 
Appeal  of  Moss,  83  Pa.  St.  344,  422,  425,  440 
Appeal  of  Mount  Holley  Paper  Co.,  99  Pa. 

St.  513,  149 

Appeal  of  Neal,  129  Pa.  St.  64,  85& 

Appeal  of  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Conn. 

532,  975,  1397 

Appeal  of  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Conn. 

527,  987 

Appeal  of  North  Beach,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Cal. 

499,  8, 1110 

Appeal  of  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  80  Pa.  St. 

265,  367 

Appeal  of  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  86  Pa. 

St.  80,  144 

Appeal  of  Pennyslvania  R.  Co.,  93  Pa.  St. 

150,  108,  1347, 1374, 1376, 1392 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol. 

Appeal  of  Pennsylvania  Transp.  Co.,  101 

Pa.  St.  576,  449,  703,  714,  724 

Appeal  of  Penna.  K.  Company,  104  Pa. 

St.  399,  1368 

Appeal  of  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  116  Pa.  St. 

55,  1693 

Appeal  of  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120 

Pa.  St.  90,  1380 

Appeal  of  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.,  102  Pa. 

St.  123,  99, 103, 1381 

Appeal  of  Philadelphia  &  Reading  Co., 

(Pa.)  4  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Gas.  118,  621 

Appeal  of  Pitts.  Junction  R.  Co.,  122  Pa. 

St.  511,  1374, 1380 

Appeal  of  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Atl.  R. 

385,  471, 687 

Appeal  of  Power,  29  Mich.  504,  1385, 1467 

Appeal  of  Reed,  122  Pa.  St.  565,  511,  706 

Appeal  of  Reed,  34  Pa.  St.  207,  321 

Appeal  of  Rice,  79  Pa.  St.  168,  375,  706 

Appeal  of  Roberts,  85  Pa.  St.  84,  143, 144 

Appeal  of  Sewickley,  etc.,  Church,  165  Pa. 

St.  475,  1105 

Appeal  of  Sharon  R.  Co.,  122  Pa.  St.  533, 

108,  1374,  1380,  1392, 1688 

Appeal  of  Slocum,  12  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  84,     1270 
Appeal  of  Smith,  69  Pa.  St.  474,  555 

Appeal  of  Spering,  71  Pa.  St.  11,      338,  373,  382 
Appeal  of  Steiner,  27  Pa.  St.  313,  107, 108 

Appeal  of  Stewart,  56  Pa.  St.  413, 

2, 104,  569,  637, 1115 
Appeal  of  Stewart,  etc.,  Co.,  72  Pa.  St. 

291,  106 

Appeal  of  Swift,  111  Pa\  St.  516,  1272 

Appeal  of  Thomson,  89  Pa.  St.  36,  424 

Appeal  of  Town  of  Westbrook,  57  Conn. 

95,  599, 974 

Appeal  of  Township  of  North  Manheim 

(Pa.)  ,14  Atl.  R.  137,  902 

Appeal  of  Township  of  North  Manheim 

(Pa.),22W.  N.  C.  149,  1668 

Appeal  of  Vinton,  99  Pa.  St.  434,  421 

Appeal  of  Waddell,  84  Pa.  St.  90,       1337, 1360 
Appeal  of  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  Pa. 

St.  399,  78,  86,  87,  1287 

Appeal  of  Wiltbank,  64  Pa.  St.  256,  440 

Appeal  Tax  Court  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

50  Md.  274,  594 

Appel  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  Y. 

550,  2029, 2048 

Appellant,  Hunt,  141  Mass.  515,  138 

Appleby  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Minn. 

169,  2488 

Applegate  v.  Ernst,  3  Bush  648,  1057, 1069 

Appleyard's  Case,  49  L.  J.  Ch.  290,  166 

Application     for     Widening     Rofflgnac 

Street,  4  Rob.  (La.)  357,  1533 


Hi,  pp.  nes-neu,  Vol.  iv,  pp.  zi 

Application  of  Mayor,  etc.,  of  New  York, 

Matter  of,  99  N.  Y.  569,  1341 

Application  of  Syracuse,  etc.,  Co.,  Matter 

of,  91  N.  Y.  1,  34! 

Application  of  Village  of  Middletown,  82 

N.  Y.  196,  1479 

Arapahoe  Co.  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4 

Dill.  (TT.  S.  C.  C.)  277,  933 

Arapahoe,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stevens,  13  Colo.  534, 

167, 276,  310,  326,  393 
Arapahoe  Investment  Co.  v.  Platt  (Colo.), 

39  Pac.  R.  584,  21 
Arasmith  v.  Temple,  11  111.  App.  39,              305 
Arbenz  v. Wheeling  &  H.  R.  Co.,  33  W.Va.  1,  990 
Arbuckle  v.  Illinois  Midland  R.  Co.,  81 

HI-  429,  469, 15%,  1600, 1602 

Arbuckle  v.  Thompson,  37  Pa.  St.  170,  2694 
Arcade  File  Works  v.  Juteau,  (Ind.  App.) 

40  N.  E.  R.  818,  2065 
Arcata  v.  Arcata,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  92  Cal. 

639,  73 

Archer  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

111.  493,  445,  448,  572 

Archibald  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 

Miss.  424,  885 

Ardesco  Oil  Co.  v.  North  American,  etc., 

Co.,  66  Pa.  St.  375,  853 

Arend  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.,  64  Barb.  118, 

2205,2301 
Arents  v.  Commonwealth,  18  Gratt.  (Va.) 

750,  626,  635, 1221 

Arenz  v.  Weir,  89  111.  25,  269 

Argenti  v.  City  of  San  Francisco,  16  Cal. 

255,  503, 509 

Argus  Co.  v.  Mayor,  55  N.  Y.  495,  364 

Argus  Printing  Co.,  Re,  1  N.  Dak.  434,  227,«338 
Argus  Printing  Co.,  Re,  12  L.  R.  A.  781,  224 
Arimond  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Wis. 

316,  1399, 1404 

Arkansas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  McKay,  30  Ark. 

682,  1602 

Arkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Canman,  52  Ark. 

517,  1829,  2472,  2552,  2599 

Arkansas,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Co., 

13  Colo.  587,  130,  241 

Arkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  53  Ark. 

275,  2429 

Armant  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

La.  Ann.  1020,  426,  429 

Armentrout  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Mo.  App.  158,  2168 

Armington  v.  Barnet,  15  Vt.  745,  1372, 1380 
Armistead  Lumber  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  (Miss.)  11  So.  R.  472,  2357 

Armiston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jacksonville, etc., 

R.  Co.,  82  Ala.  297,  1374 

Armour  v.  Hahn,  111  U.  S.  313,  2055 


Ixiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  643-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Armour  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  65  N. 

Y.  Ill,  415,  2204 

Armour  v.  Ryan,  61  111.  App.  314,  2705 

Armroyd  v.  Union  Ins.  Co.,  3  Binn.  (Pa.) 

437,  2428 

Arms  v.  Conant,  36  Vt.  744,  359,  362,  640 

Armstrong  v.  Ackley,  71  Iowa  76,  1797 

Armstrong  v.  Beadle,  5  Sawyer  484,  2134 

Armstrong  v.    Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  53 

Minn.  183,  2331,  2340 

Armstrong  v.  Forg,  162  Mass.  544,  2024 

Armstrong  v.  Galveston.etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  29  S.  W.  R.  1117,  2320 

Armstrong  v.  Karshner,  47  Ohio  St.  276, 

171,  178,  180, 185,  186 

Armstrong  v.  Medbury,  67  Mich.  250,  1950 
Armsworth  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  11 

Juris.  758,  2144 

Arnison  v.  Smith,  59  D.  T.  R.  627,  191 

Arnold  v.  Bright,  41  Mich.  207,  774 

Arnold  v.  Covington,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.,  1 

Duv.  (Ky.)  372,  1354,  1421, 1548 

Arnold  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Ga. 

304,  2431 

Arnold  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  55  N.  Y. 

661,  49  Barb.  108,  1399, 1400 

Arnold  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  111.  273, 

284,  2516,  2554,  2697 

Arnold  v.  Jones,  26  Tex.  335,  2209 

Arnold  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  115  Pa.  St. 

135,  2457,  2497,  2575 

Arnold  v.  Potter,  22  Iowa  194,  2312 

Arnold  v.  Prout,  51  N.  H.  587,  2215,  2695 

Arnold  v.  Weimer,  40  Neb.  216,  784 

Arnot  v.  Erie  Ry.  Co.,  67  N.  Y.  315,  620 

Arrington  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95 

Ala.  434,  64,  65,  1270 

Arrowsmith  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Fed.  R.  165,       604,  605,  611,  933,  934,  938,  2456 
Arthur  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Iowa 

648,  2356 

Arthur  v.  Commercial  &  R.  Bank,  9  S.  & 

M.  (Miss.)  394,  701,  853 

Arthur  v.  Griswold,  55  N.  Y.  400,  387 

Arthur  v.  Oakes,  63  Fed.  R.  310,  792,  909,  911 
Arthur  v.  School  District,  164  Pa.  St.  410,  1069 
Arthur  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Minn. 

95,  2353,  2358,  2377 

Arthur  v.  The  Cassins,  2  Story  (U.  S.  C. 

C.)  81,  2421 

Artizan's  Bank  v.  Treadwell,  34  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  553,  784 

Artman  v.  Kansas  Cent.  R.  Co.,  22  Kan. 

296,  1734 

Artz  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Iowa  284, 

1760, 1761 


Artz  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Iowa  153, 

1762, 1790 
Ascher  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  U. 

C.  Q.  B.  609,  2393 

Ash  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Md.  144,  2134 
Ash  v.  Cummings,  50  N.  H.  591, 

1273, 1341,  1342,  1353 

Ash  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  Pa. 

St.  133,  1777 

Ashbrook  v.  Frederick,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Mo. 

App.  290,  2180,  2555 

Ashbury  v.  Watson,  L.  R.  30  Ch.  Div.  376,  118 
Ashbury,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Riche,  L.  R.  7  H.  L. 

653,  502,  507,  513,  514,  522,  579 

Ashby  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  5  Met.  (Mass.) 

368,  1492 

Asher  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Railroad  Co.,  87 

Ky.  391,  1415, 1424 

Asher  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mo.  432,  1847 
Asher  v.  Sutton,  31  Kan.  286,  391,  394 

Asher  v.  Texas,  128  U.  S.  129,  1078,  2653 

Ashenbroedel  Club  v.  Finlay,  53  Mo.  App. 

256,  504 

Asheville  Division,  etc.,  v.  Aston,  92  N.  C. 

578,  538,  565,  795 

Asheville  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  City  of  Asheville, 

109  N.  Car.  688,  904, 1618 

Ashhurst's  Appeal,  60  Pa.  St.  290,  245, 377 
Ashland  St.  R.  Co.v.  Ashland,  78  Wis.  271,  1623 
Ashley  v.  Board,  60  Fed.  R.  55,  1162 

Ashley  v.  Hart,  147  Mass.  573,  2117,  2120 

Ashley  v.  Ryan,  153  U.  S.  436,  445, 1080, 1085 
Ashley  v.  Ryan,  49  Ohio  504,  463 

Ashley  v.  Supervisors,  60  Fed.  R.  55,  447 

Ashman  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.Co.,  90  Mich.  567,  2044 
Ashmore  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  Co.,  28  N. 

J.  L.  180,  2212 

Ashpitel  v.  Sercombe,  5  Ex.  147,  20 

Ashtabula,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  15 

Ohio  St.  328,        157,  167, 170, 171, 182, 183,  527 
A.shton  v.  Atlantic  Bank,  3  Allen  (85  Mass.) 

217,  139 

Ashton  v.  Burbank,  2  Dill.  (U.  S.)  435,  70,  216 
Ashton  v.  Corrigan,  L.  R.  13  Eq.  76,  659 

Ashuelot,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marsh,  1  Cush.  507,  393 
Ashuelot  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  57  N.  H.  397, 

634,  684,  715 

Ashuelot  Shoe  Co.  v.  Hoit,  56  N.  H.  548,  154 
Ashurst  v.  Lehman,  86  Ala.  370,  774 

Ask  v.  Cummings,  50  N.  H.  591,  1423 

Aspinwall  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Wis. 

374,  1487 

Aspinwall  v.  Commissioners,  22  How.  364, 

1145, 1146,  1147, 1159, 1196, 1232 
Aspinwall  v.  Daviess  County,  22  How.  364, 

1138 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixv 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1,1,3-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2J65-2725.] 


Aspinwall  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  20  Ind. 


492, 


24,  32,  36,  236,  342,  443 


Associated,  etc.,  Grocers  v.  Missouri  .Pac. 
R.  Co.,  1  Interstate  Com.  R.  156,      2501,  2687 


Assop  v.  Yates,  2  H.  &  N.  768, 
Aston  v.  Heaven,  2  Esp.  533, 


2005,2035 
2467 


Aston,  Township  of,  v.  McClure,  102  Pa. 

St.  323,  1669 

Astor  v.  Hoyt,  5  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  603,  1488 

Astor  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  New  York,  62  N.  Y. 

580,  1472 

Astor  v.  New  York  Railroad  Co.,  48  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  562,  23 

Astor  v.  New  York  Arcade  R.  Co.,  113  N. 

Y.  93,  73 

Astor  v.  Turner,  2  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  444,  746 

Astor  v.  Wells,  4  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  466,  321 

Astoria,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  HiU,  20  Ore.  177, 

169 
Atcherson  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Abb.  Pr. 

(N.  S.)  329,  1594 

Atchison  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Mo. 

367,  1929, 1931 

1153 


Atchison  v.  Butcher,  3  Kan.  104, 
Atchison  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Mo. 


213, 


2339,  2695 


Atchison  v.  Schroeder,  47  Kan.  315,  2059 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alsdurf,  47  111. 


App.  200, 


1998,2029 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ayers  (Kan.),  42 
Pac.  R.  722,  1944 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bailey,  11  Neb. 
332,  1974 

Atchison,  etc.,  Railway  Co.  v.  Baty,  6 Neb. 
37,  963 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bales,  16  Kan.  252, 

1909,  1910,  1940, 1941 

Atchison,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Betts,  10  Colo.  431, 

1803, 1872 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blackshire,  10 


Kan.  477, 


1424,  1431,  1436,  1444 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Comrs., 


51  Kan.  617, 


239,447 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boerner,  34  Neb. 


240, 


1500,1632 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Booth,  53  111.  App. 

303,  1769,  1782 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brassfield,  51  Kan. 

167,  2111 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brewer,  20  Kan. 


669, 


2275,  2623 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  2  Kan. 

App.  604,  2573 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan  (Tex.  C. 


App.),  28  S.  W.  R.  98,, 

CORP. — v 


2234,  2346,  2700 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Calvert,  52  Kan. 

547,  1983 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cameron,  66  Fed. 


R.  709, 


2495 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carruthers(Kan.), 
43  Pac.  R.  230,  2017 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cash,  27  Kan.  587,  1847 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cochran,  43  Kan. 
225,  142,  266,  348 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commissioners, 


17  Kan.  29, 


1172 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davidson,  52  Kan. 

739,  1633 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  34  Kan. 

199,  1582 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dennis,  38  Kan. 

424,  1905 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  110  U.  S.  667, 

533,  914,  958,  978,  1009,  2169,  2175,  2234, 

2236,  2432,  2638,  2640,  2670,  2674,  2684 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dill,  48  Kan.  210, 

2263,  2320,  2325,  2327,  2341 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ditmars,  (Kan. 


App.)  43  Pac.  R.  833, 


2339,  2402,  2700 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dwinelle,  44  Kan. 

394,  2574 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elder,  149  111.  173, 

1829 

1745 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Feelan,  47  111. 

App.  66, 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fletcher,  35  Kan. 


236, 


32,  33, 142,  242,  348,  446 


Atchison,  etc.,R.  Co.  v.  Flinn,24  Kan. 627, 

1973,2560 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gabbert,  34  Kan. 

] •>_,  looUj  locW 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gants,  38  Kan. 

608,  2453,  2487,  2573 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Garside,  10  Kan. 


552, 


1629,1633 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gibson,  42  Kan. 

34, 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gough,  29  Kan. 


1937 


94, 


1430, 1436, 1439, 1725 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grant,  6  Tex.  C. 

App.  674,  2243 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Griffis,  28  Kan. 

539,  1833 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hague,  54  Kan. 


284, 


1678,  1744 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hammer,  22  Kan. 

763,  1566 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harper,  19  Kan. 

529,  18» 


1XV1 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  mS-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Headland,  18  Colo. 

477,  2456,  2465,  2555 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holt,  29  Kan.  149, 

1832,2051 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes,  55  Kan. 

491,  2152 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Huitt,  (Kan. 

App.)  41  Pac.  R.  1049,  1928 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Huitt,  (Kan. 

App.)  41  Pac.  R.  1051,  1946 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jefferson  Co.,  12 

Kan.  127,  1212 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  3  Okl. 

41,  2461, 2562 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  20  Kan.  527, 

1859 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koehler,  37  Kan. 

463,  2115 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lawler,  40  Neb. 

356,  2317 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lenz,  35  111.  App. 

330,  493 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Leuning,  52  Kan. 

732,  1634 

Atchison,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Lindley,  42  Kan. 

714,  2060,  2517,  2561 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Long  (Kan.),  27 

Pac.  R.  182,  914 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Loree,  4  Neb.  446,  2723 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Lujan,  6  Colo.  338,  1879 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lyon,  24  Kan.  745, 

1429, 1490 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCandliss,  33 

Kan.  366,  2558 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McClurg,  59  Fed. 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parsons,  42  I1L 

App.  93,  1958 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patch,  28  Kan. 

470,  1369,  1481, 1535 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  People,  5  Colo. 

60,  87, 926 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  25  Kan. 

261,  449,  456,  1224 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Plunkett,  25  Kan. 

188,  2037, 2054 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pratt,  53  111.  App. 

263,  1419, 1449 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reecher,  24  Kan. 

228,  •  316 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reesman,  60  Fed.     • 

370,  1830,  2002,  2019,  2021,  2071 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Riggs,  31  Kan. 

622,  1888, 1889 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roach,  35  Kan. 

740,  2626 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schneider,  127  IU. 

144,  1525 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.    Schroeder,  47 

Kan.  315,  2040 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Seeley,  54  Kan.  21,  2033 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shaft,  33  Kan. 

521,  1832, 1834, 1838, 1841 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shaw  (Kan.),  43 

Pac.  R.  1129,  1774 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shean,  18  Colo. 

368,  2481, 2550 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stanford,  12  Kan. 

354,  1901, 1909,  1910, 1930, 1942 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Temple,  47  Kan.  7, 

2340,  2341,  2344 


R  £60  1747     Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.Thul,  29  Kan.  466,  2713 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mecklim,  23  Kan.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Todd,  54  Kan.  551, 

167,  1266,  1275 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  16  Neb. 


661, 


286,  2424,  2431 


Atchison  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co., 


1785, 1966 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Townsend,  39 


Kan.  115, 


1777, 1781 


31  Kan.  660, 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walz,  40  Kan.  433,  1756 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v,  Moore,  29  Kan. 


1611, 1614  |   Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wagner,  33  Kan. 


632, 


2078,  2135 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  31  Kan. 

197,  2079 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morgan,  31  Kan. 


77, 


1745, 1746, 1857,  2066 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mulligan,  67  Fed. 

R.  569,  2088 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Napole,  55  Kan. 

401,  2007 

Atchison  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Nave,  38  Kan.  744, 


660, 


2009,2012 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Washburn,  5  Neb. 

117,  2261, 2399 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weaver,  10  Kan. 

344,  1560 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weber,  33  Kan. 

543,  1787,  2480,  2574,  2575,  2576,  2584 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  48  Fed. 

R.  57,  2151 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winston  (Kan.), 

43  Pac.  R.  777,  2007 


99, 1617  j   Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Worley  (Tex.  Civ. 


Atchison,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Parker,  55  Fed.  R. 
595, 


308 


App.)  25  S.  W.  R.  478, 


883 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.Yates,  21  Kan.613,  1816 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-2725.] 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Zeiler,  54  Kan. 

340,  2162 

Athenaeum  Sos.,  In  re,  4  K.  &  J.  549,  631 

Athenaeum,  etc.,  Society,  Re,  3  DeG.  &  J. 

660,  267 

Athenaeum,  etc.,  Ins.  Soc.  v.  Pooley,  3 

DeG.  &  J.  294,  631 

Athol,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Inhabitants  of  Pres- 

cott,  110  Mass.  213,  216, 217 

Athol  Music  Hall  Co.  v.  Carey,  116  Mass. 

471,  155 

Atkins  v.  Albree,  94  Mass.  359,  425 

Atkins  v.  Petersburg  Railroad  Co.,  3 

Hughes  307,  708 

Atkins  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Fed.  R. 

161,  246,  767,  770,  781,  828,  885 

Atkinson  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Mo. 

367,  1929 

Atkinson  v.  Bemis,  11  N.  H.  44,  22 

Atkinson  v.  Goodrich  Transportation  Co., 

60  Wis.  141,  2468 

Atkinson  v.  Marietta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Ohio 

St.  21,  56, 100,  104, 106,  637,  701,  717 

1285, 1349, 1350, 1499 
Atkinson  v.  Newcastle,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  2 

Exch.  Div.  441,  2135 

Atkinson  v.  Pocock,  1  Exch.  796,  198 

Atkinson  v.  Ritchie,  10  East  530,  2272 

Atkinson  v.  Walton,  162  Pa.  St.  219,  663 

Atkinson,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  etc.,  51 

Kan.  617,  240 

Atlanta  v.  Gate  City,  etc.,  Co.,  71  Ga.  106,  23 
Atlanta  v.  Grant,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Ga.  340,  696 
Atlanta,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Atlanta,  66  Ga. 

101,  1068 

Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Re,  2  Interst.  Com. 

R.  461,  2685 

Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Condor,  75  Ga.  51,  2583 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dickerson,  89  Ga. 

455,  2545, 2547 

Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gravitt,  93  Ga.  369, 

1968, 1982, 1983, 1986,  2136,  2137 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hodnett,  36  Ga. 

669,  190, 196 

Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hudson,  62  Ga. 

679,  1815, 1881 

Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kimberly,  87  Ga. 

161,  1589, 1591, 1592, 1593 

Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mangham  &  Prick- 

ett,  49  Ga.  266,  1575, 1577 

Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  94  Ga.  107,  2024 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas  G.  Co.,  81 

Ga.  602,  497,  2227,  2304 

Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  48  Ga.  565,  1669 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wyly,  65  Ga.  120, 

1745, 1755, 1756 


Atlanta  Ry.  Co.  v.  Tanner,  68  Ga.  384,  2135 
Atlanta  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  93  Ga.  462,  1642 
Atlantic  De  Laine  Co.  v.  Mason,  5  R.  I. 

463,  213, 238 

Atlantic  Dock  Co.  v.  Leavitt,  50  Barb.  135,  559 
Atlantic  Dynamite  Co.v.  Andrews,97  Mich. 

466,  215 

Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burt,  49  Ga.  606,  1807 
Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnston,  70  N.  C.  348, 

340,341 
Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lesueur,  1  L.  R.  A. 

244,  2  Inter.  Com.  R.  189,  1068 

Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Union  Pacific,  etc., 

Co.,  1  Fed.  R.  745,  104,  503 

Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Vigilanci*,  73  Fed.  R. 

452,  295 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  15  Fla.  637, 

702, 1064, 1068 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  4  Ohio 

St.  583,  1521 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.Co.v.Cumberland  County 

Comrs.,  51  Me.  36,  1476 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fuller,  48  Ga.  423,  1539 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Georgia,  98  U.  S. 

359,  457 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Hudson,  62  Ga.  679,  1881 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koblentz,  21  Ohio 

St.  334,  1457 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lesueur  (Ariz.), 

19  Pac.  Rep.  157,  37  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas. 

368,  558 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Laird,  58  Fed.  R. 

760,  2171, 2699 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Mingus  (N.  Mex.),  1130 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ray,  70  Ga.  674,  612 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reisner,  18  Kan. 

458,  815 

Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sanders,  36  N.  H.  252, 

359,361 

Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Speer,  32  Ga.  550,  1299 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  66  Mo. 

228,  30,  84,  349,  350,  563, 1271, 1282, 1284,  1611 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivant,  5  Ohio 

St.  276,  13*9. 1«3 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tex.,  etc.,  Co.,  81 

Ga.  602,  2699 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yavapai  County  v 

(Ariz.).  21  Pac.  R.  768,  6 

Atlantic,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Barnes,  64  N.  Y. 

385,  329 

Atlantic,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,GBiss.l58,  906,1408,1424 

Atlantic,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.v.  Commonwealth, 

3  Brewst.  (Pa.)  366,  **2 

Atlantic,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Union  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  1  McCrary  (U.  S.)  541,  529 


Ixviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JUS-1262,  VoL  III,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Atlantic  Express  Co.  v.  Wilmington,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  C.  463,  982,  983,  991, 1004 

Atlantic  Trust  Co.  v.  Consolidated,  etc., 

Co.,  49  N.  J.  Eq.  402, 11  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J. 

223,  23  Atl.  E.  934,  741 

Atlantic  Trust  Co.  v.  Town  of  Darlington, 

63  Fed.  E.  76,  1142, 1178, 1226 

Atlas  Bank  v.  Brownell,  9  R.  I.  168,  329 

Atlas  Nat.  Bank  v.  Gardner,  etc.,  Co.,  8 

Biss.  537,  340 

Attaway  v.  Third  Nat.  Bank,  93  Mo.  485,  374 
Attleborough  Bank  v.  Rogers,  125  Mass. 

339,  503 

Attorney-General,  In  re,  2N.Y.  Supp.  684,  73 
Attorney-General  v.  Albion,  etc.,  Inst.,  52 

Wis.  469,  925 

Attorney-General  v.  Bank  of  Columbia,  1 

Paige  511,  743,  781 

Attorney-General  v.  Bank  of  Niagara, 

Hopk.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  354,  734 

Attorney-General  y.  Birmingham,  etc., 

Co.,  4  DeGex  &  S.  490,  515 

Attorney-General  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  2  Eng.  R.  &  Canal  Cas.  124,  2684 

Attorney-General  v.  Birmingham  R.  Co., 

8  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  243,  82 

Attorney-General  v.  Boston,  123  Mass. 

460,  925 

Attorney-General  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

160  Mass.  62,  2487,  2501 

Attorney-General  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Rail- 
road Co.,  ai  Wis.  425,  515,  617,  902,  2430 
Attorney-General  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

112  111.  520,  1638 

Attorney-General  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

112  111.  611,  8 

Attorney-General  v.  Corp.  of  Leicester, 

7  Beav.  176,  326 

Attorney-General  v.  Coventry,  1  P.  Wms. 

306,  785 

Attorney-General  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  631,  515,  617,  902 

Attorney-General  v.  Eastern  Counties  R. 

Co.,  3  Eng.  Ry.  &  Canal  Cas.  337,  515 

Attorney-General  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  137 

Mass.  45,  1289 

Attorney-General  v.  Ely,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  4  Ch.  App.  194,  1393 

Attorney-General  v.  Erie,  etc.,  By.  Co.,  55 

Mich.  15,  75 

Attorney-General  v.  Foote,  11  Wis.  14,  927 
Attorney-General  v.  Forbes,  3  Mylne  &  C. 

123,  515, 617 

Attorney-General  v.  Germantown,  etc., 

Road,  55  Pa.  St.  466,  997 

Attorney-General  v.  Great  Eastern,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  L.  R.  11  Ch.  D.  449,  540 


Attorney-General  v.  Great  Northern  R. 

Co.,  4  De  Gex  &  S.  75,  515,  617,  902 

Attorney-General  v.  Great  Northern  R. 

Co,,  1  Dr.  &  S.  154,  512 

Attorney-General  v.  Great  Northern,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  6  Jurist  N.  S.  1006,  540 

Attorney-General  v.  Guardian,  etc.,  Co., 

77  N.  Y.  272,  264,  786 

Attorney-General  v.  Hamilton,  47  Ohio  St. 

52,  48 

Attorney-General  v.  Hanchett,  42  Mich. 

436,  27 

Attorney-General  v.  Hunter,  1  Dev.  Eq. 

(N.  Car.)  12,  903 

Attorney-General  v.  Johnson,  Wilson's 

Ch.  pt.  2,  87,  515,  617 

Attorney-General  v.  Justices,  etc.,  103 

Mass.  456,  965 

Attorney-General  v.  Leaf,  9  Humph. 

(Tenn.)  753,  87 

Attorney-General  v.  Lombard,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

10  Phila.  (Pa.)  352,  1638 

Attorney-General  v.  Lorman,  59  Mich.  157,  26 
Attorney-General  v.  Metropolitan  E.  Co., 

125  Mass.  515,  902, 1635 

Attorney-General  v.  Middleton,  2  Ves.  Sen. 

327,  280 

Attorney-General  v.  Mid.  Kent.  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  3  Ch.  App.  Cas.  100,  515,  617 

Attorney-General  v.  Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

19  N.  J.  Eq.  386,  1393 

Attorney-General  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  160 

Mass.  62,  976 

Attorney-General  v.  Petersburg  R.  Co.,  6 

Ired.  (N.  C.)  456,  76 

Attorney-General  v.  Railroad  Cos.,  35  Wis. 

425,  30 

Attorney-General  v.  Ruggles,  59  Mich.  123,  1133 
Attorney-General  v.  Sheffield,  etc.,  Co.,  3 

De  Gex  M.  &  G.  304,  515 

Attorney-General  v.  Shepard,62  N.  H.  383,  232 
Attorney-General  v.  Stevens,  1  N.  J.  Eq. 

369,  86, 1377 

Attorney-General  v.  Sullivan,  163  Mass. 

446,  926 

Attorney-General  v.  Tomline,  12  L.  R.  Ch. 

Div.  214,  1399 

Attorney-General  v.Utica  Ins.Co.,  2  Johns. 

Ch.  371,  86,  734,  760 

Attorney-General  v.  West  Wisconsin  R. 

Co.,  36  Wis.  466,  1284 

Atwater  v.  American,  etc.,  Bank,  152  111. 

605,  852 

Atwater  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  N. 

J.  L.  55,  2486 

Atwell  v.  Miller,  11  Md.  348,  2210 

Atwood  v.  Merryweather,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  464,  2J9 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixix 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2W,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-Z725.] 


Atwood  v.  Rhode  Island,  etc.,  Bank,  1  R. 

1. 376,         >  264 

Atwood  v.  Shenandoah  Valley  R.  R.  Co., 

85  Va.  966,  37,  38,  629,  631 

Auburn  v.  Paul,  84  Me.  212,  1102 

Auburn  Bolt  &  Nut  Works  v.  Shultz,  143 

Pa.  St.  256,  156 

Auburn,  etc.,  Ass'n  v.  Hill,  (Cal.)  45  Pac. 

R.  695,  154 

Auburn,  etc.,  Ass'n  v.  Hill,  (Cal.)  32  Pac. 

Rep.  587,  155, 170 

Audenried  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

68  Pa.  St.  370,  2433 

Auditor  v.  Crise,  20  Ark.  540,  1502 

Auerback  v.  LeSueur  Mill  Co.,  28  Minn. 

291,  487 

Auerbach  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  89  N.  Y.  281,  2485,  2493,  2497 

Aufdenberg  v.  St.  Louis, etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mo.) 

34  S.  W.  R.  485,  2551,  2595 

Augerstein  v.  Jones,  139  Pa.  St.  183,  2706 

Augier  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  74 

Ga.  634,  44 

Augusta  v.  Hafers,  61  Ga.  48,  1797 

Augusta  Bank  v.  Augusta,  49  Me.  507, 

627, 1140 

Augusta  R.  Co.  v.  Andrews,  89  Ga.  653,      1959 
Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Glover,  92  Ga.  132, 

2136,  2137 
Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kittel,  52  Fed.  R. 

63,  480,  483,  488,  509,  1569 

Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Renz,  55  Ga.  126, 

1035, 1796,  2557 
Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wrightsville,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  74  Fed.  Rep.  522,  2660,  2680 

Auld  v.  Butcher,  2  Kan.  135,  1458 

Aultman's  Appeal,  98  Pa.  St.  505,          134,  270 
Aurora  v.  West,  9  Ind.  74,  1144, 1331 

Aurora  v.  West,  22  Ind.  88,  1153, 1221 

Aurora  City  v.  West,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  82,      634 
Aurora  v.  HiUman,  90  111.  61,  1797 

Aurora  &  C.  R.  Co.  v.  City  of   Lawrence- 
burg,  56  Ind.  80,  29,  1350 
Aurora,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  56  Ind.  88,    1349 
Aurora,  etc.,  Society  v.  Paddock,  80  111. 

263,  510, 564 

Austin's  Case,  24  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  932,        221,  222 
Austin  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  164  Mass. 

282,  1999 

Austin  v.  Cambridgeport  Parish,  21  Pick. 

(Mass.)  215,  1310 

Austin  v.  Daniels,  4  Denio  299,  382 

Austin  v.  Gagan,  36  Fed.  R.  626,  945, 1016 

Austin  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  2  Q.  B.  442,  2462 

Austin  v.  Manchester;  etc.,  R.  Co.  10  C.  B. 

454,  2543 


Austin  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Q 

B.  600,  2407 

Austin  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Vt.  215, 

1295,  1485 

Austin  v.  Talk,  20  Tex.  164,  2205 

Austin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beatty,  73  Tex.  592,  2593 
Austin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Daniels,  62  Tex.  70,  1605 
Austin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McElmurray,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)25S.  W.  R.  324,  1747 

Austin  Rapid   Transit  Co.   v.   Groethe, 

(Texas  Civ.  App.)  31  S.  W.  R.  197,  968 

Averill  v.  Barber,  6  N.  Y.  Supp.  255,  375 

Averill  v.  Tucker,  2  Cranch  C.  C.  (U.  S.) 

544,  892 

Avery  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  N.  Y. 

142,  1315 

Avery  v.  Stewart,  2  Conn.  69,  2375 

Avey  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Tex.  243,  1981 
Avinger  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  29  S. 

Car.  265,  2167,  2284,  2286,  2667,  2721 

Aycock  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  N.  C. 

321,  612 

Aycrigg's  Exec.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

30  N.  J.  L.  460,  2720 

Ayer  v.  Norwich,  39  Conn.  376,  1988 

Ayers,  In  re,  123  U.  S.  443,  1010, 1133 

Ayers  v.  Western  Railroad  Corp.,  14 

Blatchf.  9,  2242 

Ayles  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  3 

Exch.  146,  2717 

Aylesworth  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

Iowa  459,  1819 

Ayre's  Case,  25  Beav.  513,  199 

Ayres  v.  Chicago,  101  U.  S.  184,  933 

Ayres  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Iowa  478, 

1570 
Ayres  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Wis.  372, 

2178,  2293,  2294,  2295, 2399,  2409,  2415,  2670,  2693 
Ayres  v.  Siebel,  82  Iowa  347,  46 

Ayres  v.  Watson,  113  U.  S.  594,  948 

Ayres  v.  Wiswall,  112  U.  S.  187,  938,  947 

Ayr  Harbor,  etc.,  v.  Glasgow  R.  Co.,  4  R. 

&  Canal  Traf.  Cas.  81,  2647 

Ayres,  People,  ex  rel.,  v.  Richards,  33 

Mich.  214,  1477, 1479 


B 


Babcock  v.  Bonnell,  80  N.  Y.  244,  2389 

Babcock  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Iowa 

593,  1937 

Babcock  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa 

197,  1934 

Babcock  v.  Fitchbjirg  R.  Co.,  10  N.  Y. 

Supp.  774,  1946 

Babcock  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  140  N.  Y. 

308,  2704, 2721 


Ixx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-JU2,  Vol.  II, pp.  M3-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-e725.[ 


Babcock  v.  Helena,  34  Ark.  499,  1170 

Babcock  v.  Lake,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  49  N.Y.  491,  2212 
Babcock  v.  Old  Colony  Kailroad  Co.,  150 

Mass.  467,  2000,  2081 

Babcock  v.  People's  Bank,  118  Ind.  212,  416 
Babcock  v.  Western,  etc.,  Corp.,  9  Mete. 

(Mass.)  553,  560 

Bacharach  v.  Chester  Freight  Line,  133 

Pa.  St.  414,  2442,  2443,  2694 

Bacheler  v.  New  Hampton,  60  N.  H.  207,  1535 
Bachler's  Appeal,  90  Pa.  St.  207,  1332 

Backenstoe  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  86 

Mo.  492,  1875 

Backhaus  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  (Wis.) 

66  N.  W.  R.  400,  2277,  2278 

Backhouse  v.  Sneed,  1  Murph.  (N.  Car.) 

173,  2268 

Backus  v.  Lebanon,  11  N.  H.  19,  1336,  1372 
Bacon  v.  Home,  123  Pa.  St.  452,  772 

Bacon  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Miss. 

116,  390 

Bacon  v.  Rives,  106  TJ.  S.  99,  933 

Bacon  v.  Robertson,  6  Wall.  (U.  S.)  277,  868 
Bacot,  Ex  parte,  36  S.  Car.  125,  7, 1364 

Baddely  v.  Earl  GranviUe,  L.  R.  19  Q.  B. 

D.  423,  2113 

Badger  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  103  Mass. 

244,      .  290 

Badger  v.  United  States,  93  U.  S.  599,  985 
Bagaley  v.  Pittsburgh  &  L.  S.  Iron  Co., 

146  Pa.  St.  478,  372 

Bagby  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Pa.  St. 

291,  771,  772,  798 

Bagg  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  N. 

Car.  279,  2236,  2651,  2653 

Baggett  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  App. 

Cas.  (D.  C.)  522,  2487 

Bagley  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed. 

R.  159,  2720 

Baglor  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  W.Va. 

270,  1854 

Bagnall  v.  Carlton,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  Div.  371,  16,  17 
Bags  of  Linseed,  1  Black  (U.  S.)  108,  2446 
Bagshaw  v.  Eastern  E.  Co.,  7  Hare  114, 

240,  507,  508,  512,  643,  911 

Bahr  v.  Lombard,  53  N.  J.  Law  233,  2050,  2064 
Bailey  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Dill.  22,  1061 
Bailey  v.  Bancker,  3  Hill  (N.  Y.)  188,  259 

Bailey  v.  Birkenhead,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  12  Beav. 

433,  205, 478 

Bailey  v.  County  of  Buchanan,  115  N.  Y. 

297,  632 

Bailey  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  1  Dill. 

(U.  S.)  174,  121, 122, 123 

Bailey  v.  Hollister,  26  N.  Y.  112,  95,  350 

Bailey  v.  Hudson  River  Railroad,  49  N. 

Y.  70,  2214,  2222,  2385 


Bailey  v.  Macaulay,  13  Q.  B.  815,  19 

Bailey  v.  Mosher,  11  C.  C.  A.  304,  386 

Bailey  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107 

Mass.  496,  1753, 1763, 1764 

Bailey  v.  New  Orleans,  19  La.  Ann.  271,     1538 
Bailey  v.  Quint,  22  Vt.  474,  2446 

Bailey  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Harr.  (Del.)  389,  963,  1465 

Bailey  v.  Railroad  Co.,  22  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

604,  228,  229,  419,  439 

Bailey  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1  Dill.  (U.  S.)  174, 

120 
Bailey  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  N.  Y.  302, 

2013 

Bailey  v.  Snyder,  13  Sergt.  &  R.  160,  562 

Bailey  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Vt.  252, 

1587, 1589 

Bailey  v.  Valley,  etc.,  Bank,  127  111.  332,      873 
Bailey  v.  Woburn,  126  Mass.  416,  1453 

Baily  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Cent.  L.  J. 

502,  1071 

Bain  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  105  N.  Car. 

363,  1074 

Bainbridge  v.  Smith,  L.  E.  41  Ch.  Div.  462, 

338 
Baird  v.  Bank  of  Washington,  11  S.  &  E. 

411,  341 

Baird  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  19  So.  E. 

661,  1876 

Baird  v.  Petit,  70  Pa.  St.  477,       305,  2056,  2058 
Baird  v.  Shipman,  132  111.  16,  308 

Baird  v.  St.  Louis,  I.  M.  &  S.  R.  Co.,  7  E. 

R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  516,  2206 

Baird  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Fed.  R. 

592,  1083 

Baird  v.  Underwood,  74  111.  176,  842 

Bajus  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  N.  Y. 

312,  2065 

Baker's  Case,  L.  R.  Chan.  115,  161 

Baker's  Appeal,  109  Pa.  St.  461,  231,  349 

Baker  v.  Backus,  32  111.  79, 

84,  731,  735,  774,  781,  864 

Baker  v.  Bolton,  1  Camp.  493,  2126 

Baker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  57  Mo.  265, 

1309,  1310, 1325, 1327, 1328 
Baker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  (Iowa),  63 

N.  W.  E.  667,  1957,  2072 

Baker  v.  Cooper,  57  Me.  388,  794 

Baker  v.  Cotter,  45  Me.  236,  394 

Baker  v.  Flint,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  68  Mich.  90, 

1745, 1785, 1978 

Baker  v.  Gee,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.)  333,  1277 

Baker  v.  Guarantee,  etc.,  Co.  (N.  J.),  31 

Atl.  E.  174,  631,  650 

Baker  v.  Harpster,  42  Kan.  511,  396,  856 

Baker  v.  Marshall,  15  Minn.  177,  147 

Baker  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  E  Co.,  42  111.  73,  2696 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Lxxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-UZ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Baker  v.  Missouri  K.  R.  Co.,  34  Mo.  App. 

98,  2233 

Baker  v.  Long  Island  B.  Co.,  1  How.  (N. 

Y.)  Fr.  214,  1560 

Baker  v.  Louisiana,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  34  La. 

Ann.  754,  853 

Baker  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  10  Lea 

(Tenn.)  304,  2398,  2415 

Baker  v.  Neff,  73  Ind.  68,  273 

Baker  v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.,  36  Minn. 

185,  504 

Baker  v.  Pendergast,  32  Ohio  St.  494, 

1025, 1745 

Baker  v.  Railroad  Co.,  10  Lea  312,  2178 

Baker  v.  Tibbetts,  162  Mass.  468,  294 

Baker  v.  Wasson,  53  Tex.  150,  891 

Baker  v.  Woolston,  27  Kan.  185,       113,  124,  127 
Bald  Eagle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nittany  Val.  R. 

Co.  (Pa.  St.),  1315,1316 

Balderston  v.  Manso,  2  Cranch   (C.  C.) 

623,  2399 

Baldwin  v.  American  Ex.  Co.,  23  111.  197, 

2178,  2358 

Baldwin  v.  Bangor,  36  Me.  518,  478 

Baldwin  v.  Canfield,  26  Minn.  43, 

114,  145,  241,  336,  360 
Baldwin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Iowa 

680,  2014, 2016 

Baldwin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Bush 

(Ky.)  382,  1539 

Baldwin  v.  Hosmer,  101  Mich.  432,  770 

Baldwin  v.  Kouns,  81  Ala.  272,  1045 

Baldwin  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  S.  Co.,  74  N.  Y. 

125,  2207,  2421,  2428 

Baldwin  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,   R.    Co.,  5 

Iowa  518,  35 

Baldwin  v. Western  R.  Co.,  4  Gray  (Mass.) 

333,  2703 

Baldwin  and  Snowden  Road,  3  Grant's 

(Pa.)  Cas.  62,  1531 

Balfour  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Miss. 

508,  1425 

Ball,  The  Daniel,  10  Wall  557,  2637,  2661 

Ball  v.  Liney,  48  N.  Y.  34,  2362 

Ball  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co.,  1  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  491,  2619 

Ball  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mo.  574, 

497,  2329,  2340 
Ballard  v.  Ballard  Vale  Co.,5  Gray  (Mass.) 

468,  1487 

Ballard  v.  Hitchcock,  etc.,  Co.,  71  Hun 

582,  2086,2088 

Ballard  v.Louisville,  etc.,  N.  R.  Co.(Ky.), 

5  S.  W.  R.  484,  1303 

Ballard  v.  Thomas,  19  Gratt.  14,  1192 

Ballentine  v.  North  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

40  Mo.  491,  2264, 2265, 2286, 2304, 2401, 2409,V2415 


III,  pp.  1263-ZlGlf,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Ballin  v.  Ferst,  55  Ga.  546,  750 

Ballou  v.  Earle,  17  R.  I.  441,  2337,  2339 

Ballou  v.  Farnum,  9  Allen  (Mass.)  47,         804 
Ballou  v.  Hale,  47  N  .  H.  347,  1296 

Balsey  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119  111. 

68,  570,  603, 1921 

Baltimore  v.  Calumet,  23  Md.  449,  1339 

Baltimore  v.  Greenmount  Cemetery,  7  Md. 

517,  1331 

Baltimore  v.  Scharf,  54  Md.  499,  1641 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lamborn,  12  Md. 

257,  1803 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mayor  of  Balti- 
more, 64  Fed.  R.  153,  1618 
Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McClellan,  59  Ind. 

440,  1808 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.'s  Appeal  (Pa.),  W. 

N.  C.  530,  1694 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams  Ex.  Co., 

22  Fed.  R.  32,  2255 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Algire,  65  Md. 

337,  1328, 1560 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Algire,  63  Md. 

319,  1324, 1325, 1540 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  22  Fed.  R. 

376,  46 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Andrews,  50  Fed. 

R.  728,  2011,  2077 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bahrs,  28  Md. 

647,  2027, 2063 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baltzell,  75  Md. 

94,  1483 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barger,  80  Md. 

23,  2580 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baugh,  149  U.  S. 

368,  2007,  2010,  2049,  2056,  2076,  2079,  2638 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blocher,  27  Md. 

277,  284,  2573,  2580 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boteler,  38  Md. 

568,  1959 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boyd,  63  Md. 

325,  1560 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brady,  32  Md. 

333,  2201,  2267,  2322,  2324,  2327,  2346 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Breinig,  25  Md. 

378,  1984 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camp,  65  Fed. 

R.  952,  2018,  2085,  2089 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  36 

Ohio  St.  647,  2227,  2322,  2482,  2626,  2632 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Cannon,  72 

Md.  493, 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Canton  Co.,  70 


Md.  405, 


1532 


Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cary,  28  Ohio 
St.  208,  '       36,44,935,936 


Ixxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chambers (Md.), 

32  Atl.  R.  201,  2479 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chase,  43  Md. 

23,  1403 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Christie,  5  W.  Va. 

325,  309 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Colvin,  118  Pa. 

St.  230,  1784,  2111 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Compton,  2  Gill 

20,  957, 1453 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Ex.  Co.  v.  Cooper,  66 

Miss.  558,  2341 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  County  of  Jef- 
ferson, 29  Fed.  R.  305,  1 147 
Baltimore  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dist,  of  Co- 
lumbia, 3  McArthur  122,  57 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dorsey,  37  Md. 

19,  1937 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Faunce,  6  Gill 

(Md.)  68,  2431 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fifth  Baptist 

Church,  108  U.  S.  317,        1036, 1459, 1564, 1629 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Fifth  Baptist 

Church,  137  U.  S.  568,  29 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitzpatrick,  35 

Md.  32,  1780 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ford,  35  Fed.  R. 

170,  948 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gallahue,  12 

Gratt.  (Va.)  655,  36,  872,  887,  889 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Glenn,  28  Md. 

287,  32,  33,  38,  849 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Golway,  23 

Wash.  L.  Rep.  308,  1756 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Green,  25  Md.  72, 

2352 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Griffith,  159  U. 

S.  603,  1771 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hambleton,  77 

Md.  341,  224 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  12  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  65,  36,  37, 1347 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henthorne,  73 

Fed.  R.  634,  2025 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Humphrey,  59 

Md.  390,  2362 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  33  Alb. 

L.  J.  239,  330 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  84  Ind. 

420,  1548, 1550, 1551 

Baltimore,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  59  Ind. 

247,  1521 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kane,  69  Md.  11, 

2548,  2595,  2716 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kean,  65  Md.  394, 

1792 


Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keedy,  75  Md. 

320,  2305 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koontz,  104  U. 

S.  5,  44,  936,  946 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Laffertys,  14 

Gratt.  478,  1573 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lansing,  52  Ind. 

229,  1436, 1440, 1719 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Leapley,  65  Md. 

571,  2548 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  75  Md.  596,      898 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  39  La.  Ann.  659,  1468 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mackey,  157  U. 

S.  72,  2014,  2029,  2151,  2153 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Magruder,  34 

Md.  79,  1357, 1400,  1454,  1456 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mali,  66  Md.  53, 

1623, 1649 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marshall  Co.,  3 

W.  Va.  319,  83 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  May,  25  Ohio  St. 

347,  895 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCutchen,  13 

Pa.  St.  13,  543 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDonnell,  43 

Md.  534,  1025, 1645, 1647, 1978,  2574 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLaughlin,  73 

Fed.  R.  519,  2331 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKenzie,  81  Va. 

71,  2718 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morehead,  5  W. 

Va.  293,  2700 

Baltimore,  etc.,Co.v.  Morgan's  Louisiana, 

etc.,  Co.,  37  La.  Ann.  883,  1501 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mulligan,  45  Md. 

486,  1850,  1863 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Musselman,  2 

Grant's  Cas.  348,  467,  468 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Myers,  62  Fed. 

R.  367,  2556 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neal,  65  Md.  438, 

2025 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nesbit,  10  How. 

(U.  S.)  395,  1508,  1554 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  Albany, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Ind.  597,  946 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Noell,  32  Gratt. 

{Va.)  394,  33,  36,  2472 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  North,  103 

Ind.  486,  61,  907, 1372, 1374,  1376,  1479 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northern,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  15  Md.  193,  1557 

Baltimore,  etc.,'  R.  Co.  v.  O'Donnell,  49 

Ohio  St.  489,  2305 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Owings,  65  Md. 

502,  1737,  1749, 1750 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-126V,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2 


Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Paul  (Ind.),  40 

N.  E.  K.  519,  602,  610 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  55  Fed.  E.  701,  493 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  17  W.  Va.  812, 

1268,  1269, 1333, 1335, 1338, 1341, 1343, 1347, 1374, 

1377, 1384,  1385, 1394, 1435, 1472, 1476, 1478, 1479, 
1480,  1481, 1496, 1511, 1553, 1556 
Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Polly,  14  Gratt. 

(Va.)  447,  1573, 1576 

Baltimore  &  D.  B.  Co.  v.  Pumphrey,  74 

Md.  86,  1141, 1207 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Pumphrey,  59 

Md.  390,  2696,  2697 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eagsdale  (Ind. 

App.),42N.  E.  B.  1106.  2234,2264,2338 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eartbone,  1  W. 

Va.  87,  2213 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eeaney,  42  Md. 

117,  1370, 1456, 1564 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eose,65  Md.  485, 

1964 
Baltimore,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Eowan,  104  Ind. 

88,  2003 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Schultz,  43  Ohio 

St.  270,  1817, 1882 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schumacher,  29 

Md.  173,  2227 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Schwindling, 

101  Pa.  St.  258,  50, 1966, 1973 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Sherman,  30 

Gratt.  (Va.)  602,         873,  1644, 1741,  1952,  2144 
Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Shipley,  39  Md. 

251,  1909,  1911, 1912,  1939, 1945 

Baltimore  E.  Co.  v.  Smith,  23  Md.  402, 

2608,2626,2630 
Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Spring,  80  Md. 

510,  1217 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  33  Md. 

542,  2036, 2057 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  54  Md. 

648,  2027, 2063 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  81  Md. 

371,  2137 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  75  Md. 

526,  2004 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  72  Md. 

36,  2560 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  60  Md. 

449,  2458,  2469,  2550 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  63  Md. 

135,  2550 

Baltimore,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  State,  45  Md. 

5%,  47 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  79  Md. 

335,  1798 


Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  B.  Co.  v.  State,  36  Md. 

519,  162 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  29  Md. 

252,  1737,  1738, 1748, 1757,  2144 

Baltimore,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  State,  62  Md. 

479.  1741, 1947, 1952, 1967 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stoner,  59  Ind. 

247,  1521 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Strauss,  37  Md. 

237,  1651 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Strieker,  51  Md. 

47,  2004,  2048,  2059,  2723 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Swann,  81  Md. 

400,  2596 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Talmage,  (Ind. 

App.)  43  N.  E.  E.  -,  1775 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Then,  159  111. 

135,  2142, 2153 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  60  lud. 

117,  1858, 1985 

Baltimore,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  10 

Md.  76,  1483, 1488, 1489, 1522, 1543 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Union  E.  Co.,  35 

Md.  224,      541,  1267, 1270, 1271, 1333, 13S2, 1654 
Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Walhorn,  127 

Ind.  142,  1739, 1770 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Walker,  45  Ohio 

St.  577,  1686, 1705, 1706, 1711, 1712, 1713 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wheeling,  13 

Gratt.  (Va.)  40,  911 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  18  Md. 

372,  890 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Whitacre,  35 

Ohio  St.  627,  1678 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.    Wightman,  29 

Gratt.  (Va.)  431,  33,  36,  936,  2151,  2599 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkens,  44  Md. 

11,       414,  2198,  2199,  2200,  2200,  2203,  2204, 

2214,  2218,  2244 
Baltimore,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  31  Ohio 

St.  55,  2700 

Baltimore  &  S.  E.  Co.  v.  Woodruff,  4  Md. 

242,  1898, 1943 

Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wonnan  (Ind. 

App.),  40  N.  E.  E.  751,  934 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Brown, 

54  Pa.  St.  77,  412,  2212,  2225,  2226, 289* 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Morgan's  Lou- 
isiana, etc.,  E.  Co.,  37  La.  Ann.  883,        1381 
Baltimore,  etc.,  Trans.  Co.  v.  Un.  R.  Co., 

35Md.224,  1395 

Baltimore,  etc.,  Turnp.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  81  Md.  247,  1372 

Baltzen  v.  Nicolay,  53  N.  Y.  467,  133 

Baltzer  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  U.  S. 

634,  1583, 1600 

Baltzer  v.  State,  104  N.  Car.  265,  1010 


Ixxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-126S2,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  3165-2725.] 


Bamberg  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  9  S. 

Car.  61,  2399,  2400,  2421 

Bancroft  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Allen 

34,  2131 

Bancroft  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Mass. 

275,  1948,  2131,  2550 

Bancroft  v.  Merchant's,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Iowa 

262,  2245, 2247 

Bancroft  v.  Peters,  4  Mich.  619,  2209 

Bancroft  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  Academy,  5 

Houst.  (Del.)  577,  290 

Banet  v.  Alton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  111.  504, 

71,  204,  346 

Bangor  v.  Smith,  83  Me.  422,  951,  994 

Bangor,  etc.,  Co.,  Re,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  59,         123 

Bangor,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McComb,  60  Me. 

290,     1425, 1429,  1435, 1436, 1437,  1438, 1441, 

1443, 1444, 1457 

Bangor  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  47  Me.  34, 

93,  322,  538,  559,  672,  1656 

Bangs  v.  Mclntosh,  23  Barb.  591,  107,  735 
Banigan  v.  Bard,  134  U.  S.  291,  120 

Bank  v.  Butchers',  etc.,  Bank,  107  Mo. 

133,  212 

Bank  v.  Cooper,  24  Am.  Dec.  537,  1336 

Bank  v.  Durfee,  118  Mo.  431,  149 

Bank  v.  Flour  Co.,  41  Ohio  St.  552,  360 

Bank  v.  Hart,  37  Neb.  197,  348 

Bank  v.  Lanier,  11  Wall.  (U.  S.)  369,  146, 149 
Bank  v.  Monteath,  17  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  171,  324 
Bank  v.  Patterson,  7  Cranch  299,  324 

Bank  v.  Wickersham,  99  Cal.  655,  128 

Bank  Comrs.  v.  Bank  of  Brest,  1  Harr. 

Ch.  (Mich.)  106,  351 

Bank,  etc.,  v.  Dallam,  4  Dana  (Ky.)  574, 

257,  261 

Bank,  etc.,  v.  Ibbotson,  5  Hill  (N.Y.)  461,  267 
Bankard  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Md. 

197,  2320,  2404 

Bankhead  v.  Brown,  25  Iowa  540,  1337,  11539 
Bankier  v.  Wilson,  5  L.  Can.  R.  203,  2619 

Bank  of  America  v.  McNeil,  10  Bush  (Ky.) 

54,  144,  151 

Bank  of  Attica  v.  Manufacturers',  etc., 

Bank,  20  N.  Y.  501,  149 

Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

519,  24,  32,  33,  34,  37,  363,  1085 

Bank  of  Batavia  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

106  N.  Y.  195,  395,  415,  2199,  2200,  2204 

Bank  of  Chattanooga  v.  Bank  of  Memphis, 

9  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  408,  484,  489,  518 

Bank  of  Chillicothe  v.  Swayne,  5  Ohio  257,  507 
Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Patterson,  7  Cranch 

299,  290 

Bank  of  Commerce  v.  Bissell,  72  N.  Y.  615, 

2217 


Bank  of  Commerce  v.  New  York  City,  2 

Black  620,  1073 

Bank  of  Commerce  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  10  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  1,  880 

Bank  of  Florence  v.  U.  S.,  etc.,  Co.  (Ala.),    743 
Bank  of  Fort  Madison  v.  Alden,  129  U.  S. 

372,  131 

Bank  of  Gallipolis  v.  Trimble,  6  B.  Mon. 

(Ky.)  599,  94 

Bank  of  Genesee  v.  Patchin  Bank,  19  N. 

Y.  312,  486 

Bank  of  Healdsburg  v.  Bailhache,  65  Cal. 

327,  353, 394 

Bank  of  Holly  Springs  v.  Pinson,  58  Miss. 

421,  148, 149,  275,  278 

Bank  of  Jamaica  v.  Jefferson,  92  Tenn. 

537,  873, 875 

Bank  of  Kentucky  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  93 

U.  S.  174,  2156,  2178,  2239,  2259,  2261,  2655 

Bank  of  Little  Rock  v.  McCarthy,  55  Ark. 

473,  360 

Bank  of  Louisiana  v.  Wilson,  19  La.  Ann, 

1,  867 

Bank  of  Louisville  v.  Gray,  84  Ky.  565,        427 
Bank  of  Lewisburg  v.  Sheffey,  140  U.  S. 

445,  s.  c.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  755,  689 

Bank  of  Lyons  v.  Demmon,  Hill  &  D. 

Supp.  (N.  Y.)  398,  295 

Bank  of  Maryland  v.  Ruff,  7  GUI  &  J.  448, 

362 
Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  Edgerton,  30  Vt. 

182,  2, 100, 102,  701 

Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  30  Vt.  159, 

295,  343,  344,  345,  358,  481,  578,  640 
Bank  of  Mississippi  v.  Duncan,  52  Miss. 

740,  731 

Bank  of  Mississippi  v.  Wrenn,  11  Miss. 

791,  94 

Bank  of  Monroe  v.  Schermerhorn,  1  Clarke 

Ch.  (N.  Y.)  366,  829 

Bank  of  Montreal  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

48  Iowa  518,  789,  834,  836,  838,  843,  844 

Bank  of  Montreal  v.  Potts,  etc.,  Co.,  90 

Mich.  345,  854,  855 

Bank  of  Montreal  v.  Thayer,  7  Fed.  R.  622, 

836 
Bank  of  N.  Y.,  etc.,  v.  American,  etc.,  Co., 

143  N.  Y.  559,  414 

Bank  of  Niagara,  In  Re,  6  Paige  (N.  Y.) 

213,  825 

Bank  of  North  Liberties  v.  Cresson,  12 

Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  306,  327 

Bank  of  Rochester  v.  Jones,  4  N.  Y.  497, 

2215,  2218,  2219 
Bank  of  Rome  v.  Rome,  19  N.  Y.  20,  1241 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-W2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1^3-1262,  Vol. 

,  Bank  of  Rome  v.  Village  of  Rome,  18  N. 

Y.  38,  3, 1173 

Bank  of  South  Australia  v.  Abrahams,  L. 

R.  6  P.  C.  265,  347 

Bank  of  St.  Mary's  v.  St.  John,  25  Ala. 

566,  255,433,434,578,1028 

Bank  of  StatesviUe  v.  StatesviUe,  84  N. 

Car.  169,  1220 

Bank  of  Toledo  v.  International  Bank,  21 

N.  Y.  542,  25,  544 

Bank  of  Tupelo  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R. 

Co.  (Miss.),  16  So.  R.  572,  2205 

Bank  of  U.  S.  v.  Dandridge,  12  Wheat.  (U. 

S.)  64,  327,  504,  553,  631,  1202,  1222 

Bank  of  U.  S.  v.  Davis,  2  Hill  (N.  Y.)  451, 

299,366 

Bank  of  U.  S.  v.  Dunn,  6  Pet.  51,  490 

Bank  of  U.  S.  v.  McKenzie,  2  Brock.  (U. 

S.  C.  C.)  393,  36 

Bank  of  United  States  v.  Owens,  2  Pet. 

527,  523 

Bank  of  Utica  v.  Smalley,  2  Cowen  (N.Y.) 

770,  150 

Bank  of  Virginia  v.  Adams,  1  Parson  Eq. 

Cas.  534,  257,  363 

Bank  of  Wilmington  v.  Wollaston,  3  Har- 

ring.  (Del.)  90,  275,  330 

Bank  of  Yolo  v.  Weaver  (Cal.),  31  Pac.  R. 

160,  365 

Bank  Tax  Cases,  2  Wall.  200,  2643 

Banks  v.  Poitaux,  3  Rand.  (Va.)  136,  554 

Bannatyne  v.  Direct,  etc.,  Co.,  55  L.  T.  R. 

716,  123 

Bannon  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Md. 

108,  1973 

Bannon  v.  Lutz,  158  Pa.  St.  166,          2021,  2029 
Bansemer  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Ind. 

434,  2278,  2279,  2351 

Baptist  Church  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  4  Mackey  (D.  C.)  43,  26 

Baptist  Church  v.  Schenectady  R.  Co.,  5 

Barb.  (N.Y.)  79,  874 

Baptist  Meeting  House  v.  Webb,  66  Me. 

398,  862 

Barber  v.  Andover,  8  N.  H.  398,       .  1372 

Barber  v.  Brace,  3  Conn.  9,  2211 

Barber  v.  Morris,  37  Minn.  194,  1482 

Barber  v.  Saginaw  Union  R.  Co.,  83  Mich. 

299,  901 

Barbier  v.  Connolly,  113  U.  S.  27, 

975, 1094,  2654 

Barbo  v.  Bassett,  35  Minn.  485,  2030 

Barcalow  v.  Totten,  (N.  J.)  32  Atl.  R.  2,       850 
Barclay  v.  Talman,  4  Edw.  Chan.  (N.  Y.) 

123,  257 

Barclay  v.  Wainewright,  14  Ves.  66,  421 

Barclay,  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ingham,  36  Pa. 

St.  194,  1404 


III,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2166-1715.] 
Barcus  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  26  Mo.  102,      353 
Bard  v.  Augusta,  30  Fed.  R.  906,  1162 

Bard  v.  Banigan,  39  Fed.  R.  13,  119,  326 

Bard  v.  City  of  Augusta,  30  Fed.  R.  906,  1165 
Bard  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  Co.  (Pa.  St.), 

34  Atl.  R.  953,  2558 

Bard  v.  Poole,  12  N.  Y.  495,  678 

Barden  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  Mass. 

426,  2564 

Bardon  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  145  U.  S. 

535,.  113! 

Bardstown  &  L.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Metcalfe,  4 

Mete.  (Ky.)  199,  638,  640,  699 

Bardstown,  etc.,  Tump.  Co.  v.  Rodman 

(Ky.),  13  S.  W.  917,  346 

Bardwell  v.  American  Ex.  Co.,  35  Minn. 

344,  2178, 2260 

Bardwell  v.  Collins,  44  Minn.  97,  689 

Bardwell  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Miss. 

574,  2551, 2595 

Bargate  v.  Shortridge,  5  H.  L.  Cas.  297, 

357,  1240 

Barge's  Case,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  Cas.  420,  202 

Barker,  Matter  of,  6  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  509, 

228,  229 

Barker  v.  Brown,  138  Mass.  349,  2439 

Barker  v.  Buell,  35  Ind.  297,  1581 

Barker  v.  Great  Western  B.  Co.,  7  Man. 

&  G.  253,  2168 

Barker  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mo.  86, 

2136 
Barker  v.  Hartman  Steel  Co.,  129  Pa.  St. 

551,  900 

Barker  v.  Havens,  17  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  234,  2423 
Barker  v.  Hodgson,  3  M.  &  S.  267,  2290 

Barker  v.  Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  C.  B. 

46,  285,   2672 

Barker  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  65  Fed. 

R.  460,  2710 

Barker  v.  Savage,  45  N.  Y.  191,  1649, 1784 

Barker  v.  Schooner  E.  M.Wright,  1  Mackey 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  24,  2426 

Barker  v.  Taunton,  119  Mass.  392,  1459 

Barker  v.  Town  of  Perry,  67  Iowa  146,  2713 
Barker  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  766,  1579 
Barksdale  v.  Finney,  14  Gratt.  (Va.)  333,  462 
Barksdull  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

La.  Ann.  180,  18*7 

Barlage  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mich. 

564,  M83 

Barley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Biss.  (U. 

S.  C.  C.)  430,  1759 

Barley  v.  Snyder,  61  111.  App.  472, 
Barlow  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Iowa 

276,  562, 1287 

Barnacle  v.  Henderson,  42  Neb.  J69,  1608 

Barnard  v.  Campbell,  55  N.  Y.  456, 
Barnard  v.  Gostling,  2  East  569,  1027 


Ixxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  J-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1265-2161*  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Barnard  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  E.  K.  Co.,  4 

Cliff.  351,  650,  651 

Barnard  v.  Sherley,  135  Ind.  547,  904 

Barnard  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mas<s. 

512,  121, 124,  125,  431,  429 

Barnard,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Galloway,  (S.  Dak.) 

58  N.  W.  Rep.  565,  1608 

Barndt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Iowa 

114,  1877 

Barned's  Banking  Co.,  Re,  L.  R.  3  Ch.  105, 

555 

Earner  v.  Bayless,  134  Ind.  600,  1190 

Barnes  v.  Brown,  80  N.  Y.  527,  128, 129 

Barnes  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.)  33 

S.  W.  R.  601,  1389, 1499 

Barnes  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  122  U.  S.  1, 

s.  c.  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1043,  713 

Barnes  v.  Fox,  61  Iowa  18,  1480 

Barnes  v.  Foley,  5  Burr.  2711,  2359 

Barnes  v.  Kornegay,  62  Fed.  R.  671,  1063 

Barnes  v.  Lacon,  84  111.  461,  1157, 1235 

Barnes  v.- Marshall,  18  Q.  B.  785,        2282,  2420 
Barnes  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  126,  882 

Barnes  v.  Rembarz,  150  111.  192,  2021 

Barnes  v.  Shreveport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  La. 

Ann.  1218,  1978 

Barnes  v.  Suddard,  117  IU.  237,  543 

Barnes  v.  Thompson,  2  Swan  (Tenn.)  313,  1602 
Barnes  v.  Trenton  Gas  Co.,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  33, 

320,367 
Barnett  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  68  Mo.  56, 

1811,  1829, 1883 
Barnett  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

87  Ga.  766,  2548 

Barnett  v.  Johnson,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  481,  1387 

Barnett  v.  Kinney,  147  U.  S.  476,  773 

Barnett  v.  London,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  5  H.  & 

N.  604,  2332 

Barney  v.  Globe  Bank,  5  Blateh.  (U.  S. 

C.  C.)  107,  931 

Barney  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126  Mo. 

372,  1964, 1975 

Barney  v.  Keokuk,  94  U.  S.  324,  1610, 1639 

Barney  v.  Latham,  103  U.  S.  205,  932,  938 

Barney  v.  New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Handy  (Ohio)  571,  880 

Barney  v.  Oyster  Bay,  etc.,  Co.,  67  N.  Y. 

301,  285, 2454 

Barney  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  117  U.  S. 

228,  1128 

Barnhart  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Iowa), 

66  N.  W.  R.  902,  1843 

Barnowski  v.  Helson,  15  L.  R.  A.  33,          2599 
Barns  v.  Allen,  9  Am.  Law  Reg.  747,  2136 

Barnum  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn. 

461,  2126 


Barnum  v.  Town  of  Okolona,  148  U.  S. 

393,  1167, 1168,  122S 

Barr  v.  City  of  Oskaloosa,  45  Iowa  275,      1631 
Barr  v.  King,  96  Pa.  St.  485,  887 

Barr  v.  New  York,  L.  E.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  5  N. 

Y.  S.  623,  '         482 

Barr  v.  New  York,  L.  E.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  52 

Hun  555,  482 

Barr  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  N.  Y. 

444,  245,  351,  877 

Barr  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  125  N. 

Y.  263,  132,  242,  616,  1569 

Barr  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Co.,  40  Fed.  412, 

375, 877 

Barr  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Fed.  R.  33,   375 
Barracouta,  The,  39  Fed.  R.  288,  2343 

Barre  R.  Co.  v.  Montpelier,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

Vt.  1,  1269,  1276, 1323,  1374, 1378, 1392 

Barre  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Appleton,  2  Pick. 

(Mass.)  430,  1481, 1484, 15S> 

Barret  v.  Button,  4  Campl.  333,  2290 

Barret  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

C.  B.  (N.  S.)  423,  s.  c.  28  L.  T.  254,  38 

Eng.  Law  &  Eq.  218,  1014 

Barrett  v.  County  Ct.  of  Schuyler  County, 

44  Mo.  197,  1221 

Barrett  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Mo. 

App.  226,  294 

Barrett  v.  Market  St.  R.  Co.,  81  Cal.  296,    2508 
Barrett  v.  Palmer,  135  N.  Y.  336,  1375 

Barrett  v.  Rogers,  7  Mass.  297,  2205 

Barre ttv.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  91  Cal. 

296,  1974,  1982 

Barrett  v.  Stockton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Man. 

&  Gr.  134,  62 

Barrett  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  628,    1799 
Barril  v.  Calender  Insulating&  W.  P.  Co., 

50  Hun  257,  325 

Barrington  v.  Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co.,  32 

Miss.  370,  159,  161 

Barren  v.  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  (U.  S.)  243,      1413 
Barren  v.  Burnside,  121  U.  S.  186,  34,  2141 

Barren  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Wis.  79, 

1986 

Barren  v.  Eldridge,  100  Mass.  455, 

2189,  2273,  2277,  2278- 

Barron  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  Baltimore,  7 

Peters  (U.  S.)  243,  1335 

Barrett  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Fed.  R. 

796,  2535,  2536,  2538- 

Barrow  v.  Coles,  3  Camp.  92,  2219 

Barrow  v.  Davis,  46  Mo.  394,  1070- 

Barrow  v.  Hunton,  99  U.  S.  80,  932,  946 

Barrow,  etc.,  Co.,  Re,  59  L.  T.  R.  500,  123 

Barrows  v.  Bauphman,  9  Mich.  213,  1607 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  i-uz,  Vol.  ii,  pp.  us-im,  Vol.  in.  pp. 

I5arry,  In  re,  42  Fed.  R.  113,  2637 

Barry  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Mo.  62, 

2020 


Barry  v.  Merchants'  Exchange  Co.,  1 

Sandf.  Chan.  (N.  Y.)  280,  111,  43:,  56t 

Barry  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  27  Fed.  R. 

1,  623 

Barry  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  34  Fed.  R. 

829,  706 

Barry  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  N.  Y. 

289,  1743,  1744,  1764,  1785,  1957,  1981 

Barstow  v.  Pine  Bluff,  M.  &  N.  O.  Ry.  Co., 

57  Ark.  334.  698 

Bartelott  v.  International  Bank,  119  111. 

259,  2723 

Bartemeyer  v.  Rohlfs,  71  Iowa  582,  1162, 1163 
Barter  v.  Martin,  5  Me.  76,  1022 

Barter  v.  Wheeler,  49  N.  H.  339, 

804,  2238,  2243,  2244,  2328,  2329 
Barthel  v.  Meader,  72  Iowa  125, 

1170, 1171,  1196,  1224 

Bartholomew  v.  Bently,  1  Ohio  St.  37,  338 
Bartholomew  v.  Bentley,  15  Ohio  659,  387,  484 
Bartholomew  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

102  N.  Y.  716,  2548 

Bartholomew  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

111.  227,  2616 

Bartlett  v.  Beardmore,  77  Wis.  356,  1322 

Bartlett  v.  Drew,  57  N.  Y.  587,  434,  751 

Bartlett  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Iowa 

188,  1842, 1845 

Bartlett  v.  Keim,  50  N.  J.  L.  260,  813,  815 

Bartlett  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

Jones  &  S.  (N.  Y.)  348,  2457 

Bartlett  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94 

Ind.  281,  497,  2209,  2270,  2320,  2327,  2340 

Bartlett  v.  Steamboat  Philadelphia,  32 

Mo.  256,  2350,  2351,  2361,  2375 

Bartlett  v.  Wilbur,  53  Md.  485,  797 

Bartlett,  etc.,  Mining  Co.  v.  Roach,  68  111. 

174,  2074 

Bartlette  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Conn. 

560,  490 

Barton's  Case,  4  De  G.  &  J.  46,  214 

Barton  v.  Barbour,  104  U.  S.  126, 

731,  740,  788,  799,  800,  801,  802,  805 
Barton  v.  Enterprise,  etc.,  Ass'n,  114  Ind. 

226,  235,  739 

Barton  v.  Keyes,  1  Flippin  61,  766 

Barton  v.  London  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

24  Q.  B.  D.  77,  117,  138 

Barton  v.  Pepin  Co.,  etc.,  Society,  83  Wis. 

19,  2468 

Barton  v.  Port  Jackson,  etc.,  Co.,  17  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  397,  140 


neit,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-272-,.] 

Barton  v.  North,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  38  Ch. 

D.  458,  139 

Barton  v.  Springfield,  110  Mass.  131,  1788 
Barton  v.  State,  28  Tex.  App.  483,  1049, 1051 
Barton's  Trust,  In  re,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  238,  424 
Bartonshill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Reid,  3  Macq.  266, 

333,2075 

Bartram  v.  Central  T.  Co.,  25  Cal.  283,  47 
Bartram  v.  Farebrother,  4  Bing.  579,  2395 
Bashor  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Md. 

99,  1597 

Basnight  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  N. 

C.  592,  2189,  2191,  2277 

Bason  v.  King's,  etc.,  Mining  Co.,  90  N. 

C.  417,  556 

Bass  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Wis.  654,  2580 
Bass  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Wis.  450, 

285,  288,  2018,  2454 
Bass  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Wis.  636, 

1986,  2575,  £582 
Bass  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  111.  9, 

1895,  1903,  1912 
Bass  v.  City  of  Ft,  Wayne,  121  Ind.  389, 

1464, 1470 

Bass  v.  Doerman,  112  Ind.  390,  857 

Bass  v.  Elliott,  105  Ind.  517,  1531 

Bass  v.  Fountleroy,  11  Tex.  698,  1149 

Bass  v.  Glover,  63  Ga.  745,  2215,  2376 

Bass  v.  Roanoke  Nav.,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill  N.  C. 

439,  87, 88 

Bass  v.  State,  34  La.  Ann.  494,  1331 

Bass  v.  Taft,  137  U.  S.  458,  1258 

Basse  v.  Gallegger,  7  Wis.  442,  665 

Bassett  v.  Barbin,  11  La.  Ann.  672,  1259 

Bassett  v.  Conn.  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145 

Mass.  129,  1891, 1893,  2277 

Bassett  v.  Monte  Christo,  etc.,  Co.,  15  Nev. 

293,  .362,  640,  658 

Bassett  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Law 

Reporter  (N.  S.)  551,  2035 

Basshor  v.  Forbes,  36  Md.  154,  267 

Bastard  v.  Bastard,  2  Shower  81,  2282,  2419 
Batchelder  v.  Council,  etc.,  Co.,  131  N.  Y. 

42,  667 

Batchelder  v.  Hibbard,  58  N.  H.  269, 

1325,  1327 

Bate  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  15  Ont. 

App.  338,  2633 

Bateman  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  Ashton,  etc.,  3 

Hurl.  &  N.  323,  «6 

Bateman  v.  Mid-Wales  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1  C. 

P.  499,  65,  618 

Bateman  v.  Service,  L.  R.  6  App.  Cases, 

386,  271 

Bates  v.  Androscoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Me. 

491,  119>  121 


Ixxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-UZ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2161t,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2705.] 


Bates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Wis.  296, 

888,  890,  891,  2388 

Bates  v.  Cooper,  5  Ohio  115,  1547 

Bates  v.  Fremont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (S.  Dak.), 

61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  392,  2721 

Bates  v.  Great  Western  Tel.  Co.,  134  111. 

536,  130, 132,  167,  224 

Bates  v.  McKinley,  31  Beav.  280,  421 

Bates  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Tenn. 

36,  1974 

Bates  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fed. 

R.  294,  932,  933 

Bates  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Johns.  Cas.  (N. 

Y.)  238,  150 

Bates  v.  N^w  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Conn. 

259,  1769 

Bates  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Hun 

287,  1765, 1782 

Bates  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  147  Mass. 

255,  496, 2602 

Bates  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  2  Interst.  Com. 

R.  715,  2671 

Bates  v.  Pricket,  5  Ind.  22,  2027,  2715 

Bates  v.  Stanton,  1  Duer.  (N.  Y.)  79,  2214 
Bates  v.  Todd,  1  Moo.  &  R.  106,  2204,  2206 
Bates  v.  White,  13  N.  Y.  St.  R.  602,  2427 

Bates  v.  Wilson,  14  Colo.  140,  52,  53,  55 

Bates  County  v.  Winters,  97  U.  S.  83, 

1164, 1224, 1231 

Bath's  Case,  L.  R.  8  Ch.  Div.  334,  255,  477 
Bath  v.  Miller,  51  Me.  341,  648 

Bath  v.  Miller,  53  Me.  308,  647 

Bath  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Claffy,  56  N.  Y.  S.  R. 

426,  504 

Bathe  v.  Decatur,  etc.,  Co.,  73  Iowa  11,  352 
Baton  Rouge,  The  City  of,  19  Fed.  R.  461,  2276 
Batson  v.  Donovan,  4  B.  &  Aid.  21, 

2282,  2294,  2693 

Battaglia  v.  Thomas,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  563,  325 
Battaile.v.  Fisher,  36  Miss.  321,  825 

Battelle   v.    Northwestern,    etc.,  Co.,  37 

Minn.  89,  21,  379 

Batterson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

Mich.  125,  2001,  2029 

Batterson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

Mich.  184,  2707 

Battiskill  v.  Humphrey,  64  Mich.  494, 

1753,  7793, 1967 

Battle  v.  Davis,  66  N.  C.  252,  792 

Battle  v.  McArthur,  49  Fed.  R.  715,  1603 

Battles  v.  Braintree,  14  Vt.  348,  1460 

.  Batton  v.  South,  etc.,  P.  Co.,  77  Ala.  591, 

2480,  2585,  2588 
Batton  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Fed.  R. 

755,  2478 

Batty  v.  Duxbury,  24  Vt.  155,  1642 


Bauer  v.  Samson  Lodge,  102  Ind.  262, 

276,  278, 1573 
Baughman  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94 

Ky.  150,  2326,  2339 

Baulec  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  N.  Y. 

356,  2025, 2035 

Baumgartner  v.  City  of  Mankato(Minn.), 

62  N.  W.  R.  127,  1642 

Bavington  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

Pa.  St.  358,  195,  203 

Baxendale  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Com. 

B.  (N.  S.)  62,  2283,  2428 

Baxendale  v.  Great  Western  Ry.  Co.,  5  C. 

B.  (N.  S.)  336,  2285,  2667 

Baxendale  v.  Hart,  21  L.  J.  Ex.  123,  2187 

Baxendale  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  L. 

J.  Ex.  20,  2257 

Baxendale  v.  North,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  324,  2670 

Baxter  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  102  Mass.  383,  1807 
Baxter  v.  Gray,  4  Scott  N.  R.  374,  1996 

Baxter  v.  Leland,  Abb.  Admr.  Pr.  348,       2207 
Baxter  v.  Leland,  1  Blatchf.  526,  2301 

Baxter  v.  Moses,  77  Me.  465,  257 

Baxter  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  Turnpike  Co., 

10  Lea  (Tenn.)  488,  100,  695 

Baxter  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  30  How. 

Pr.  R.  219,  1770 

Bayard  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank,  52  Pa.  St. 

232,  135 

Bayard  v.  Smith,  17  Wend.  88,  1011 

Bay  City  R.  Co.  v.  Austin,  21  Mich.  390, 

604, 1033, 1589, 1814, 1826, 1861, 1865 
Bay  City  Belt  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Hitchcock, 

90  Mich.  533,  53, 1500 

Bayles  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  13  Colo.  181, 

790,  2284,  2433,  2666 
Bayless  v.  Orne,  1  Freem.  Ch.  (Miss.)  161, 

86,369 

Bayley  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  125  Mass.  62,       1754 
Baylis  v.  Lintott,  L.  R.  8  C.  P.  345,  2698 

Bayliss  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Biss. 

(U.  S.)  193,  243 

Bayliss  v.  Swift,  40  Iowa  648,  257,  269 

Baylor  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  N.  J. 

Law  23,  2004,  2068 

Bayonne  v.  TJmbenhauer  (Ala.),  18  So.  R. 

175,  2390 

Bay  Shore  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  67  Ala.  6,         1785 
Bay  View,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Williams,  50  Cal. 

353,  264 

Bazin  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  S.  S.  Co.,  3  Wall. 

Jr.  229,  2421 

Beach  v.  Cooper,  72  Cal.  99,  240 

Beach  v.  Miller,  130  111.  162,  379,  855 

Beach  v.  Raritan,  etc.,  Co.,  37  N.  Y.  457,    2267 
Beach  v.  Smith,  30  N.  Y.  116,  160, 166 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol. 

Beacon  v.  Shreve,  22  N.  J.  Law  176,  1472 

Beadel  v.  Perry,  3  L.  B.  Eq.  465,  910 

Beadell  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  2  C.  B.  (N.  S.) 

509,  2672 

Beadle  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  51  Kan. 

248,  2432 

Beadleston  v.  Harpending,  32  Fed.  R.  644, 

946 
Beadleston  v.  Sprague,  6  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

101,  1028 

Beal  v.  Blair,  33  Iowa  318,  562 

Beal  v.  Chase,  31  Mich.  490,  335,  2664 

Beal  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  How.  Pr. 

N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  329,  1388 

Beal  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  N.  Y.  S. 

Rep.  174,  450 

Beal  v.  Osborne,  72  Cal.  305,  385 

Beal  v.  South  Devon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  H.  & 

Colt  337,  2315,  2517 

Beale  v.'  Penna.  R.  Co.,  86  Pa.  St.  509, 

1281, 1282, 1421, 1508,  1509,  1532, 1533,  1553 
Beals  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  133  U.  S. 

290,  s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  314,  668 

Beals  v.  Providence  Rubber  Co.,  11  R.  I. 

381,  1105 

Bean  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Me.  293, 

1860, 1891, 1894, 1921 

Bean  v.  Miller,  69  Mo.  384,  1573, 1581, 1584, 1585 
Bean  v.  Oceanic  Co.,  24  Fed.  R.  124,  2063 

.Bean  v.  Warner,  38  N.  H.  247,  1450 

Bear  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Iowa 

619,  656, 1604 

Beard  v.  Arbuckle,  19  W.  Va.  145,  761 

Beard  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Va. 

351,  .  2013, 2044 

Beard  v.  City  of  Hopkinsville,  95  Ky.  215,  1176 
Beard  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Vt. 

101,  2479, 2590 
Beard  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa  518, 

2249,  2250,  2290,  2292,  2296 
Beard  v.  St.  Louis  &  T.  H.  Ry.  Co.,  79 

Iowa  527,  497,  2225,  2227 

Beardsley  v.  Johnson,  121  N.  Y.  224, 

238,  338,  340, 341 

Beardsley  v.  Johnson,  49  Hun  607,  364 

Beardsley  v.  Lehigh  Valley,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

142  N.  Y.  173,  1720 

Beardsley  v.  Ohio  Valley  Ry.  Co.,  20  N.  Y. 

Supp.  458,  1730 

Beardsley  v.  Ontario  Bank,  31  Barb.  619,  536 
Beardsley  v.  Washington,  39  Conn.  265,  1534 
Beasley  v.  San  Jose  Fruit  Packing  Co.,  92 

Cal.  388,  2027 

Beaston  v.  Farmers'  Bank,  12  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

102,  854 
Beatson  v.  Schank,  3  East  233,                    2290 


III,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27!?.] 

Beattie  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  90  N.  Y. 

643,  306,323 

Beatty  v.  Bartholomew,  etc.,  Society,  76 

Ind.  91,  873 

Beatty  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Iowa  242, 

1653, 1984,  2706 

Beatty  v.  Gregory,  17  Iowa  109,  1:27 

Beatty  v.  Manne  Ins.  Co.,  2  Johns.  109,        334 
Beatty  v.  Marine  Ins.  Co.,  2  Johns.  109, 

290,553 
Beatty  v.  Mutual,  etc.,  Asso.,  75  Fed.  R.  65, 

2721 

Beauchamp  v.  International,  etc.,  Rail- 
way Co.,  56  Tex.  239,  285 
Beauchamp  v.  Powley,  1 M.  &  Rob.  38,       2389 
Beauchamp  v.  Saginaw,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Mich. 

163,  1567 

Beaulieu  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Me. 

291,  1768 

Beaumon  v.  Canadian  B.  R.  Co.,  Montreal 

L.  R.  5  Super.  Ct.  255,  2233 

Beavan  v.  Beavan,  53  L.  T.  Rep.  245,  424 

Bechdolt  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

113  Ind.  343,  1832, 1834 

Becher  v.  Great  Eastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5 

Q.  B.  241,  2624,  2625,  2630 

Becher  v.  Wells,  etc.,  Co.,  1  McCrary  (U. 

S.)  62,  224 

Beck  v.  Ashkettle  (R.  I.)  777 

Beck  v.  Kantorowicz,  3  Kay  &  J.  230,       17, 18 
Beck  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Ore.  32, 

1042, 1745, 1747 

Beck  v.  United  New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

39  N.  J.  Law  45,  1344, 1385 

Becke  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Mo.  544, 

1767, 1791 

Beckel  v.  Union  Township,  15  Ohio  St.  437, 

1217 

Becker  v.  Baumgartner,  5  Ind.  App.  576,    2707 
Becker  v.  Torrance,  31  N.  Y.  631,  785 

Beckett  v.  Houston,  32  Ind.  393,      113,  226,  228 
Beckett  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1  C.  P. 

241,  1526 

Beckett  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  3  C.  P. 

82,  1409, 1433 

Beckman  v.  Consolidated  Coal  Co.,  90 

Iowa  252,  2720 

Beckman  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Paige 

45,  2449 

Beckman  v.  Shoues,  5  Rawle  179, 
Beckner  v.  Riverside,  etc.,  Tump.  Co.,  65 

Ind.  468, 

Beckwith  v.  Carroll,  56  Ala.  12, 
Beckwith  v.  English,  52  111.  147, 
Beckwith  v.  Frisbie,  32  Vt.  559, 
Bedell  v.  Berkley,  76  Mich.  435,  I'-'i •• 


Ixxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Bedell  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ga. 

22,  2209 

Bedford  v.  Neal,  143  Ind.  425,  2721 

Bedford  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  Co.,  56  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.  236,  437 

Bedford  County  v.  Nashville  R.  R.  Co., 

14  Lea  (Tenn.)  525,  166 

Bedford  R.  Co.  v.  Bowser,  48  Pa.  St.  29, 

247,  254,  350,  578 
Bedford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown  (Ind.),  42 

N.  E.  R.  359,  2033 

Bedford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  142  Ind. 

659,  2079 

Bedford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rainbolt,  99  Ind. 

551,  2471,  2599 

Bedford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stanley,  32  L.  J. 

Eq.  60,  21 

Bee  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Cal. 

248,  354 

Beebt  v.  Ayres,  28  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  275,    284,  2492 
Beebe  v.  Johnson,  19  Wend.  500,  2290 

Beebe  v.  Scheldt,  13  Ohio  St.  406,  990 

Beecher  v.  Bininger,  7  Blatchf.  (U.  S.) 

170,  738 

Beecher  v.  Gillett,  1  Dill.  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

308,  931 

Beecher  v.  Marquette,  etc.,  Mill  Co.,  45 

Mich.  103,  489,  522 

Beehler  v.  Daniel,  18  R.  I.  563,  1948 

Beekman  v.  Hudson,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  35  Fed. 

R.  3,  676,  679,  681,  876 

Beekman  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Paige  (N.  Y.)  45,     49,  99,  108,  1140, 1270, 1332, 

1333, 1336, 1337,  1338,  1340,  1342,  1353, 1371,  1465 
Beekman  Street,  Matter  of,  20  Johns.  269,  990 
Beems  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Iowa 

150,       ,  2153 

Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  25,         975 
Beers  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Conn.),  34 

Atl.  R.  541,  2625 

Beers  v.  Bridgeport  Spring  Co.,  42  Conn. 

17,  426,  430 

Beers  v.  Dalles  City,  16  Ore.  334,  505 

Beers  v.  Housatonic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Conn. 

566,  1738,  1748,  1849 

Beers  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Fed.  R. 

244,  2168, 2170 

Beers  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Fed.  R. 

161,  829 

Beesley  v.  Wheeler,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mich.), 

61  N.  W.  R.  658,  2054 

Beeson  v.  Busenbark,  44  Kan.  669,       815,  2104 
Beeston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  5  R. 

&  Canal  Traf.  Cas.  53,  2671 

BehlmtT  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Fed. 

R.  835,  2676 


Behm  v.  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.,  8 

Biss.  131,  2453 

Behrens  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Colo. 

400,  2147 

Beilfus  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Hun 

556,  2084 

Seine,  In  re,  42  Fed.  R.  545,  966 

Beisegel  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  N. 

Y.  622,  1678,  1738,  1739,  1784 

Beisegel  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  N. 

Y.  9,  1737, 1744 

Belcher,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ele- 
vator Co.,  101  Mo.  192,  504 
Beldon  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  17,  35 

Belding  v.  Black  Hills,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  So. 

Dak.  369,  2131 

Belfast,  City  of,  53  Me.  431,  1531 

Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belfast,  77  Me.  445, 

118, 120, 121, 122,  346,  430,  432,  434,  435 
Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  CottreU,  66  Me.  185,  213 
Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Great  Northern, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Nev.  &  Macq.  R.  Cas.  419,    2645 
Belfast,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Inhabitants  of 

Brooks,  60  Me.  568,  169,  1195 

Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keys,  9  H.  L.  556, 

2609,2611 
Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  60  Me.  561, 

164,168 
Belger  v.  Dinsmore,  51  N.  Y.  166, 

2309,2263,2336 

Belger  v.  Dinsmore,  51  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  69,  2322 
Belknap  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  H. 

358,  2581 

Bell's  Appeal,  115  Pa.  St.  88,  154,  256 

Bell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  La.  Ann. 

785,  807 

Bell  v.  Cox,  122  Ind.  153,  1450 

Bell  v.  Edwards,  37  La.  Ann.  475,  900 

Bell  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Mo.  50,  1757 
Bell  v.  Hanover,  etc.,  Bank,  57  Fed.  R.  821,  395 
Bell  v.  Lafferty,  1  Pennypacker  (Pa.  Sup. 

Ct.)  454,  420 

Bell  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Nev.  &  McN. 

185,  2669, 2670 

Bell  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Bush 

(Ky.)  404,  1331 

Bell  v.  Maish,  137  Ind.  226,  1209 

Bell  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4.  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

598,  1164 

Bell  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  (N. 

J.)  10  Atl.  R.  741,  447,  450,  454 

Bell  v.  Reed,  4  Binn.  (Penn.)  127,  2280 

BeU's  Gap  R.  Co.  v.  Christy,  79  Pa.  St.  59,  21 
Bell's  Gap  Railroad  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 

134  U.  S.  232,  1059, 1089, 1091, 1093 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U£,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Bellaire  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Railroad  Co., 

146  U.  S.  117,  938 

Bellefontaine,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hunter,  33  Ind. 

33,  308 

Bellefontaine,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reed,  33  Ind. 

476,  1836 

Bellefontaine,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Snyder,  18 

Ohio  St.  399,  1743,  1748, 1982 

Bellefontaine,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Suman,  29 

Ind.  40,  1834, 1873 

Belleville,  City  of,  v.  Citizens'  etc.,  Co., 

152  111.  171,  1618 

Bellevue,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bellevue,  39  Neb. 

876,  1070 

Bellinger  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  23  N.  . 

Y.  42,  1400,  1404,  1405,  1456,  1564 

Bellingham,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Strand,  4  Wash. 

311,  1511, 1528 

Bellona  Company's  Case,  3  Bland  (Md.) 

442,  859,  1340,  1347 

Bellows  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  Co.,  157  Pa. 

St.  51,  2033,  2046 

Bellows  v.  Todd,  39  Iowa  209,  362 

Bellsdyke  v.  North  British,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Nev.  &  McN.  R.  Gas.  105,  2285 

Belmont  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  52  Barb.  637, 

86, 126,  243,  624,  735,  758 

Belo  v.  Commissioners,  76  N.  C.  489,  1246 

Beloit  v.  Morgan,  7  Wall.  619,  1176,  1246 

Beloit,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Palmer,  19  Wis.  574, 

173 

Belt  R.  Co.  v.  Mann,  107  Ind.  89,         1792, 1955 
Belton  v.  Baxter,  54  N.  Y.  245,  1778, 1779 

Belton  Compress  Co.  v.  Saunders,  70  Tex. 

699,  164 

Beman  v.  Rufford,  1  Sim.  N.  S.  550,  693 

Beman  v.  Rufford,  6  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  106,        515 
Bemis  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Vt. 

375,  1760,  1826,  1850, 1852,  1854,  1857 

Bemis  v.  Springfield,  122  Mass.  110, 

1388,  1440, 1513 
Bemiss  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47 

La.  Ann.  1671,  2555 

Benbow  v.  Iowa  City,  7  Wall.  313,  1262 

Benbow  v.  North  Car.  R.  Co.,  Phillips 

Law  421,  2353 

Benedict  v.  Field,  16  N.  Y.  595,  2390 

Benedict  v.  Heineberg,  43  Vt.  231,  696 

Benedict  v.  Schaettle,  12  Ohio  St.  515,        2390 
Benedict  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

Fed.  R.  173,  715,  747 

Benedict  v.  State,  120  N.  Y.  228,  1458 

Benesch  v.  John  Hancock  Mut.  L.  Ins. 

Co.,  32  N.  Y.  S.  R.  73,  301 

Benett  v.  Peninsular  S.  Co.,  6  Com.  B. 

775,  2226, 2280 

CORP. — vi 


III,  pp.  1263-216H.  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2J65-2725.] 

Bengston  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Minn. 

486,  2031 

Benjamin  v.  Eldridge,  50  Cal.  612,  2143 

Benner  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  314  N.  Y. 

156,  1567 

Benneson  v.  Bill,  62  111.  408,  781 

Bennet  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  N.  J. 

Law  145,  1523, 1526 

Bennett's  Case,  5  De  Gex,  M.  &  G.  284,        373 
Bennett,  Ex  parte,  26  S.  Car.  317,  1500 

Bennett  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  83  Me.  236, 

2188,  2272,  2310,  2386 

Bennett  v.  Byram,  38  Miss.  17,  2305,  2427 

Bennett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Wis.  145, 

1803, 1847, 1863, 1873 

Bennett  v.  Devine,  45  Fed.  R.  705,  934 

Bennett  v.  Button,  10  N.  H.  481,         2451,  2466 
Bennett  v.  Filyaw,  1  Fla.  403,  2227,  2346 

Bennett  v.  Fisher,  26  Iowa  497,  1197 

Bennett  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Out.  446,  1740 

Bennett  v.  Greenwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 

Hun  216,  2042 

Bennett  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  C. 

B.  (N.  S.)  707,  1016 

Bennett  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.), 

32  S.  W.  R.  834,  1899 

Bennett  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N. 

J.  225,  1790, 1798,  2570 

Bennett  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  B.  Co., 

69  N.  Y.  594,  2485 

Bennett  v.  New  York,   etc.,    R.  Co.,   57 

Conn.  422,  2591 

Bennett  v.  Northern  Ex.  Co.,  12  Ore.  49, 

2178,  2340,  2344,  2362,  2701 
Bennett  v.  Northern  Pac.  Railway  Co.,  2 

N.  Dak.  112,  2043 

Bennett  v.  Railroad  Co.,  102  U.  S.  577, 

1643, 1742, 1743,  1950, 1951,  2477,  2589 
Bennett  v.  Railroad  Co.,  7  Phila.  (Pa.)  11, 

2502 
Bennett  v.  St.  Louis  Car  Roofing  Co.,  23 

Mo.  App.  587, 
Bennett  v.  Union  Bank,  5  Humph.  (Term.) 

612, 

Bennington  v.  Park,  50  Vt.  178,  1141 

Bennitt  v.  Guiding  Star,  53  Fed.  R.  936, 

2182,2200 

Bensiek  v.  Thomas,  66  Fed.  R.  104,        396,  510 
Bensley  v.  Brockway,  27  111.  App.  410,  307 

Bensley  v.  Mountain  Lake  Water  Co.,  13 

Cal.  306,  1*21. 1509 

Benson,  Ex  parte,  18  So.  Car.  38, 

2284,  2433,  2673 
Benson  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.,  77  Md.  535, 

1961 


Ixxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1Z6S-Z16U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Benson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Mo.  504, 

1301 

Benson  v.  Gray,  154  Mass.  391,  2359 

Benson  v.  Heathorn,  1  Y.  &  C.  326,  375 

Benson  v.  Mayor,  10  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  223,        1374 
Benson  v.  Monson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Met. 

(Mass.)  562,  1019 

Bent  v.  Hart,  10  Mo.  App.  143,  112 

Bent  v.  Priest,  10  Mo.  App.  543,  376 

Bentley  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  Co.,  17  N.  Y.  421,  395 
Bentlif  v.  London,  etc.,  Corp.,  44  Fed.  R. 

667,  931 

Benton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Iowa 

496,  311,  1963 

Benton  v.  LindeU,  10  Mo.  557,  890 

Bentonville  R.  v.  Baker,  45  Ark.  252, 

1295, 1405, 1485, 1489,  1538, 1540 
Bentonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stroud,  45  Ark. 

278,  1491 

Benzinger  Township,  In  re  Public  Road 

in,  115  Pa.  St.  436,  1533 

Berea,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kraft,  31  Ohio  St.  287,    2076 
Berford  v.  New  York  Iron  Mine,  56  N.  Y. 

Super.  Ct.  R.  236,  427,  432 

Berg  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Kan.  561, 

2224,  2228,  2233 

Berg  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Wis.  419,    1758 
Berg  v.  Narragansett  Steamship  Co.,  74 

Tex.  8,  2228 

Berg  v.  Parsons,  31  N.  Y.  Supp.  1091,          1593 
Berg  v.  Parsons,  84  Hun  60,  1591 

Berger  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Minn. 

78,  2068 

Bergheim  v.  Great  Eastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

3  C.  P.  Div.  221,  2620,  2621,  2629 

Berghoff  v.  McDonald,  87  Ind.  549,  326 

Bergman  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Mo. 

678,  1793 

Bergman  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Ass'n,  29  Minn. 

275,  277 

Bergman  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Minn. 

533,  1505 

Bergstrom  v.  Staples,  82  Mich.  654,    2053,  2054 
Berkley  v.  Watling,  7  Ad.  &  El.  29,  2203 

Berks,  etc.,  Road  v.  Myers,  6  Sergt.  &  R. 

12,  354 

Berkshire  Woolen  Co.  v.  Proctor,  7  Cush. 

(Mass.)  417,  2360 

Berlack  v.  Halle,  22  Fla.  236,  676 

Berliner  v.  Waterloo,  14  Wis.  378,  1204 

Berlinquet  v.  Queen,  13  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  26,    1578 
Bernard  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Va. 

792,  1889, 1937 

Bernards  Township  v.  Stebbins,  109  U.  S. 

341,  1220 

Bernet  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  N.  J. 

Law  1485,  1473 


Berney  v.  Sewell,  1  Jac.  &  W.  627,  755 

Berney  Nat.  Bank  v.  Pinckard,  87  Ala.  577, 

114, 146 
Bernhard  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Abb.  Ct.  App.  131,  .        1784, 1959 

Bernhardt  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159  Pa. 

St.  360,  2478 

Bernheim  v.  Birnbaum,  30  Fed.  R.  885,        935- 
Bernier  v.  Bernier,  147  U.  S.  242,  1135 

Berninia,  The,  L.  R.  12  Prob.  Div.  58, 

1790, 1799 

Bernstine  v.  Express  Co.,  40  Ohio  St.  451,    2695 
Berrian  v.  Methodist  Soc.  in  N.  Y.,  4  Abb. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  424,  879 

Berrigan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131  N. 

Y.  582,  2018 

Berry  v.  Brett,  6  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  627,  796 

Berry  v.  Broach,  65  Miss.  450,  713,  862 

Berry  v.  Cooper,  28  <Ga.  543,  2317,  2347 

Berry  v.  Jones,  11  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  206,  825 

Berry  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  52 

Kan.  759,  455 

Berry  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  Railroad  Co., 

52  Kan.  774,  46& 

Berry  v.  Knights,  etc.,  Indemnity  Co.,  46 

Fed.  Rep.  439,  735 

Berry  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  Ind. 

484,  2142 

Berry  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo.),  25 

S.  W.  R.  229,  2462 

Berry  v.  Penn.  R.  Co.,  48  N.  J.  L.  141, 

1754,  1774, 1783 

Berry  v.  Ransdall,  4  Mete.  (Ky.)  292,          1458 
Berry  v.  Yates,  24  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  199,  162 

Berry  man  v.  Cincinnati  Southern  Ry.,  14 

Bush  (Ky.)  755,  182,  374,  1219 

Bertha,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Martin,  (Va.)  22  S.  E. 

R.  869,  2009,  2025 

Bertha  Zinc,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Carico,  61  Fed. 

R.  132,  932. 

Bertholf  v.  O'Reilly,  74  N.  Y.  509,  965 

Bertie  v.  Falkland,  2  Freem.  222,       1306, 1307 
Bertie  v.  Lord  Abingdon,  8  Beav.  53,  823 

Bertonneau  v.  Board  of  Directors,  3 

Woods   77,  2643 

Beseman  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  50  N.  J. 

Law  235,  1564 

Beshoarv.  Chappell  (Colo.),  40  Pac.  R. 

244,  239, 243 

Bess  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  W. 

Va.  492,  1962 

Bessex  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Wis. 

477,  .  1997, 2012 

Best  v.  Town  of  Kinston,  106  N.  Car.  205,  214» 
Bestor  v.  Wathen,  60  ILL.  138, 

381,  527,  528, 1279, 1280 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-JU2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JH.3-126?,  Vol. 

Bethea  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  26  S.  Car. 

91,  2233, 2324 

Bethea  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Cal.  532, 

1864 
Bethel,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Bean,  58  Me.  8§, 

211 

Bethell  v.  Clark,  L.  R.  20  Q.  B.  D.  615,       2395 
Bethje  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Tex. 

604,  1872 

Bethlehem  Iron  Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 

Ry.  Co.,  49  N.  J.  Eq.  356,  714 

Be«hmann  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  155  Mass. 

352,  2546 

Bettridge  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  3 

Grant  Err.  &  App.  (U.  C.)  58,  2521 

Betts  v.  Bagley,  12  Pick.  572,  1203 

Betts  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  60 

N.  W.  R.  623,  2402,  2407 

Betts  v.  Dimon,  3  Conn.  107,  979 

Betts  v.  Farmers'  Loan  &  T.  Co.,  21  Wis. 

80,  2339, 2406 

Bettys  \.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Wis. 

323,  1031 

Beuhring  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

W.  Va.  502,  2072,  2088 

Beuttel  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Fed. 

R.  50,  938 

Beveridge  v.  N.  Y.  El.  R.  R  Co.,  112  N.  Y.  1, 

125,  345,  346,  427,  428,  572,  575,  577 
Beverly  v.  Brooke,  4  Grattan  187,  755,  756,  784 
Bevier  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Hun 

254,  1896,  1927, 1929 

Bevier  v.  Dillingham,  18  Wis.  529,  1425 

Be  vis  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.,  26  Mo.  App. 

19,  307,  2535,  2541 

Bewick  v.  Alpena  Harbor  Co.,  39  Mich. 

700,  93 

Beyel  v.  Newport  News,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  W. 

Va.  538,  1738 

Beyer  v.  Soper  Lumber  Co.,  76  Wis.  145, 

940,944 
Beynon  v.  Brandywine,  etc.,  T.  L.  Co.,  39 

Ind.  129,  1468 

Beynon  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co  ,  168  Pa. 

St.  642,  1781 

Bibb  v.  Hall,  101  Ala.  79,  93 

Bibb,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Taylor,  95  Ga.  615,  2024 

Bickford  v.  Grand  Junction  Ry.  Co.,  1 

Sup.  Ct.  of  Canada  696,  638,  639, 1351 

Bickford  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.,  109 

Mass.  151,  2374 

Bickley  v.  Schlag  (N.  J.),  20  Atl.  R.  250,        33 
Biddle's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.  278,  421,  425 

Biddle  v.  Bond,  6  Best  &  S.  225,          2214,  2386 
Bidwell  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  114  Pa. 

535,  212 


III,  pp.  126S-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2125.] 

Bielenberg  v.  Montana,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Mont.  271,  963, 1813 

Bier  v.  Gorrell,  30  W.  Va.  95,  854 

Big  Creek,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wolf,  138  Ind.  496,  2029 
Bigelow  v.  Gregory,  73  111.  197,  27,  271 

Bigelow  v.  Heaton,  4  Denio  (N.  Y.)  496,     2446 
Bigelow  v.  Mississippi  Central,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  2  Head  (Tenn.)  624,  1494 

Bigelow  v.  Nickerson,  70  Fed.  R.  113, 

2129,  2131,  2141 

Bigelow  v.  Perth  Amboy,  26  N.  J.  L.  297,    1104 
Bigelow   v.    Union   Freight   R.  Co.,  137 

Mass.  478,  739 

Big  Grove  v.  Wells,  65  111.  263,  1164 

Bigg's  Case,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  309,  217 

Biggs  v.  McBride,  17  Ore.  640,  2692 

Bigham  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa 

534,  315, 316 

Bilbee  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Com.  B. 

(N.  S.)  584,  1752, 1762 

Bile.*  v.  Tacoma,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Wash.  St. 

509,  65, 492 

Bill  v.  New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  R.,  2  Biss.  (U. 

S.)  390,  722,  741,  762,  764 

Bill  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  16  Fed.  R. 

14,  376 

Billings  v.  Robinson,  94  N.  Y.  415,          134,  269 
Billman  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76 

Ind.  166,  1909, 1987, 1988,  2065 

Bills  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 

Blatchf.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  227,  949 

Bills  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  N.  Y.  5, 

2403,2410 

Bingham  v.  Rushing,  5  Ala.  403.  260 

Bingham  v.  Lamping,  26  Pa.  St.  240,  892,  2388 
Bingham  v.  Miller,  17  Ohio  445,  60 

Bingham  v.  Rogers,  6  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.) 

495,  2320, 2631 

Binghamton  B.  Co.,  In  re,  3  Wall.  (U. 

S.)  51,  48 

Binkert  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  111. 

205,  657 

Binks  v.  South  Yorkshire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

L.  J.  (N.  S.)  Q.  B.  1950 

Binney's  Case,  2  Bland  Ch.  (Md.)  99,         1347 
Birch  v.  Cropper,  61  L.  T.  R.  621,  120, 123 

Bird  v.  Bird's  Patent,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  9 

Ch.  358,  485 

Bird  v.  Calvert,  22  S.  Car.  292,  258 

Bird  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  Mass. 

428,  139 

Bird  v.  Cromwell,  1  Mo.  81,  2305 

Bird  v.  Daggett,  97  Mass.  494,  486 

Bird  v.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  72  Ga.  655, 

2254,  2363,  2441,  2443 
Bird  v.  Great  Eastern  R.  Co.,  34  L.  J.  C. 

P.  366,  1409, 1490 


Ixxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-JU2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  UW-nW,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 


Bird  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  8  Eich. 

(S.  Car.)  Eq.  46,  1344 

Bird  of  Paradise,  The,  5  Wall.  545,  2390,  2447 
Birdsall  v.  Cary,  66  How.  (N.  Y.)  358,  1386 
Birdsall  v.  Bussell,  29  N.  Y.  220,  630 

Birdseye  v.  Schaeffer,  140  D.  S.  117,  948 

Birge  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  65  Iowa  440, 

1451, 1480,  1482,  1483, 1561 

Birge  v.  Gardner,  19  Conn.  507,  1973 

Birkenhead,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Pilcher,  5  Ex. 

24,  136 

Birkenhead,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Webster,  6  Ex. 

277,  203 

Birmingham  v.  Pettit  (D.  C.),  21  Wash. 

L.  E.  115,  2030 

Birmingham  v.  Eochester,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  59 

Hun  583,  2472,  2474 

Birmingham,  Mayor,  etc.,  of,  v.  Alabama, 

etc.,  B.  Co.,  98  Ala.  134,  1624, 1625 

Birmingham,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  In  re,  L.  E.  18 

Ch.  Div.  155,  264 

Birmingham,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  In  re,  3  Am.  & 

Eng.  E.  Cas.  616,  739 

Birmingham,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Alexander,  93 

Ala.  133,  1797 

Birmingham,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Allen,  99  Ala. 

&59,  2113, 2115 

Birmingham,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Birmingham 

St.  E.  Co.,  79  Ala.  465,  1615,  1620 

Birmingham,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Clay  (Ala.), 

19  So.  E.  309,  2179,  2546,  2703 

Birmingham,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

92  Pa.  St.  72,  147 

Birmingham,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hale,  90  Ala. 

8,  2598 

Birmingham  M.  E.  Co.  v.  Jacobs,  92  Ala. 

187,  10 

Birmingham,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Jacobs,  101 

Ala.  149,  2051 

Birmingham,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Locke,  1  Q. 

B.  256,  219,  220,  228 

Birmingham,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Parsons,  100 

Ala.  662,  963,  967, 1812, 1813, 1843 

Birmingham  Mineral  E.  Co.  v.  Smith,  89 

Ala.  305,  1515, 1518,  1519 

Birmingham  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  Lake 

Land  Co.,  99  Ala.  379,  148 

Birney  v.  New  York  Telegraph  Co.,  18  Md. 

341,  2453 

Bisaillon  v.  Blood,  64  N.  H.  565,  1982 

Bischoff  v.  People's  E.  Co.,  121  Mo.  216,  2593 
Biscoe  v.  Great  Eastern  E.  Co.,  16  L.  E. 

Eq.  636,  1563 

Bish  v.  Bradford,  17  Ind.  490,  851 

Bish  v.  Johnson,  21  Ind.  299,  449,  456 

Bishop  v.  Brainerd,  28  Conn.  289, 

444,  450,  469,  860, 1224 


Bishop  v.  Globe,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Mass.  132, 

134,  149, 150 
Bishop  v.  Houghton,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.Y.) 

566,  438 

Bishop  v.  Palmer,  146  Mass.  469,  523 

Bish6p  v.  Union  E.  Co.,  14  E.  I.  314,    1620,  1975 
Bi-Spool,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Acme,  etc.,  Co.,  153 

Mass.  404,  391 

Bissel  v.  Price,  16  111.  408,    2205,  2253,  2254,  2443 
BisseU  v.  Besson,  47  N.  J.  Eq.  580,  854 

Bissell  v.  Campbell,  54  N.  Y.  353,  2207 

BisseU  v.  Canada,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  39  Fed.  E. 

225,  938 

Bissell  v.  Jeffersonville,  24  How.  (U.  S.) 

287,  1172,  1202,  1203,  1239, 

BisseU  v.  Kankakee,  64  IU.  249,  1157 

BisseU  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  E.Co.,  22  N.Y.  258, 

38,  324,  356,  357,  467,  502,  503,  600, 643, 1130,  2226 
BisseU  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  25  N.  Y. 

442,  2295,  2511,  2601 

BisseU  v.  Spring  VaUey  Township,  124  U. 

S.  225,  1250 

Bissit  v.  Kentucky  Eiver  Nav.  Co.,  15  Fed. 

E.  353,  258,  875 

Bisson  v.  Curry,  25  Iowa  72,  773 

Bitner  v.  Utah,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  4  Utah  502,     1739 
Bitting  v.  Ten  Eyck,  85  Ind.  357, 

732,  734,  778 
Bittinger  v.   BeU,  65  Ind.  445, 

1146,  1185,  1208 

Bixby  v.  Goss,  54  Mich.  551,  1557 

Black's  Appeal,  83  Mich.  513,  858 

Black  v.  Aberdeen,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  115  N.  Car. 

667,  1901 

Black  v.  Ashley,  80  Mich.  90,  2353,  2359 

Black  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  38  Iowa 

515,  1644  1737 

Black  v.  Camden,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  45  Barb. 

(N  Y.)  40,  .  321 

Black  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  30  Neb.  197, 

2264,2266,2400 

Black  v.  Cohen,  52  Ga.  621,  1172 

Black  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  22  N.  J.  Eq. 

130, 

100, 104,  235,  349,  385,  525,  638,  862, 1115,  1351 
Black  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  24  N.  J.  Eq. 

455,  71,  100,  444,  445 

Black  v.  Goodrich,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Wis.  319, 

2263,  2318,  2328 
Black  v.  Homersham,  L.  E.  4  Exch.  Div. 

24,  419, 420 

Black  v.  Mayor  of  Baltimore,  50  Md.  235, 

1504,1508 
Black  v.  Ottoman  Bank,  15  Moore  P.  C. 

472,  329 

Black  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  58  Pa. 

St.  249,  6, 1284, 1613 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol. 

Black  v.  Third  Ave.  B.  Co.,  37  N.  Y.  S. 

830,  2179 

Black  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  Ill  IU.  351, 

497,  2340,  2341 
Black  v.  Zacherie  &  Co.,  3  How.  (U.  S). 

483,  145 

Blackburn  v.  Selma,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  2  Flip. 

525,  687,  768,  876 

Blackett  v.  Eoyal  Exchange  Co.,  2  Cromp. 

&  J.  244,  2211 

Blackman  v.  Central  E.  Co.,  58  Ga.  189, 

190,243 

Blackman  v.  Lehman,  63  Ala.  547,  1221 

Blackman  v.  Pierce,  23  Gal.  508,  2390 

Blackmore  v.  Toronto,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  38  Up. 

Can.  Q.  B.  172,  1952 

Black  Eiver,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Barnard,  9 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  104,  1445,  1516 

Black  Eiver,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Barnard,  31 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  258,  30 

Black  Eiver,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Clarke,  25  N. 

Y.  208,  161 

Black  Eiver  Lumber  Co.  v.  Warner,  93 

Mo.  374,  1585 

Blackshire  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  13 

Kan.  514,  1423,  1549, 1551,  1555 

Blackstock  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  20 

N.  Y.  48,  2270 

Blackwell  v.  Lynchburg,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  107 

N.  Car.  217,  937 

Blackwell  v.  Lynchburg,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  Ill 

N.  Car.  151,  1565,  1566,  1568,  1738, 1740 

Blackwell  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  47  La. 

Ann.  — ,  16  So.  E.  818,  1769,  1771, 1784 

Blade  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  10  Wis.  4,  2205 
Blain  v.  Taylor,  19  Abb.  Pr.  228,  561 

Elaine  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  9  W. 

Va.  252,  1805, 1807, 1863 

Elaine  v.  Curtis,  59  Vt.  120,  1022 

Blair  v.  Buttolph,  72  Iowa  31,  181, 192,  194 
Blair  v.  Corby,  29  Mo.  480,  1583 

Blair  v.  Cuming  County,  111  TJ.  S.  363,  1140 
Blair  v.  Erie,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  66  N.  Y.  313,  2457 
Blair  v.  Erie,  etc.  E.  Co.,  15  N.  Y.  444,  2456 
Blair  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Wis.  254, 

1810, 1811, 1829, 1832, 1835, 1890,  2002,  2472 
Blair  v.  Pelham,  118  Mass.  420,  1797 

Blair  v.  Perpetual  Ins.  Co.,  10  Mo.  559, 

33,330,543 
Blair  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  20  Fed.  E. 

348,  826 

Blair  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  22  Fed.  E. 

471,  708 

Blair  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  B.  Co.,  22  Fed. 

B.  36,  726 

Blair  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  E.  Co.,  23  Fed. 

B.  521,  709 


III,  pp.  1263-216L,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 

Blair  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  E.  Co.,  23  Fed. 

R-  524,  637,  660 

Blair  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  24  Fed.  E. 

148,  465 

Blair  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  25  Fed.  E. 

684,  365, 706 

Blair  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  25  Fed.  E. 

232,  686, 1604 

Blair  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  E.  Co.,  25  Fed. 

E.  132,  716 

Blair  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  27  Fed.  E. 

176,  2717 

Blair,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Walker,  50  Iowa  376,        375 
Blais  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  34  Minn. 

57,  1843 

Blaisdell  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  145 

Mass.  132,  2278 

Blaisdell  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  51 

N.  H.  483,  1320,  1323,  1324, 1327 

Blaisdell  v.  Winthrop,  118  Mass.  138,          1559 
Blake  v.  Brown,  80  Iowa  277,  181 

Blake  v.  Buffalo  Creek  B.  Co.,  56  N.  Y.  485, 

373,  375, 1568 
Blake  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  78  Iowa 

57,  2560 

Blake  v.  County  Commissioners,  114  Mass. 

583,  1472 

Blake  v.  Ferris,  5  N.  Y.  48,  300, 1588, 1589 

Blake  v.  Maine,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  70  Me.  60,       2076 
Blake  v.  Midland  Ey.  Co.,  10  Eng.  Law  & 

Eq.  437,  2135,  2142 

Blake  v.  Midland  E.  Co.,  18  Q.  B.  93, 

2129,  2146,  2151 
Blake  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  E.  E.  Co.,  39 

N.  H.  435,  865 

Blake  v.  Williams,  6  Pick.  (Mass.)  286,        849 
Blakely  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  34  Neb. 

284,  1408 

Blakely  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  46  Neb. 

272,  1288, 1303 

Blakely  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  (Neb.),  64 

N.  W.  E.  972,  1303 

Blakely  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  25  Neb. 

207,  1518 

Blakeney  v.  Dufaur,  15  Beav.  40,    776,  781,  825 
Blakesly  v.  Caywood,  4  Ore.  279,  1123 

Blalock  v.  Kernersville,  etc.,  Co.,  110  N. 

Car.  99, 141,  855 

Blamires  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  42  L. 

J.  Eq.  182  2473 

Blanchard  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  31  Mich. 

43,  1297, 1299,  1305,  1306, 1313,  1314 

Blanchard  v.  Isaacs,  3  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  388, 

2188,  2192,  2194 

Blanchard  v.  Kaull,  44  Cal.  440, 
Blanchard  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  126 

111.  416,          1740, 1745, 1948,  1986,  2711 


Ixxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.[ 


Blanchard  v.  Page,  8  Gray  281,  2222,  2423,  2695 
Blanchard's  Gun  Stock,  etc.,  Factory  v. 

Warner,  1  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  258,  1292 

Blanchet  v.  Powell's  Collieries  Co.,  9  L. 

R.  Ex.  74,  2206 

•  Bland  v.  Adams,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Duvall  232,  2269 
Bland  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  55  Cal.  570, 

2508,  2575,  2633 
Blanding  v.  Davenport,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Iowa 

225,  400,  490 

Blanton  v.  Board  of  Commissioners,  101 

N.  Car.  532,  1248 

Blanton  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Va. 

618,  65, 1271 

Blatchford  v.  Ross,  54  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  42,  450 
Blatchford  v.  Ross,  5  Abb.  Pr.  R.  (N.  S.) 

434,  349, 444 

Blatt  v.  McBarron,  161  Mass.  21,  1948 

Bleecker  v.  Satsop  R.  Co.,  3  Wash.  77,  2189 
Blen  v.  Bear  River,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Cal.  602, 

390,391 
Blesch  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Wis. 

183,  1543 

Blessing  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Mo. 

410,  2085 

Blewett  v.  Tregonning,  3  Adolph.  &  E. 

1002,  1318 

Blewett  v.  Wyandotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Mo. 

583,  1874 

Blight  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  Pa.  St. 

10,  1769, 1781 

Blight  v.  Page,  3  Bosanquet  &  P.  295,  2290 
BlindeU  v.  Hagan,  54  Fed.  R.  40,  910,  2688 
Bliss  v.  Hosmer,  15  Ohio  44,  1352 

Bliss  v.  Kaweah,  etc.,  Co.,  65  Cal.  502, 

333,  391,  392,  393 

Bliss  v.  Matteson,  45  N.  Y.  22,  374,  377,  725 
Bliss  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160  Mass. 

447,  2150 

Bliven  v.  Hudson  R.  R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y.  403, 

2214,  2272,  2385 

Blize  v.  Castlio,  8  Mo.  App.  290,  1553 

Bjbjian  v.  Woonsocket,  etc.,  Co.,  164  Mass. 

214,  2022 

Block  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  R. 

529,  881 

Block  v.  Commissioners,  99  U.  S.  686, 

1236,  1239,  1241, 1260 
Block  v.  Fitchburgh  R.  Co  ,  139  Mass.  308, 

2231,2243 
Block  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Wis. 

371,  2468 

Blodgett  v.  Abbot,  72  Wis.  516,  410,  2223,  2248 
Blodgett  v.  Bartlett,  50  Ga.  353,  2550,  2555 
Blodgett  v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  580,  1455, 1544, 1549, 1560 


Blomquest  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co. 

(Minn.),  67  N.  W.  R.  804,  2112 

Blomquist  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 

Minu.  423,  2091 

Blondheim  v.  Moore,  11  Md.  365,  738,  773 

Blood  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Gray 

(Mass.)  137,  1401 

Bloodgood  v.  Clark,  4  Paige  574,  751 

Bloodgood  v.  Mohawk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  9,  1333, 1337,  1342,  1418 

Bloodgood  v.  Mohawk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  52,  1353 

Bloom  v.  Burdick,  1  Hill  130,  107,  990 

Bloom  v.  Richards,  2  Ohio  St.  387,  2647 

Bloomfield  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Iowa  607,  1775 

Bloomfield  R.  Co.  v.  Grace,  112  Ind.  128, 

1352, 1460,  1591 
Bloomfield,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Richardson,  63 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  437,  1340 

Bloomfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Slike,  107 

Ind.  480,  1542 

Bloomingdale  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

Lea  616,  2391 

Bloomingtcn  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  134 

111.  451,  1103, 1109, 1110 

Blossom  v.  Champion,  37  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

554,  2214 

Blossom  v.  Dodd,  43  N.  Y.  264,  2325,  2633 

Blossom  v.  Griffin,  13  N.  Y.  569, 

2189,  2190,  2242,  2325 
Blossom  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

WaU.  (U.  S.)  655.  686,  690 

Blossom  v.  Railroad  Co.,  3  WaU.  (U.  S.) 

196,  701 

Blossom  v.  Smith,  3  Blatchf.  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

316,  2358 

Blount  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

Fed.  R.  375,  1784, 1800 

Blower  v.  Great  Western  Ry.  Co.,  L.  R.  7 

C.  P.  655,  2280,  2399,  2400 

Bloxam  v.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Fla.),  17 

So.  R.  902,  455, 1066 

Bloxam  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  3 

Ch.  App.  Cas.  337,  434,  436 

Blue  v.  Aberdeen,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Car.), 

23  S.  E.  R.  275,  1903 

Blue  Earth  County  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  28  Minn.  503,  1420, 1446 

Blum  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  526,  1132 

Blum  v.  Marks,  21  La.  Ann.  268,  2390 

Blum  v.  Southern,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Cent.  L.  J. 

591,  2537,  2538,  2543 

Blum  v.  Southern,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Flippin  (U. 

S.)  500,  2535,  2536 

Blum  v.  The  Caddo,  1  Woods  64,  2695 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


Ixxxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  J,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  li6S'916^  Vol.  TV,  pp.  2765-2725.] 


Blumantle  v.  Fitchburg  B.  Co.,  127  Mass. 

322,  2611, 2613 

Blumb  v.  City  of  Kansas,  84  Mo.  112,          1590 
Blumenthal  v.  Brainerd,  38  Vt.  402, 

804,  812,  2168,  2320,  2322 
Blumenthal  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Me. 

550,  2611,  2612,  2613,  2624 

Blunt  v.  Carpenter,  68  Iowa  265,  1208 

Blunt  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  61  Fed. 

B.  375,  1773 

Blunt  v.  Walker,  11  Wis.  334,  156, 165,  539 
Blyth  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  Co.,  11  Exch. 

781,  2467 

Blythe  v.  Denver,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  15  Colo.  333, 

2265 
Board,  etc.,  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  59 

Ala.  551,  1060 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  4 

Interst.  Com.  B.  348,  2686 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Aspinwall,  24  How.  (U.  S.) 

376,  1258 

Board,  etc.,    .  Bacon,  96  Ind.  31,  2013 

Board,  etc.,    .  Bolton,  104  111.  220,  1145 

Board,  etc.,  .  Bright,  18  Ind.  93,  1146, 1171 
Board,  etc.,  .  Bunting,  111  Ind.  143,  60 

Board,  etc.,    .  Center  Township,  105  Ind. 

422,  26, 1169 

Board  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Railroad,  94 

Ky.  377,  1185, 1229 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  14  HI. 

314,  1693 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  44  111. 

229,  1060 

Board,  etc.,  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co., 

5  Interst.  Com.  Com.  E.  546,  2683 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Fullen,  111  Ind.  410,  1105 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Hall,  70  Ind.  469,  29,  75,  87 
Board,  etc.,  v.  King,  67  Fed.  B.  202, 

1259, 1260, 1261 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Labore,  37  Kan.  480,  1430 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  50 

Ind.  85, 

239,  324,  508,  515,  525,  569,  572,  586,  600,  616 
Board,  etc.,  v.  Legg,  110  Ind.  479,  2153 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  39 

Ind.  192,  1146, 1190, 1201, 1212 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Lucas,  93  U.  S.  108,  1204 

Board,  etc.,  v.  McClintock,  51  Ind.  325, 

1153, 1175, 1217 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Magoon,  109  111.  142,  1510, 1557 
Board,  etc.,  v.  Montgomery,  106  Ind.  517,  1146 
Board,  etc.,  v.  Pearson,  129  Ind.  456,  1796 
Board,  etc.,  v.  Pullman  Co.,  60  Fed.  B.  37, 

1069,2528 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Beynolds,  44  Ind.  509,  137,  396 
Board,  etc.,  v.  Scearce,  2  Duv.  576,  2128,  2129 


Board,  etc.,  v.  South  Bend.,  etc.,  Co.,  118 

Ind.  68,  1616 

Board  v.  Spitler,  13  Ind.  235,  1147 

Board,  etc.,  v.  State,  86  Ind.  8,  1146 

Board,  etc.,  v.  State,  109  Ind.  596,  1146 

Board,  etc.,  v.  State.  115  Ind.  64. 

186,  188,  450, 1146, 1162, 11%,  1200,  1201, 1224 
Board,  etc.,  v.  Taylor,  99  N.  C.  210,  1103 

Board,  etc.,  v.  Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  46  Tex. 

316,  1163,  1221, 1255 

Board  of  Commissioners,  Matter  of,  52 

N.  Y.  131,  1498 

Board  of  Levee  Commissioners  v.  Harkle- 

roads,  62  Miss.  807,  1425 

Board  of  Levee  Commissioners  v.  John- 
son, 66  Miss.  248,  4451 
Board  of  Bailroad  Commissioners  v.  Ore- 
gon, etc.,  B.  Co.,  17  Ore.  65,          978,  981,  990 
Board  of  Bailroad  Commissioners  v. 

Symns,  etc.,  Co.,  53  Kan.  207,  1013 

Board  of  Supervisors  v.  Gorrell,  20  Gratt. 

(Va.)  484,  1346,  1384 

Board  of  Supervisors  v.  McFadden,  57 

Miss.  618,  1372 

Board  of  Supervisors  v.  Mississippi,  etc., 

R.  R.  Co.,  21  HI.  338,  70, 1164 

Boardman  v.  Cutter,  128  Mass.  388,  133 

Boardman  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
84  N.  Y.  157, 

119,  121, 122, 125,  418,  428,  429,  431, 462, 469,  860 
Boardman  v.  Thompson,  25  Iowa  487,  523 

Boatmen's,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Western,  etc., 

Bailroad,  81  Ga.  221,  2215,  2217 

Boatwright  v.  Northeastern,  etc.,  B.  Co., 

25  S.  C.  128,  2020 

Boaz  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  87  Ga.  463, 

2405,  2412,  2415, 2697 

Bobbett  v.  State,  10  Kan.  9,  925 

Bock  v.  Perkins,  28  Fed.  B.  123,  646 

Bockes  v.  Ha  thorn,  20  Hun  (N.  Y.)  503,  636 
Bockover  v.  Life  Assn.,  77  Va.  85,  772,  797 
Bocock  v.  Allegheny,  etc.,  Co.,  82  Va.  913, 

275,298 

Bodenham  v.  Bennett,  4  Price  31,  2350 

Bodfish  v.  Bodfish,  105  Mass.  317,  1303 

Bodie  v.  Carolina  Midland  B.  Co.  (S.  C.) 

24  S.  E.  B.  180,  2548 

Bodine  v.  Exchange  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  51  N. 

Y.  117,  296 

Bodtoh,  etc.,  Exch.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  3  Interest.  Com.  B.  493,  2685 

Boehl  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  44  Minn. 

191,  2400,  2403,  2404,  2405,  2417 

Boehm  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  81  Wis.  592. 

2576 

Boerth  v.  West  Side  R.  Co.,  87  Wis.  288,  1649 
Boerum  v.  Schenck,  41  N.  Y.  182,  377 


Ixxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JUS-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Began  v.  Edinburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Fed.  R. 

192,  1135 

Bogart  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145  N.  Y. 

283,  2003 

Bogenschutz  v.  Smith,  84  Ky.  330,  2708 

Boggess  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  W. 

Va.  297,  2458 

Boggs  v.  Adger,  4  Rich.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  408,       138 
Boggs  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Railway  Co.,  54 

Iowa  435,  1009, 1667, 1672,  1725, 1728 

Boggs  v.  Martin,  13  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  239, 

2420,2446 
Bohan  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Wis. 

391,  1758,  1764 

Bohan  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Wis. 

30,  1764 

Bohannan  v.  Hammond,  42  Cal.  227,  2262 

Bohlen's  Estate,  75  Penn.  St.  304,  137, 139 

Bohlman  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

Wis.  105,  1545, 1546, 1549 

Bohlman  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

Wis.  147,  1475,  1545 

Bohmer  v.  City  Bank,  77  Va.  445,    148, 149, 151 
Bohn  v.  Brown,  33  Mich.  257,  266 

Bohn  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  Mo.  429, 

2706 
Bohn,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Erickson,  55  Fed.  R.  943, 

2028,2034 

Bohn  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hollis.  54  Minn.  223,  909 

Boice  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  61  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  611,  2484,  2498 

Boies  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Conn. 

272,  2347 

Boikens  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48 

La.  — ,  19  So.  R.  737,  2149,  2179 

Boing  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  N.  Car. 

360,  1874, 1880 

Bolinger  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Minn. 

418,  1753, 2128 

Bolles  v.  Brimneld,  120  U.  S.  759, 

1171, 1172, 1178 

Bolles  v.  Duff,  35  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  481,        756 
Bellinger  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  La. 

Ann.  721,  1961 

Boiling  v.  Le  Grand,  87  Ala.  482,  28 

Bolman  v.  Lohman,  79  Ala.  63,  663 

Bolt  &  Iron  Co.,  Re,  14  Onta.  R.  211,  371 

Bolton  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  L.  R. 

C  P.  431,  2395 

Bolton  v.  McShane,  67  Iowa  207,         1545, 1546 
Bolton  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  88  Pa.  St. 

261,  893 

Bomar  v.  Louisiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  La. 

Ann.  983,  2014,  2068 

Bomar  v.  Maxwell,  9  Humph.  (Tenn.)  620, 

2609,2613 


Bommer  v.  American  Spiral,  etc.,  Co.,  81 

N.  Y.  468,  21 

Bonaparte  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75 

Md.  340,  901 

Bonaparte  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Bald. 

(U.  S.)  205, 

935, 1273, 1342,  1354, 1364, 1413, 1465,  1546 
Bonce  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Iowa 

278,  2179 

Bond  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  Ind. 

301,  1822, 1843, 1846, 1865 

Bond  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Hun 

476,  1783 

Bond  v.  Smith,  113  N.  Y.  378,  2718 

Bond  v.  State,  68  Miss.  648,  831 

Bond  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  Ind. 

301,  1822 

Bond  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Iowa 

712,  1021 

Bondurant  v.  Watson,  103  U.  S.  281,  932 

Benewitz  v.  Van  Wert  Co.  Bank,  41  Ohio 

St.  78,  262 

Bonham  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  S. 

Car.  353,  1040 

Bonnell  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  N.  J. 

Law  189,  1779 

Bonnell  v.  Jewett,  24  Hun  524,  2143 

Bonnell  v.  State,  64  Ind.  498,  296 

Bonner  v.  Bryant,  79  Tex.  540,  2061 

Bonner  v.  Franklin  Co-op.  Ass'n,  4  Tex. 

Civil  App.  166,  1021 

Bonner  v.  Grumbach,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

482,  2621, 2622 

Bonner  v.  Marsh,  10  Smed.  &  M.  (Miss.) 

376,  2196, 2695 

Bonner  v.  Mayfleld,  82  Tex.  234,  813 

Bonner  v.  Mendoza,  4  Tex.  App.  (Civ. 

Gas.)  392,  2622 

Bonner  v.  New  Orleans,  2  Woods  (U.  S.) 

135,  619 

Bonner  v.  Spiral  Hinge  Mfg.  Co.,  81  N.  Y. 

468,  487 

Bonner  v.  Wingate,  78  Tex.  333,  2469 

Bonnett  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.), 

33  S.  W.  R.  334,  2033,  2153 

Bontwell  v.  Townsend,  37  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

205,  1593 

Boody  v.  Rutland,  ete.,  R.  Co.,  24  Vt.  660,  1570 
Booe  v.  Junction  R.  Co.,  10  Ind.  93,  450 

Booherv.  Perrill  (Ind.),40N.  E.  R.  36,        786 
Booker,  Ex  parte,  18  Ark.  338,  246 

Booker  v.  Venice,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  111.  333, 

1390, 1438, 1556 
Boom  Co.  v.  Patterson,  98  U.  S.  403, 

935, 1332,  1338, 1341,  1367,  1413. 1432, 1433, 1478, 

1513 
Boone  v.  Clark,  129  111.  466,  1307 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxxix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1Z62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-27S5.] 


Boorman  v.  American  Ex  Co.,  21  Wis.  153, 

2201,  2322,  2338, 

Booth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  N.  Y.  38,   2028 
Booth  v.  Bunce,  33  N.  Y.  139,  726 

Booth  v.  Clark,  17  How.  (U.  S.)  321, 

767,  771,  792,  797 

Booth  v.  Robinson,  55  Md.  419,  143 

Booth  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  N.  Y.  Supp. 

336,  1589, 1590 

Booth  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Hun  624,    1593 
Booth  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  N.  Y.  267, 

904, 1564, 1567 
Boothby  v.  Androscoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51 

Me.  318,  1400,  1406, 1454, 1564,  2196 

Boothby  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  (N.  H.), 

34  Atl.  R.  157,  2592 

Borda  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141 

Pa.  St.  484,  2433 

Bordeaux  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  579,  2507 

Borden  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  113  N.  C. 

570,  412 

Borden  v.  Southside  R.  Co.,  5  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

184,  1320 

Bordentown  v.  Imlay,  4  N.  J.  L.  285,  163 

Bordentown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Flanagan,  41  N. 

J.  L.  115,  2701 

Bordentown,  etc.,  T.  Co.  v.  Camden,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  17  N.  J.  L.  314,  61, 1442 

Borders  v.  Murphy,  78  111.  81,  1307 

Borgman  v.  Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Fed. 

R.  667,  2077,  2082,  2091 

Borland  v.  Haven,  37  Fed.  R.  394, 

265,  268,  380, 1012 
Borland  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Iowa  148,  "   1494 

Borland  v.  Nevada  Bank,  99  Cal.  89,  307 

Borough  of  Carlisle  v.  Brisbane,  113  Pa. 

St.  544,  1799 

Borough  of  McKeesport  v.  McKeesport  R. 

Co.,  158  Pa.  St.  447,  1641 

Borough  of  Millerstown  v.  Frederick,  114 

Pa.  St.  435,  1227,  1232 

Borough  of  Millvale  v.  Evergreen  R.  Co., 

131  Pa.  St.  1,  5 

Borough  of  Mt.  Pleasant  v.  Baltimore, 

etc.,  Co.,  138  Pa.  St.  365,  1107, 1108 

Borough  of  Stamford  v.  Stamford,  etc., 

Co.,  56  Conn.  381,  1638 

Borst  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  N.  Y. 

639,  1987 

Bosanquet  v.  Shortridge,  4  Exch.  699,          353 
Boskowitz  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  5  Cent. 

L.  Jour.  58,  2208 

Boscowitz  v.  Adams,  etc.,  Co.,  93  111.  523, 

2261,2292,2295,2337 


Bosher  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Va.  455, 

194,  200 

Boson  v.  Sandford,  2  Salk.  440,  2286 

Boss  v.  Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  R.  I. 

1*9.  2470 

Bossout  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Hun  589,  2052 
Boster  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  W. 

Va.318,  2452 

Bostock  v.  North  Staffordshire,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  5  DeG.  &  S.  584,  538 

Boston  v.  Brookline,  156  Mass.  172,  1378 

Boston,  etc.,  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co.,  1 

Interest.  Com.  Com.  R.  436,  2682 

Roston  Gas-Light  Co.  v.  Old  Colony  R. 

Co.,  14  Allen  (Mass.)  444,  1370 

Boston  Glass  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Langdon,  24 

Pick.  (Mass.)  49,  852,  859,  861 

Boston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Briggs,  132  Mass.  24, 

1803,  1807 
Boston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chamberlain,  66  Fed. 

R.  847,  825- 

Boston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Moring,  15  Gray  (Mass.) 

211,  28 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Babcock,  3  Cush. 

228,  562, 1292,  1297 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  10  Gray 

(Mass.)  384,  1298 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  1 

Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  158,  2676 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  5  Cush.  (Mass.)  375,  49 

Boston,  etc.,R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

65  N.  H.  393,  588,  590,  695,  697,  747 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cambridge,  159 

Mass.  283,  1662, 1704 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chesapeake,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  76  Va.  180,  1603, 1604 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chipman,  146  Mass. 

107,  2496 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coffin,  50  Conn.  150, 

647,668 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  79 

Me.  386,  954,  958,  975, 1660, 1662 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  100 

Mass.  399,  423,  430 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  County  of  Middle- 
sex, 1  Allen  (Mass.)  324,  1663,  1704 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Folsom,  46  N.  H.  64, 

1481, 1557, 1558 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greenbush,  52  N.  Y. 

510,  1659, 1664 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Gilmore,  37  N. 

H.  410.  47,  536,  650,  696,  887 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  22  Hun  176,       1516 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  9  Blatch,  (U. 

S.)  101,  865 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[Vol.  I, pp.  i-uz,  Vol.  ii, pp.  US-IMS,  Vol.  in, pp.  nes-zm,  Vol.  iv,  pp. 


Boston,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  In  re,  3  Int.  Com.  R. 

717,  2522 

Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  In  re,  53  N.  Y.  574, 

108, 1270, 1343,  1376,  1380,  1395,  1663 
Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lowell,  etc.,  E.  Co., 

124  Mass.  368, 

1266, 1267, 1276,  1392, 1393, 1395,  1692 
Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  Matter  of,  79  N.  Y.  64, 

1376, 1680,  1684, 1687, 1691,  1697 
Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  Matter  of,  31  Hun  (N. 

Y.)  461,  1430 

Boston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U. 

S.  25,  958 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Midland  E.  Co.,  1 

Gray  (Mass.)  340,  1264, 1350 

Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Montgomery,  119 

Mass.  114,  1519, 1520 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  E.  Co., 

139  Mass.  463,  875 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  R. 

Corp.,  157  Mass.  258,  492,  1004 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  13  E.  I.  260,  324,  449,  454,  580,  863 

Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  12  R.  1. 220,  747,  756 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  3  Allen  (Mass.)  142,    1435, 1512, 1522, 1703 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Old  Colony  E.  Co., 

12  Cush.  (Mass.)  605,         1400,  1401,  1443,  1703 
Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Ordway,  140  Mass. 

510,  2246 

Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Proctor,  1  Allen 

(Mass.)  267,  2484,  2496 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richardson,  135 

Mass.  473,  117 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Salem,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

2  Gray  (Mass.)  1,  48,  49,  1379,  1546 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shanly,  107  Mass. 

568,  2282 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  32  N.  H.  215, 

1020, 1034,  2128 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trafton,  151  Mass. 

229,  2498 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wellington,  113 

Mass.  79,  28,  157, 164, 169,  215 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitcher,  1  Allen 

(Mass.)  497,  2422 

Boston  Safe  Deposit  &  T.  Co.  v.  Bankers' 

&  M.  T.  Co.,  36  Fed.  R.  288,          653,  654,  655 
Boston  Water  Power  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  23  Pick.  (Mass.)  360, 

108, 1372, 1374, 1379, 1384, 1395 
Boston  Water  Power  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  16  Pick.  (Mass.)  512,  1403 

Bostwick  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N. 

Y.  712,  2210,  2307,  2325,  2326 


Bostwick  v.  Champion,  11  Wend.  571, 

2243,  2244 

Bostwick  v.  Chapman,  24  Atl.  R.  32,  616 

Bostwick  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  2  N. 

Dak.  440,  1803 

Boswell  v.  Barnhart,  96  Ga.  521,  2152 

Boswell  v.  Laird,  8  Cal.  469,  1587 

Bosworth  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  Bank,  64 

Fed.  R.  615,  855,  857 

Bothe  v.  Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Ohio  St. 

147,  1559 

Bothwell  v.  Millikan,  104  Ind.  162,  1161 

Botsford  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

Conn.  454,  1599 

Bott  v.  Pratt,  33  Minn.  323,  1023 

Bottomley's  Case,  L.  E.  16  Ch.  Div.  681, 

205,  219 
Bottomley  v.  Port  Huron,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  44 

Mich.  542,  1593 

Bottoms  v.  Seaboard,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  25  L.  E. 

A.  784,  1975 

Bottoms  v.  Seaboard,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  114  N. 

Car.  699,  '    1979, 1982 

Botts  v.  Simpsonville,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ky.  54, 

70,  240,  449,  450,  454, 

Bouch,  In  re,  L.  E.  29  Ch.  Div.  635,  424 

Bouch  v.  Sproule,  L.  E.  12  App.  Cas.  385,    424 
Bouker  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  89 

Hun  202,  2302 

Bouknight  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  41  S. 

Car.  415,  612 

Bouknight  v.  Davis,  33  S.  Car.  410,  1173 

Bouldin  v.  Baltimore,  15  Md.  18,  1104 

Boulter  v.  Webster,  11  L.  T.  N.  S.  598,  -     2144 
Boult  v.  Ship  Naval  Eeserve,  5  Hughes  (U. 

S.  C.  C.)  233,  2426 

Boulton  Carbon  Co.  v.  Mills,  78  Iowa  460, 

129,  132, 166,  252,  257 

Boulware  v.  Davis,  90  Ala.  207,  770 

Bound  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  45  Wis.  543,  1200 

Bound  v.  South  Carolina  Ey.  Co.,  46  Fed. 

E.  315,  697 

Bound  v.  South  Carolina  E.  Co.,  43  Fed. 

E.  404,  827 

Bound  v.  South  Carolina  E.  Co.,  50  Fed. 

E.853,  698 

Bound  v.  South  Carolina  E.  Co.,  58  Fed. 

E.  473,  686,  698,  708 

Bourgeois  v.  Mills,  60  Tex.  76,  1524 

Bourne  v.  Gatliffe,  7  Man.  &  850,  2278 

Bouwmeester  v.  Grand  Eapids,  etc.,  E.Co., 

67  Mich.  87,  1978 

Bowden  v.  Johnson,  107  U.  S.  251,  134 

Bowen  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  17  S.  Car. 

574,  1425,  1442 

Bowen  v.  Brecon  By.,  L.  B.  3  Eq.  541,  634,  661 


TABLE    OP    CASES. 


XC1 


[References  are.  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S16B-t72S.] 

nrnn     -rr       f^^innfrf*       A+*»          "R       C*f\         Q^    \f f\       9ftft  "Rr\TTrtQ     TT       IVT^^fonlj-       rt**»          <~1f*         VI    ~\XT      17ft       TO 


Bowen  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  95  Mo.  268, 

1998 
Bowen  v.  Detroit  City  E.  Co.,  54  Mich.  496, 

1623, 1645 

Bowen  v.  Hall,  L.  R.  6  Q.  B.  Div.  333,  2688 
Bowen  v.  Lease,  5  Hill  (N.  Y.)  221,  100 

Bowen  v.  Mt.  Washington  R.  Co.,  62  N.  H. 

502,  404 

Bowen  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Minn. 

522,  *  1901 

Bower  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Iowa 

546,  612 

Bower  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Wis. 

457,  1749 

Bower  v.  Peate,  L.  R.  1  Q.  B.  Div.  321,  1593 
Bowers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Wis. 

457,  1740 

Bowers  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  Co.,  162 

Mass.  312,  2105,  2115 

Bowers  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158  Pa. 

St.  302,  2484 

Bowers  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  N. 

C.  721,  2700 

Bowers  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Utah  215,  2010 
Bowery  Bank,  Matter  of,  16  How.  Pr.  56,  246 
Bowick  v.  Miller,  21  Ore.  25,  364 

Bowie  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mc- 

Arthur  (D.  C.)  609,  2194 

Bowie  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,lMc- 

Arthur  94,  2406 

Bowlby  v.  Shively,  22  Ore.  410.  1403 

Bowler  v.  Perrin,  47  Mich.  154,  1475 

Bowler,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Toledo,  etc.  R.  Co.,  10 

Ohifc  Circ.  Ct.  R.  272,  2612 

Bowler  v.  Washington,  62  Me.  302,  1472 

Bowlin  v.  Nye,  10  Gush.  (Mass.)  416,  2362 

Bowling  Green  R.  Co.  v.  Warren  County, 

10  Bush  (Ky.)  711,  476, 1182 

Bowlsby  v.  Speer,  31  N.  J.  L.  351,  1405 

Bowman  v.  Bell,  14  Simons  392,  777 

Bowman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  U. 

S.  465,  966,  2641,  2642,  2656 

Bowman  v.  Hilton,  11  Ohio  303,  2243,  2253 

Bowman  v.  Middleton,  1  Ray  (S.  Car.)  252, 1335 
Bowman  v.  Stewart,  165  Pa.  St.  394,  1574 

Bowman  v.  TeaU,  23  Wend.  306,  2265,  2305 
Bowman  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  516,  1863 

Bowman  v.  Venice,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  111. 

459,  1489, 1492, 1495,  1497, 1498, 1526 

Bowne  v.  Mt,  Holly  Nat.  Bank,  45  N.  J.  L. 

360  329 

Box's  Trusts,  Re,  9  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  372,  425 

Boyce  v.  Grundy,  3  Vet.  210,  617 

Boyce  v.  Montauk  Gas,  etc.,  Co.,  37  W. 

Va.  73,  643 


Boyce  v.  Montauk,  etc.,  Co.,  37  W.  Va.  73, 

555 

Boyce  v.  Sinclair,  3  Bush  261,  1197 

Boyce  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  63  Iowa 

70,  1022,  2132,  2134 

Boyd  v.  Alabama,  94  U.  S.  645,  1259 

Boyd  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  17 

Md.  195,  366,  878 

Boyd  v.  Clark,  8  Fed.  R.  849,  2143 

Boyd  v.  Craydon  R.  Co. ,  4  Bing.  N.  C.  669,       32 
Boyd  v.  Hall,  56  Ga.  563,  268 

Boyd  v.  Negley,  40  Pa.  St.  377,    1360, 1493, 1498 
Boyd  v.  Peach  Bottom  R.  Co.,  90  Pa.  St. 

169,  160, 168 

Boyd  v.  Royal  Ins.  Co.,  Ill  N.  Car.  372,        793 
Boyd  v.  United  States,  116  U.  S.  616,  930 

Boyd  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Mo.  371, 

1738, 1739 
Boyer  v.  Commonwealth,  (Ky.)  19  S.  W. 

R.  845,  1052 

Boylan  v.  Hot  Springs  R.  Co.,  132  U.  S. 

146,  2484,  2496,  2697 

Boyle  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  Mass. 

102,  2114 

Boyle  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Pa. 

St.  310,  1136 

Boyle  v.  Townes,  9  Leigh  158,          785,  793,  794 
Boynton  v.  Andrews,  63  N.  Y.  93,  166 

Boyuton  v.  Peterborough,  4  Gush.  467, 

1483,1489 

Boys  v.  Pink,  8  Car.  &  P.  361,  2186,  2187 

Brace  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  N.  Y. 

269,  18*2 

Braceville  Coal  Co.  v.  People,  147  111.  66, 

73,  963 

Bradbury  v.  Barnes,  19  Cal.  120,  373,  726 

Bradbury  v.  Furlong,  13  R.  1. 15,  2129 

Bradbury  v.  Goodwin,  108  Ind.  286,  2073 

Bradbury  v.  Kingston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  157 

Pa.  St.  231, 
Braddock  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

N.  J.  L.  363,  202,  203,  209 

Braddock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Braddock  By. 

Co.,  1  Pa.  Dist.  R.  44,  1714 

Bradford  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160  Mass. 

392,  1965 

Bradford  v.  Floyd,  80  Mo.  207,  2651 

Bradford  v.  Frankfort,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142 

Ind.  383,  342,  447,  451,481 

Bradford  v.  South  Car.  Railroad,  7  Rich. 

L.  201,  2227,  2239,  2244 

Bradford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Briggs,  L.  B.  12 

App.  Gas.  29,  I*8'  15° 

Bradford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Briggs,  56  L.  T.  Rep. 

62,  149 

Bradish  v.  James,  83  Mo.  313, 
Bradley  v.  Ballard,  55  111.  413,         503,  508,  520 


XC11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-1,1,2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1265-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-2725.] 


Bradley  v.  Bauder,  36  Ohio  St.  28,  112 

Bradley  v.  Boston,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  2  Gush. 

539,        '  1744 

Bradley  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  N.  Y. 

427,  1832,  1836,  1837, 1842 

Bradley  v.  City  of  Frankfort,  99  Ind.  417,  1470 
Bradley  v.  Farwell,  1  Holmes  433,  855 

Bradley  v.  Ft.  Wayne,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  94 

Mich.  35,  2598 

Bradley  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  E.  Co., 

(Mich.)  65  N.  W.  R.  102,  2550 

Bradley  v.  Holdsworth,  3  M.  &  W.  422,        440 
Bradley  v.  Missouri  Pac.  E.  Co.,  91  Mo. 

493,  1295,  1482, 1531 

Bradley  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  21  Conn. 

294,  56,  57,  1107,  1119,  1353,  1409 

Bradley  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  62  N. 

Y.  99,  2071 

Bradley  v.  Second  Ave.,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  35  N. 

Y.  S.  918,  2180 

Bradley  v.  Waterhouse,  1  Moo.  &  M.  154,    2309 
Bradshaw  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  L. 

E.  10  C.  P.  189,  2146 

Bradshaw  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  (Ky.), 

21  S.  W.  E.  346,  2059 

Bradshaw  v.  Eodgers,  20  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

103,  1335 

Bradshaw  v.  South  Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co., 

135  Mass.  407,  2487,  2505 

Bradstreet  v.  Heran,  2  Blatchf.  116,    2205,  2301 
Bradt  v.  Benedict,  17  N.  Y.  93,  77 

Bradway  v.  Le Worthy,  9  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

251,  1030 

Brady  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  57  Iowa 

393,  1894 

Brady  v.  Johnson,  75  Md.  445,  695 

Brady  v.  Ludlow,  etc.,  Co.,  154  Mass.  468,    2116 
Brady  v.  Nagle,  (Tex.  Ct.  App.)  29  S.  W. 

E.  943,  295 

Brady  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  2  Interst.  Com. 

E.  78,  2686 

Brady  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  2  Interst.  Com. 

E.  131,  2686 

Brady  v.  Eensselaer,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  1  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  378,  1817, 1841 

Brady  v.  Eensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Thomp. 

&  C.  (N.  Y.)  537,  1845 

Brady  v.  State,  26  Md.  290,  162 

Brady  v.  State,  15  Lea  528,  958 

Brady  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Mich.  616, 

1769, 1777 

Bragg  v.  Tufts,  49  Ark.  554,  1056 

Brain  v.  Harris,  10  Exch.  908,  587 

Brainard  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Gray 

(Mass.)  407,  1520 

Brainard  v.  Clapp,  10  Cush.  (Mass.)  6, 

905,1424 


Brainard  v.  Connecticut  R.  Co.,  7  Cush. 

(Mass.)  506,  1650 

Brainard  v.  Missiquoi  R.  Co.,  48  Vt.  107, 

1380, 140T 
Brainerd  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  E.  Co.,  25 

N.  Y.  496,  632 

Brainerd  v.  Peck,  34  Vt.  496,  646,  652,  653,  654 
Braintree,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Braintree,  146  Mass. 

482,  25 

Braithwaite  v.  Power,  1  N.  D.  455, 

2246,  2420,  2427 
Brakken  v.  Minneapolis  E.  Co.,  29  Minn. 

41,  1524, 1629,  1630 

Bramwell  v.  Gukeen,  2  Idaho  1069,  1069 

Branahan  v.  Hotel  Co.,  39  Ohio  St.  333,  1628 
Branch  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  3  Woods 

481,  65,  119,  639,  653 

Branch  v.  Jessup,  106  U.  S.  468, 

101, 120,  166,  475,  488,  524,  573,  638,  652,  653 
Branch  v.  Port  Eoyal,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  35  S.  C. 

405,  2708 

Branch  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  77  N. 

C.  347,  1019,  2452 

Branch  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  88  N. 

C.  573,  2213,  2317,  2321 

Branch  Bank  v.  Collins,  7  Ala.  95,  372,  578 
Brand  v.  Hammersmith,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  L. 

E.  4  H.  L.  171,  1456 

Brand  v.  Lawrenceville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  77 

Ga.  506,  168, 169 

Brand  v.  Schenectady,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  8  Barb. 

368,  1738 

Brander  v.  Brander,  4  Vesey  800,  424 

Brandon  Iron  Co.  v.  Gleason,  24  Vt.  228,  859 
Brandt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co. ,26  Iowa  114, 1877 
Branin  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  31  Vt. 

214,  1582,  1594 

Branley  v.  Southeastern,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  12 

Com.  B.  (N.  S.)  63,  2283 

Brann  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  53  Iowa 

595,  2012,  2013,  2030,  20S8 

Brannen  v.  Kokomo,  etc.,  Co.,115Ind.ll5, 1791 
Brannigan  v.  Eobinson,  L.  E.  (1892)  1  Q. 

B.  344,  2105 

Bransom  v.  Labrot,  81  Ky.  638,  197S 

Branson  v.  City  of  Philadelphia,  47  Pa. 

St.  329,  103 

Branson  v.  Gee,  25  Ore.  462,  1477 

Branson  v.  Oregonian  E.  Co.,  11  Ore.  161,  704 
Brant  v.  Ehlen,  59  Md.  1,  133,  160 

Brantford  City,  The,  29  Fed.  E.  373,  2331,  2543 
Brashear  v.  West,  7  Pet.  (U.  S.)  608,  891) 

Brasher  v.  Denver,  etc.,  E.Co.,  12  Col.  384, 

2309,  2376 
Braslin  v.  Somerville,  etc.,  Bailroad  Co., 

145  Mass.  64,  603,  612,  1&51 

Brass  v.  North  Dakota,  153  U.  S.  391,  4 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


XClll 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


{Vol.  I,  pp.  1-tfltf,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

TVrassell  v.  New  Y^rk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  N. 

Y.  241,  2479,  2546,  2550 

Brassey  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Fed. 

E.  663,  39,  746,  754 

Brassey  v.  New   York,   etc.,    E.  Co.,  22 

Blatchf.  72,  <        745 

Brassey  v.  N.  Y-,.etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Am.  & 

Eng.  E.  Gas.  285,  742 

Brassfield  v.  Patton,  32  Mo.  App.  572,         1843 
Braun  v.  Board,  66  Fed.  E.  476,  1229 

Bravard  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  115 

Ind.  1,  74,  897,  1293, 1542 

Braxton  v.  Cannibal,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  77  Mo. 

455,  1856, 1857 

Brazee  v.  Raymond,  59  Mich.  548,  1479 

Brazil,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Yonng,  117  Ind.  520,  2027 
Bream  v.  Brown,  5  Cold.  168,  2142 

Breckenridge    County  v.  McCracken,   61 

Fed.  E.  191,  1151, 1218, 1230 

Breckenridge,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hicks,  94  Ky. 

362,  2036 

Bredin  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  165  Pa. 

St.  262,  1301, 1419 

Breed  v.  Eastern,  E.  Co.,  5  Gray  (Mass.) 

470,  1488 

Breed  v.  Mitchell,  48  Ga.  533,  886, 2205 

Breedlove  v.  Martinsville,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  12 

Ind.  114,  202 

Breen  v.  Field,  157  Mass.  277,  2030 

Breen  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  109  N.  Y. 
'  297,  2563 

Breen  v.  Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  50  Tex.  43, 

2492,  2504 

Breene  v.  Merchants'  &  M.  Bank,  11  Colo. 

97,  872 

Breeze  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  26  Gr.  Ch.(Can.) 

225,  1599 

Brehm  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  34 

Barb.  256,  2468,  2473 

Brehme  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  25  Md.  328,      2338 
Breitweiser  v.  Fuhrman,  88  Ind.  28,  1556 

Bremmer  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  61 

Wis.  114,  1847 

Breneman  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Iowa)  60  N.  W.  R.  176,  -1675 

Brenham  v.  German  Am.  Bank,  144  U.  S. 

173,  1158,  1162,  1229 

Brennan  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  .33  N. 

Y.  S.  852,  2725 

Brennan  v.  City  of  Titusville,  153  U.  S. 

289,  1078 

Brennan  v.  Gordon,  118  N.  Y.  489,  2021 

Brent  v.  Bank,  2  Cranch  C.  C.  (U.  S.)  517, 

150,428 

Brent  v.  Bank  of  Washington,  10  Peters 
(U.  S.)  596,  151 


III,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  «M-f7«.j 

Brentner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Iowa 

625,  1818, 1878 

Brentner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Iowa 

530,  1870, 1882 

Bresler  v.  EUis,  46  Mich.  335,  1558 

Breslin  v.  Somerville  Horse  R.  Co.,  145 

Mass.  64,  1350 

Bresnahan  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  49 

Mich.  410,  1959,  1968,  2069 

Bress  v.  Trenton  R.  Co.,  52  N.  J.  L.  250,  2703 
Bretherton  v.  Wood,  3  Brod.  &  B.  54,  2698 
Brewer  v.  Boston  Theater,  104  Mass.  378,  240 
Brewer  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Mass. 

52,  1563, 1629 

Brewer  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich.  620,  2042 
Brewer  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  N.Y. 

59,  2457,  2510,  2601,  2603 

Brewer  Brick  Co.  v.  Brewer,  62  Me.  62,  1140 
Brevig  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn.)  66 

N.  W.  R.  401,  1961, 1962, 1963,  2463,  2705 

Brewster  v.  Gelston,  1  Paine  (U.  S.)  426,  1028 
Brewster  v.  Hartley,  37  Cal.  15, 

142, 144,  227,  229,  276,  778 

Brewster  v.  Hatch,  122  N.  Y.  349,  20 

Brewster  v.  Hobart,  15  Pick.  (Mass.)  302,  320 
Brewster  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

Fed.  R.  243,  Ili9, 1125 

Brewster  v.  Stratman,  4  Mo.  App.  41,  376 
Brewster  v.  Syracuse,  19  N.  Y.  116,  1197 

Briant  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (Mich.)  62 

N.  W.  E.  365,  1924, 1925 

Brice  v.  Munro,  5  Can.  L.  T.  (Ont.)  130,  257 
Brice  v.  Bailway  Co.,  (Ky.)  9  S.  W.  R.  288, 

2054 

Brice  v.  Sommers,  8  Chicago  Leg.  News 

290,  9*8 

Brick  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  98  N.  Y. 

211,  2082 

Brickell  v.  Batchelder,  62  Cal.  623,  664 

Brickell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  N. 

Y.  290,  1791, 1799 

Brickley  v.  Schlag,  46  N.  J.  Eq.  533,  167 

Bricker  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132 

Pa.  St.  1,  2*56 

Brickett  v.  Haverhill  Aqueduct  Co.,  142 

Mass.  394,  1539 

Brickner  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 2  Lans. 

506,  2079 

Briddon  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  28  L. 

J.  Exch.  51, 

Bridgeport  v.  Giddings,  43  Conn.  304,  1470 
Bridgeport  v.  Housatonic  Co.,  15  Conn.  (, 

475j  1139, 1153, 1231, 1250 

Bridgeport  v.  N.  Y.  R.  R.,  36  Conn.  255, 
59,  1101,  1108,  1109,  1268,  1371,  1377,  1395, 

1655,1682 


XC1V 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp. 


,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  ; 


Bridgeport  Bank  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

30  Conn.  231,  117, 144, 146,  290 

Bridgewater  Iron  Co.  v.  Lissberger,  116 

U.  S.  8,  146 

Bridgewater  Nav.  Co.,  In  re,  3  Ry.  & 

Corp.  L.  J.  591,  869 

Bridgewater  Nav.  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  39  Ch. 

Div.  1,  123 

Bridge  v.  Grand  Junction  R.  Co.,  3  M.  & 

W.  244,  2069,  2470 

Bridge  Co.  v.  United  States,  105  U.  S.  470,  2661 
Bridge  Proprietors  v.  Hoboken  Co.,  1 

Wall.  116,  48, 1382 

Bridger  v.  Asheville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  S.  C. 

456,  1974,  1979 

Bridger  v.  Asheville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  S.  C. 

24,  2108, 2135 

Bridges  v.  BaUard,  62  Miss.  237,  667 

Bridges  v.  North  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  6  Q.  B.  377,  2549 

Bridges  v.  Purcell,  1  Dev.  &  B.  (N.  C.)  492, 1324 
Bridgman  v.  St.  Johnsberry,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

58  Vt.  198,  1449, 1537 

Bridport  Old  Brewery  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  2 

Ch.  191,  238 

Brien  v.  Bennett,  8  C.  &  P.  2460, 
Brien  v.  Shanly,  24  U.  C.  C.  P.  28,  1583 

Briggs,  Ex  parte,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  483,  199 

Briggs  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   6  Allen 

(Mass.)  246,  2253,  1441,  2445 

Briggs  v.  Cape  Cod  Ship  Canal  Co.,  137 

Mass.  71,  83,  860,  897,  1509 

Briggs  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  24  U.  C.  Q. 

B.  510,  2491,  2496,  2497 

Briggs  v.  Lewiston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  79  Me. 

363,  9 

Briggs  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  N.  Y.  26,  1753 
Briggs  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  Mo. 

168,  1829 

Briggs  v.  Spaulding,  141  U.  S.  132,  373,  374,  381 
Briggs  v.  Vanderbilt,  19  Barb.  222,  2244,  2246 
Brigham  v.  Agricultural,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Allen  (Mass.)  316,  1285, 11369, 1543 

Brigham  v.  Mead,  10  Allen  (Mass.)  245, 

144,224 

Bright  v.  Lord,  51  Ind.  272,  418,  419 

Bright  v.  Metairie,  etc.,  Assn.,  33  La.  Ann. 

58,  393 

Brighthope  v.  Rogers,  76  Va.  443, 

1895, 1901, 1943 

Brightipan  v.  Kirner,  22  Wis.  54,  1090, 1106 
Brightwell  v.  Mallory,  10  Yerg.  (Term.) 

196,  113 

Brill  v.  Eddy,  #5  Mo.  596,  1963 

Brill  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  20  U.  C.  C. 

P.  440,  2695 

Brimmer  v.  Boston,  102  Mass.  19,        1370, 1371 


Brimmer  v.  Rehman,  138  U.  S.  78,  2637 

Brind  v.  Dale,  8  Carr.  &  P.  207,  2174,  2181 

Brine  v.  Ins.  Co.,  96  U.  S.  627,  715 

Brinham  v.  Wellersburg  Coal  Co.,  47  Pa. 

St.  43,  263 

Brink  V.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Mo. 

App.  177,  1404 

Brinkerhoff-Farris    Trust,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Home,  etc.,  Co.,  118  Mo.  447,  149 

Brinkman  v.  Bender,  92  Ind.  234,        1902, 1907 
Brinkman  v.  Bitzinger,  82  Ind.  358,  761 

Brinley  v.  Grou,  50  Conn.  66,  425 

Brinley  v.  Mann,  2  Cush.  (Mass.)  337,  641 

Brintnall  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  Railroad,  32 

Vt.  665,  2227,  2241 

Brisbane  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  94 

N.  Y.  204,  146, 420 

Brisbine  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Minn. 

114,  1403, 1498 

Brisco  v.  Allison,  43  111.  291,  1143 

Briscoe  v.  Southern  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

40  Fed.  R.  273,  569,  582,  604,  611 

Brisenden  v.  Chamberlain,  53  Fed.  R.  307,  937 
Bristol  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Railroad  Co.,  15 

111.  436,  884 

Bristol  v.  New  Chester,  3  N.  H.  525,  1413 

Bristol  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  158,  2700 

Bristol  v.  Scranton,  57  Fed.  R.  70,  396 

Bristol  v.  Scranton,  63  Fed.  R.  218,  396 

Bfistol,  etc.,  Bank,  In  re,  L.  R.  44  Ch. 

Div.  703,  862 

Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B. 

D.  10,  924 

Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  7  H.  L.  Gas. 

194,  2232 

Bristol,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Probasco,  64  Ind.  406, 

378,  870 

Bristow  v.  Whitmore,  9  H.  L.  Gas.  391,      1622 
British,  etc.,  Assn.,  Re,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  Div. 

306,  33& 

British,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

Tex.  475,  2333,  2334 

British,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  55 

R.  82,  2420 

British  Provident  L.  &  F.  Assn.  Co.,  In 

Re,  4  DeG.,  J.  &  S.  407,  649 

British  Seamless  Paper  Box  Co.,  In  Re, 

L.  R.  17  Ch.  Div.  467,  17 

Brittain  v.  Barnaby,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  527, 

2420,2444 

Brittain  v.  Kinnaird,  1  Brod.  &  Bing.  432,    120S 
Britton  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  Car. 

52,  536,  2452,  2480,  2584,  2588 

Britton  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Iowa 

540,  1425 

Broadbent  v.  Johnson,  2  Idaho  300,  172 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


xcv 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 

[  Vol.  T,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-n62,  Vol.  III.  pp.  ie63-316Ji,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-171S.] 
Broadstreet  v.  Clark,  65  Iowa  670, 
Broadway  Bank  v.  McElrath,  13  N.  J.  Eq. 

24,  144, 146,  228 

Broadway  Church  v.  McAtee,  8  Bush 

(Ky.)  508,  1105 

Broadway  Nat.  Bank  v.  Adams,  130  Mass. 

431,  946 

Broadway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  69  Hun  275, 


1479 


Broadway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  34  Hun  414, 

1484 
Broadway,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  1  N.  Y. 

Suppl.  646,  1623 

Broad  well  v.  Butler,  6  McLean  (U.  S.)  296, 

2213 
Brocaw  v.  Board,  73  Ind.  543, 

3, 177,  178, 1140, 1151, 1154,  1156,  1185, 1197 
Brock  v.  Barnet,  57  Vt.  172,  1482 

Brock  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Vt. 

373,  1816 

Brock  v.  Gale,  14  Fla.  523,  2610 

Brock  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  146 

Mass.  194,  1501 

Brockenbrough  v.  James  River,  etc.,  Co., 

1  Patton  &  H.  (Va.)  94,  216,  219 

Brockert  v.  Central  Iowa  R.  Co.,  82  Iowa 

369,  722, 814 

Brockway  v.  Innes,  39  Mich.  47,  267 

Broder  v.  Natoma  Water  Works  Co.,  101 

U.  S.  274,  1123 

Brodeur  v.  Valley  Falls  R.  Co.,  16  R.  I. 

448,  2001, 2078 

Brodhead  v.  Shoemaker,  44  Fed.  R.  518, 

941,  945 

Brodhead  v.  Milwaukee,  19  Wis.  624,          1140 
Brodie  v.  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (S.  Car.) 

24  S.  E.  R.  180,  2592 

Brodie  v.  McCabe,  33  Ark.  690, 

1157, 1175,  1199, 1258 
Brokaw  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  32  N.  J. 

L.  328,  299,  578 

Bromley  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95 

Ala.  397,  2117,  2151 

Bronenberg  v.  Board,  41  Ind.  502,  1208 

Bronson  v.  Coffin,  108  Mass.  175,    493,  561, 1814 
Bronson  v.  La  Crosse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  283,  678,  681 

Bronson  v.  Railroad  Co.,  2  Black  (U.  S.) 

524,  677, 689 

Bronson  v.  St.  Croix  Lumber  Co.,  35  Fed. 

R.  634,  948 

Brooke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Iowa 

504,  2715 

Brooke  v.  City  of  Philadelphia,  162  Pa. 

St.  123,  494 

Brooke  v.  Grand  Trunk  Railway,  15  Mich. 

332,  2228,  2244,  2494 


Brooke  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  108  Pa.  St. 

529>  299,  411,  415,  2199,  2204,  2312 

Brooke  v.  Pickwick,  4  Bing.  218, 

2207, 2608,  2614 
Brookhouse  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  132  Mass.  178, 

1642 
Brooklyn  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  47  N.Y. 

475,  1643 

Brooklyn  v.  Insurance  Co.,  99  U.  S.  362, 

1211, 1236 

Brooklyn  v.  Copeland,  106  N.  Y.  496,  1460 

Brooklyn,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Slaughter,  33  Ind 

185,  390 

Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  80  Hun  355,  146* 
Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  72  N.  Y.  245, 

73,  74,  94 
Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  125  N.Y.  434, 

74,  897 
Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  75  N.  Y.  335, 

83,  860 
Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  37  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  413,  1623 

Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn  City  R. 

Co..  32  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  358,  91,  860,  1285 

Brooklyn  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn  City  R. 

Co.,  33  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  420,  1627, 1714 

Brooklyn  Crosstown  R.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn 

City  R.  Co.,  51  Hun  (N.  Y.)  600,  591 

Brooklyn  Park  Comrs.  v.  Armstrong,  45 

N.  Y.  234,  1387, 1551 

Brooklyn  Steam  Tr.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  78 

N.  Y.  524,  73,  74,  860, 1129 

Brooks  v.  Davenport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Iowa 

99,  1436 

Brooks  v.  Bigelow,  142  Mass.  6,  796 

Brooks  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.Co.,  1  Abb.  App. 

Dec.  211,  1773 

Brooks  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  101  U. 

S.  443,  656 

Brooks  v.  Lincoln  St.  R.  Co.,  22  Neb.  816,  1647 
Brooks  v.  Miller,  29  W.  Va.  499,  812 

Brooks  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Barb. 

594,  1842 

Brooks  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  47  Fed. 

R.  687,  2032,  2043 

Brooks  v.  O'Hara,  2  McCrary  (U.  S.)  644,    687 
Brooks  v.  Railway  Co.,  101  U.  S.  443, 

697,  705, 1599,  1604 

Brooks  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  22 
Fed.  R.  211,  724 

Brooks  v.  Vermont  Central  R.  Co.,  14 
Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  463,  669,  679 

Brooks  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  56  Ark. 

.224,  1033 

Brookville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Butler,  91  Ind.  134, 

1388,  1458 


XCV1 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Broome  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  42,  N.  J. 

Bq.  141,  910, 1629 

Brophy  v.  Landman,  28  Ohio  St.  542,  1104 

Brosnagan,  In  re,  18  Fed.  E.  62,  2654 

Brossman  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  113  Pa. 

St.  490,  2004 

Brothers  v.  Cartter,  52  Mo.  372,  2036,  2078 

Broughton  v.  Pensacola,  93  U.  S.  266,         1170 
Brouillette  v.  Connecticut,  etc.    E.  Co., 

162  Mass.  198,  2106 

Brousseau  v.  Shi  Hudson,  11  La.  Ann.  427, 2299 
Brouty  v.  Five,  etc.,  Elm  Statves,  21  Fed. 

Eep.  590,  2203 

Brower  v.  Passenger  E.  Co.,  3  Phila.  161,    162 
Brower  v.  Peabody,  13  N.  Y.  121,  2218 

Brower  v.  Philadelphia,  142  Pa.  St.  350,     1459 
Brown,  The  J.  W.,  1  Biss.  76,  2206 

Brown,  Ex  parte,  58  Ala.  536,  742 

Browni  Ex  parte,  15  S.  Car.  518, 

709,  748,  812,  818 

Brown's  Petition,  14  E.  I.  371,  422 

Brown  v.  Adams,  3  Tex.  App.  (Civil  Cases) 

462,  2212 

Brown  v.  Adams  Ex.  Co.,  15  W.  Va.  812, 

2321,  2267,  2317,  2322 
Brown  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  87  Ala. 

370,  954 

Brown  v.  Anderson,  1  T.  B.  Monr.  (Ky.) 

198,  523 

Brown  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  31  Kan.  1,2054 
Brown  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  19  S.  C.  39, 

1888,  1896, 1936,  2184 
Brown  v.  Bankers',  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  30  Md. 

39,  321 

Brown  v.  Beatty,  34  Miss.  227, 

2, 1332,  1333,  1334,  1337,  1342,  1353,  1417,  1424, 
1425, 1454, 1539,  1540, 1550 

Brown  v.  Bellows.  4  Pick.  179,  491,  562 

Brown  v.  Bowen,  30  N.  Y.  519,  1325 

Brown  v.  Broadway,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  50  N.  Y. 

Super.  Ct.  106,  1649 

Brown  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.,22  N.Y.191,  2131 
Brown  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  27  Hun  (N. 

Y.)342,  431 

Brown  v.  Byroads,  47  Ind.  435,  2056 

Brown  v.  Camden,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  45  N.  Y. 

113,  2312 

Brown  v.  Canadian  Pac.  B.  Co.,  3  Mani- 
toba E.  496,  2618,  2629 
Brown  v.  Calumet  B.  Co.,  125  111.  600,    29, 1349 
Brown  v.  Carson,  16  Ore.  388,  1126 
Brown  v.  Cayuga,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  12  N.Y.  486, 

1399, 1456, 1638 
Brown  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  54  Wis. 

842,  300,2546 

Brown  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  51  Iowa 

235,  2576 


Brown  v.  City  of  Denver,  7  Colo.  305,          1476 
Brown  v.  Clayton,  12  Ga.  564,  2301 

Brown  v.  Collins,  53  N.  H.  442,  2467 

Brown  v.  Commissioners,  100  N.  Car.  92, 

1178,  1205 

Brown  v.  Corey,  43  Pa.  St.  495,    1361, 1370, 1519 
Brown  v.  County  Commissioners,  12  Mete. 

208,  1451 

Brown  v.  Denver,  7  Colo.  305,  1176 

Brown  v.  Dibble,  65  Mich.  520,        178,  447,  457 
Brown  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  53  Fed.  E. 

889,  115,  240,  242 

Brown  v.  Dunlap,  3  S.  Car.  101,  2700 

Brown  v.  Duplessis,  14  La.  Ann.  842, 

1611, 1614,  1615,  1635 
Brown  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  22  Q.  B.  391, 

1036 
Brown  v.  Eastern  Slate  Co.,  134  Mass.  590, 

267 
Brown  v.  Eastern  E.  Co.,  11  Cush.  (Mass.) 

97,  2322,  2482,  2631,  2632 

Brown  v.  European,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  58  Me. 

384,  1959, 1981 

Brown  v.  Fairmount  Mine  Co.,  10  Phil. 

(Pa.)  32,  234,  349 

Brown  v.  Fisk,  23  Fed.  E.  228,  261 

Brown  v.  Florida,  etc.,  Ey.  Co.,  19  Fla. 

472,  127 

Brown  v.  Grand  Eapids,  etc.,  Co.,  58  Fed. 

E.  286,  855 

Brown  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  66  Mo. 

588,  2575 

Brown  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  37  Mo. 

298,  1925 

Brown  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  27  Mo. 

App.  394,  612 

Brown  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  50  Mo. 

461,  1953 

Brown  v.  Harper,  4  Ore.  89,  1605 

Brown  v.  Hazlehurst,  54  Md.  26,  790 

Brown  v.  Hodgson,  4  Taunt.  189,  2383 

Brown  v.  Houston,  114  U.  S.  622, 

1076, 1083,  2642,  2656 

Brown  v.  Keene,  8  Pet.  (U.  S.)  112,  936 

Brown  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.,  49  Pa.  St.  270,      439 
Brown  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  36  111.  App. 

140,  410, 2331 

Brown  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (Ky.)  30 

S.  W.  E.  639,  1740, 1947,  2142 

Brown  v.  Mayor,  63  N.  Y.  239,  1171 

Brown  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  L.  B. 

9  Q.  B.  Div.  230,  497 
Brown  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  L.  E. 

10  Q.  B.  Div.  250,  2327 
Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  419, 

1073,  1076,  2637,  2643 
Brown  v.  McKay,  151  111.  315,  663,  665 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


XCV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Brown  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Fed. 

E.  51,  2454 

Brown  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Fed.  R. 

37,  288 

Brown  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Fed.  R. 

51,  2574, 2578 

Brown  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 

Minn.  165,  1740, 1771, 1772 

Brown  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Wis. 

39,  1814, 1817, 1819 

Brown  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 

Minn.  553,  2001,  2010,  2087 

Brown  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mo.  536, 

1961,  2485,  2509,  2512,  2519 
Brown  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Mo.  122, 

293,  296,  316 
Brown  v.  Monmouthshire  R.  Co.,  13  Beav. 

31,  617 

Brown  v.  New  York,  63  N.  Y.  239,  1176 

Brown  v.  New  York  Cent.  Railroad,  32  N. 

Y.  597,  1763 

Brown  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  75  Hun  355, 

523,  2176 
Brown  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  34  N.  Y.  404, 

1829, 1831,  2476 

Brown  v.  Ogg,  85  Ind.  234,  1133 

Brown  v.  Ohio,  etc.,'R.  Co.,  138  Ind.  648,  2045 
Brownlee  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  18  Ind.  68, 157 
Brown  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Ore.  315,  2058 
Brown  v.  Pacific  Mail,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Blatchf. 

(U.  S.)  525,  232,  250,  251 

Brown  v.  Parsons,  10  Utah  223,  325 

Brown  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58 

Md.  439,  1386 

Brown  v.  Piper,  91  U.  S.  37,  2651 

Brown  v.  Powell,  D.  S.  C.  Co.,  L.  R.  10  C. 

P.  562,  2204 

Brown  v.  Preston,  38  Conn.  219,  1377 

Brown  v.  Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  R.  I. 

238,  1517 

Brown  v.  Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Gray 

35,  1428, 1515,  1518, 1564, 1567 

Brown  v.  Republican,  etc.,  Mines,  55  Fed. 

R.  7,  237 

Brown  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Ala.  206, 

1292, 1389, 1393 

Brown  v.  Scaboro,  97  Ala.  316,  2481,  2561 

Brown  v.  Smart,  145  U.  S.  454,  849 

Brown  v.  Smith,  86  Ga.  274,  2083 

Brown  v.  Smith,  122  Mass.  589,  145 

Brown  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Minn. 

506,  1482 

Brown  v.  State,  12  Wheat.  419,  2656 

Brown  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  La.  Ann. 

350,  1737, 1767,  1774 

CORP. — vii 


in,  pp.  1263-216$,  Vol.  iv,  -pp.  ti 

Brown  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Fed.  R. 

444,  822 

Brown  v.  Trousdale,  138  U.  S.  389,  9345 

Brown  v.  Union  Ins.  Co.,  3  La.  Ann.  177 

260,  891 

Brown  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 Mo.  App. 

568,  2336, 2341 

Brown  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  96  111.  297,  705 

Brown  v.  Warner,  78  Tex.  543,  816 

Brown  v.  Winnisimmet  Co.,  11  Allen  326, 

476,  491,  537,  545 
Brown  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Minn. 

162,  2076, 2087 

Brown,   etc.,  Co.  v.    Pennsylvania    Co., 

(Minn.)  65  N.  W.  R.  961,  2237 

Browne  v.  Monmouthshire  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  13 

Beav.  32,  429,  431,  436 

Browne   v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158 

Mass.  247,  2043,  2072 

Browne  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N.  Car. 

34,  2454, 2553 

Brownell   v.   Columbus,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Insterst.  Com.  R.  285,  2671 

Brownell  v.  Flagler,  5  Hill  (N.  Y.)  282,  1792 
Brownell  v.  Greenwich,  114  N.  Y.  518, 

1177, 1218, 1221 

Brownell  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Vt.  218,  1638 
Brownlee  v.  Lowe,  117  Ind.  420,  1570 

Brownlee  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Ind.  68,  170 
Browning  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  N.  J. 

Eq.  47,  1546, 1548, 1549 

Browning  v.  Goodrich,  etc.,  Co.,  78  Wis. 

391,  2245, 2346 

Browning  v.  Hinkle,  48  Mum.  544,  353 

Browning  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  Mo. 

55,  2088 

Brownlee  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Ind.  68,  193 
Bruce  v.  Andrews,  36  Mo.  593,  2215 

Bruce  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Ky. 

174,  2134 

Bruce  v.  Cloutman,  45  N.  H.  37,  887 

Bruce  v.  Platt,  80  N.  Y.  379,  861 

Bruce  v.  Schuyler,  4  Gilm.  (111.)  221.  60 

Bruce  v.  Smith,  44  Ind.  1,  145 

Bruff  v.  Mali,  36  N.  Y.  200,  386 

Bruffett  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  25  I1L 

353,  56,  85,  89,  91, 104,  701,  852,  859 

Bruggerman  v.  True,  25  Minn.  123,  1467 

Brumagin  v.  Tillinghast,  18  Cal.  265,  1083 
Brundage  v.  Brundage,  60  N.  Y.  544,  419,  424 
Brundage  v.  Brundage,  1  Th.  &  C.  (N.  Y.) 

82,  <39 

Brundage  v.  Monumental,  etc.,  Co.,  12 

Ore.  322,  262 

Brunner  v.  Blaisdell,  170  Pa.  St.  25,    2050, 2064 


XCV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 
Brunette  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Wis. 


197,  "69 

Bruno  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  55  N.  Y. 

S.  R.  215,  2572 

Brunswick,  Inhabitants  of,  Appellants,  37 

Me.  446,  1533 

Brunswick  &  Albany  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes, 

52  Ga.  557,  660 

Brunswick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  United  Gas,  etc., 

Co.,  85  Me.  532,  507 

Brunswick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  U.  S.  Gas,  etc., 

Co.,  35  Am.  St.  R.  385,  692,  696 

Brusberg  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50 

Wis.  231,  1943 

Brusch  v.  St.  Paul  City  R.  Co.,  52  Minn. 

512,  2557 

Brush  v.  City  of  Detroit,  32  Mich.  43,         1491 
Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  Electric  Imp.  Co., 

51  Fed.  R.  557,  690 

Bruty  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  32  Up.  Can. 

Q.  B.  66,  2608,  2609 

Bryan  v.  Board,  151  U.  S.  639,  1088 

Bryan  v.  Board,  90  Ky.  322,  67 

Bryan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Iowa 

464,  2583 

Bryan  v.  Cormick,  1  Cox  422,  757 

Bryan  v.  Memphis  &  P.  R.  Co.,  11  Bush 

597,  2225 

Bryan  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Mo. 

App.  228,  2469,  2514 

Bryant  v.  Glidden,  36  Me.  36,  1473, 1528 

Bryant  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Hun 

164,  2062, 2071 

Bryant  v.  Rich,  106  Mass.  108,  2578 

Bryant  v.  Southwestern  R.  Co.,  68  Ga. 

805,  2411 

Bryant  v.  Thompson,  27  Fed.  R.  881,  949 

Brymer  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  90  Cal.  496, 

2065,  2706 

Bryon  v.  Carter,  22  La.  Ann.  98,  149 

Bryson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Iowa 

677,  1643, 1649 

Buchanan  v.  Berkshire  Life  Ins.  Co.,  96 

Ind.  510,  665,  757 

Buchanan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa 

393,  1774 

Buchanan  v.  Comstock,  57  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

568,  777 

Buchanan  v.  Hunt,  98  N.  Y.  560, 
Buchanan  v.  Litchfleld,  102  U.  S.  278, 

1176,  1225,  1227, 1233, 1236 

Buchanan  v.  Logansport,  etc.^R.  Co.,  71 

Ind.  265,  1326, 1327, 1446 

Buchanan  v.  Smith,  43  Miss.  90,  1596 

Buchanan,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Cedar  Rapids, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Iowa  494,  1352 


Bucher  v.  Dillsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Pa. 

St.  306,  157, 173 

Bucher  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  98  N. 

Y.  128,  2549,  2595 

Bucher  v.  Railroad  Co.,  125  U.  S.  555, 

1087,  2107,  2639 
Buchner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Wis. 

264,  1328, 1659, 1674,  1676 

Buchholz  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N.  Y.) 

43  N.  E.  R.  76,  1642, 1650 

Buck  v.  Brian,  2  How.  (Miss.)  874,  1602 

Buck  v.  Colbath,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.)  334,  766 

Buck  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  550,  2586 

Buck  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  150  Pa.  St. 

170,  2347 

Buck  v.  Seymour,  46  Conn.  156, 

446,  622,  651,  653 

Buckeye,  The,  7  Biss.  23,  2275 

Buckeye,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Harvey,  92  Tenn. 

115,  230 

Buckfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irish,  39  Me.  44, 

184,  214 
Buckland  v.  Adams  Ex.  Co.,  97  Mass.  124, 

2178,  2201,  2229,  2260,  2322,  2332 
Bucklew  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa 

603,  2104 

Buckley  v.  Fenniss,  17  Wend.  504,  2396 

Buckley  v.  Furniss,  15  Wend.  137,       2390,  2395 
Buckley  v.  Gould,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Fed.  R. 

833,  2029, 2080 

Buckley  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

Mich.  121,  2278,  2372 

Buckley  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Conn. 

479,  95& 

Buckley  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  161 

Mass.  26,  2458,  2481 

Buckman  v.  State,  34  Fla.  48,  927 

Buckner  v.  Hart,  52  Fed.  R.  835,  1620 

Bucksport,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brewer,  67  Me. 

295,  175, 184,  527,  1185 

Bucksport,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Buck,  68  Me. 

81,  71, 167,  238 

Bucksport,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Buck,  65  Me. 

536,  176 

Budd  v.  London,  etc.,  Railway  Co.,  4  Ry. 

&  Canal  Tr.  Gas.  393,  2666,  2672,  2684 

Budd  v.  Multnomah,  etc.,  Co.,  15  Ore.  404,     2 
Budd  v.  Multnomah  St.  R.  Co.,  15  Ore.  413, 

203,  204,  205,  214,  221, 277,  280 
Budd  v.  New  York,  143  U.  S.  517,  975,  976,  2486 
Budd  v.  People,  143  U.  S.  517,  1013 

Budd  v.  Walla  Walla,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Wash. 

Ter.  347,  359 

Buell  v.  Buckingham,  16  Iowa  284, 

245,  361,  362,  379,  564,  853,  855 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


XC1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1Z6S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-272.5.] 


Buel  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  31  N.  Y. 

314,  2568 

Buenemann  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  32 

Minn.  390,  2479,  2546,  2590 

Buffalo,  Matter  of,  68  N.  Y.  167,  108, 1267, 1663 
Buffalo  v.  Pratt,  131  N.  Y.  293,  1629 

Buffalo  v.  Webster,  10  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  99,  276 
Buffalo  Cemetery  v.  Buffalo,  46  N.Y.  506,  1101 
Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  32  Hun  289,  1472, 1527 
Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Brainard,  9  N.  Y. 

100,  1338,  1342, 1353 

Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Buffalo,  5  Hill  (N. 

Y.)  209,  1044 

Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Gary,  26  N.  Y.  75,  25, 53 
Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Clark,  22  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  359,  154 

Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  E. 

Co.,  130  N.  Y.  152,  1010,  1724, 1728 

Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Dubois,  etc.,  E. 

Co.,  149  Pa.  St.  1,  1713 

Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Dudley,  14  N.  Y. 

336,       70, 71, 113, 154, 196, 207,  215, 217, 349, 1224 
Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Falconer,  103  U.  S. 

821,  1146 

Buffalo  Bayou,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Ferris,  26 

Tex.  588, 

1342, 1354, 1426, 1428, 1465, 1473, 1550, 1560 
Buffalo  &  J.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Gifford,  87  N.  Y. 

294,  154, 155, 158, 186 

Buffalo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Harvey,  107  Pa.  St. 

319,  657,  1537, 1538 

Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  B.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  20  N.  Y. 

157,  26,  28,  55 

Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E. 

Co.,  25  N.  Y.  Supp.  265,  1713 

Buffalo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  25  N.  Y.  S.  155,  1680 

Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  O'Hara,  (Pa.)  9 

Am.  &  Eng.  E.  Cas.  317,  2514 

Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Overton,  35  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  157,  1370 

Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Pottle,  23  Barb. 

(N.Y.)  21,  184 

Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Whitehead,  8  Grant's 

Ch.  (U.  C.)  157,  1569 

Buffington  v.  Bardon,  80  Wis.  635,  19 

Buffett  v.  Troy,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  40  N.  Y.  168, 

58,  537,  2226 
Buffit  v.  Troy,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  36  Barb.  420, 

58,476 
Buffum  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  4  E.  I. 

221,  1517, 1519 

Bufkin  v.  Boyce,  104  Ind.  53,  779 

Buford  v.  Keokuk  Northern  Line,  etc., 

Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  159,  867 

Buhl  v.  Fort  St.,  etc.,  Co.,  98  Mich.  596, 

1417, 1631 


Bukman  v.  Levi,  3  Camp  414,  2190 

Bulger  v.  Albany  E.  Co.,  42  N.  Y.  459,         1647 
Bulkley  v.  Naumkeag,  etc.,  Cotton  Co., 

24  How.  (U.  S.)  386,  2276 

Bulkley  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  27  Conn. 

479,  967, 1622 

Bulkley  v.  Whitcomb,  49  Hun  (N.  Y.)  290,   268 
Bull  v.  Conroe,  13  Wis.  233,  974 

Bull  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  67  Ala.  206,     2051 
Bull  v.  Bead,  13  Gratt.  (Va.)  78,  1070 

Bullard  v.  Bank,  18  Wall.  (U.  S.)  589,          276 
Bullard  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  122 

U.  S.  167,  1123 

Bullard  v.  Northern  Pac.  B.  Co.,  10  Mont. 

168,  2434 

Bulliss  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  76  Iowa 

680,  1913, 1934 

BuUman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pollock,  69 Tex.  120,   2536 
Bullock  v.  Falmouth,  etc.,  Co.,  85  Ky.  184, 

156, 157, 164 
Bullock  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  105  N. 

Car.  180,  1738,  2476 

Bumpass  v.  Webb,  4  Port.  (Ala.)  65,          1575 
Bunch  v.  Great  Western  E.  Co.,  L.  E.  17 

Q.  B.  Div.  215,  2620 

Buncombe,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McCarson,  1  Dev. 

&  B.  306,  364 

Buncombe  Co.  Commrs.  v.  Tommey,  115 

U.  S.  122,  1595 

Bunderson  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  40 

Neb.  545,  1566 

Bunn's  Appeal,  105  Pa.  St.  49,  260,  891 

Bunnell  v.  Eio  Grande  E.  Co.,  (Utah)  44 

Pac.  E.  927,  1850 

Bunt  v.  Sierra,  etc.,  Co.,  133  U.  S.  438,       2068 
Bunt  v.  Sierra,  etc.,  Co.,  53  Ga.  630,  2058 

Bunting  v.  Cent.  Pac.  E.  Co.,  166  Nov. 

277,  1758 

Bunting  v.  Pennsylvania  E.  Co.,  118  Pa. 

St.  204,  2571 

Bunyan  v.  Citizens'  St.  E.  Co.,  127  Mo.  12, 

1646, 1647, 1648, 1649 

Burbank  v.  Dennis,  101  Cal.  90,  18 

Burbank  v.  Fay,  65  N.  Y.  57,  1374 

Burbank  v.  Illinois  Cent.  E.  Co.,  42  La. 

Ann.  1156,  1966 

Burbank  v.  Pillsbury,  48  N.  H.  475,  661 

Burbridge  v.  Kansas  City  C.  E.  Co.,  36 

Mo.  App.  669,  2166 

Burbridge  v.  New  Albany,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  9 

Ind.  546,  I295 

Burch  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  3  App. 

Cas.  (D.  C.)  346,  2577 

Burch  v.  Davenport,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  46  Iowa 

449,  946 

Burch  v.  Taylor,  1  Wash.  245,  257,  261 

Burden  v.  Stein,  27  Ala.  104,  1342 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  l-l, 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
,  VoL  IT,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  1263-sm,  Vol.  TV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Burdett  v.  Canadian  Pac  R.  Co.,  10  Mani- 
toba R.  5,  2361,  2371 
Burdick  v.  People,  149  111.  600,     957,  1048,  2500 
Burdick  v.  Peterson,  2  McCrary  (U.  S.  C. 

C.)  135,  932 

Burdict  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  Mo. 

221,  2132 

Burg  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Iowa  106, 

974,  1967 
Burger  v.  Grand  Rapids,  e^c.,  R.  Co.,  22 

Fed.  R.  561,  470 

Burger  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  112  Mo. 

238,  1780 

Burger  v.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.,  123  Mo. 

679,  1869 

Surges  v.  Mabin,  70  Iowa  633,    1171, 1195, 1196 
Burgess  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

C.  B.  N.  S.  923,  2477,  2479 

Burgess  v.  Seligman,  107  U.  S.  20,       1087,  1256 
Burgess  v.  St.  Louis  County  R.  Co  ,  99 

Mo.  496,  242,  488 

Burgevin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

Hun  479,  2618,  2629 

Burghall  v.  Howard,  1  H.  Bl.  366,  2390 

Burgin  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Ala. 

274,  2072 

Burgoyne  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  5  Cal.  9, 

980 

Burhop  v.  Milwaukee,  21  Wis.  257,  1217 

Burk  v.  President,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  86  Hun 

519,  1741 

Burk  v.  Simonson,  104  Ind.  173,  1427 

Burke  v.  Anderson,  69  Fed.  R.  814,     1592,  2021 
Burke  v.  Broadway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  How. 

Pr.  239,  1983 

Burke  v.  Concord  R.  Co.,  61  N.  H.  160, 

57,  499,  590,  2244 
Burke  v.  Cork,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Cent.  L.  J. 

48,  2135 

Burke  v.  Dillingham,  60  Fed.  R.  729,  815 

Burke  v.  Frye,  (Neb.)  62  N.  W.  R.  476,          295 
Burke  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  451,  1924,  1929,  1936,  1938 

Burke  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  W. 

R.  694,  2476 

Burke  v.  McDonald,  2  Idaho  1022,  1472 

Burke  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  App. 

491,  2465 

Burke  v.  Smith,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.)  390, 

168,  218,  253,  254,  490,  578 
Burke  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5  C. 

P.  Div.  1,  2313,  2483,  2539,  2543,  2632 

Burke  v.  State,  34  Ohio  St.  79,  1052 

Burke  v.  Wetherbee,  98  N.  Y.  562,  2009 

Burkham  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  122  Ind. 

844,  901, 1459 

Burkholder  v.  Bee  tern,  65  Pa.  St.  496,          523 


Burkholder  v.  Union  Trust  Co.,  82  Mo.  572, 

1031 
Burkley  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Conn. 

479,  1864 

Burling  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  111.  18,  1957 
Burlingame  v  Parce,  12  Hun  (N.  Y.)  144,  747 
Burlington  v.  Newport  News,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

32  W.  Va.  436,  1879 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arms,  15  Neb. 

69,  2275, 2370 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boestler,  15 

Iowa  555,  175, 177, 182, 183,  527 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  15  Neb.  390,  2428,  2435,  2436 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clay  County, 

13  Neb.  367,  1209 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crockett,  49 

Neb.  138,  2076 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dey,  82  Iowa 

312,  973,  993,  994,  1011,  1033,  2170 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dobson,  17  Neb. 

450,  1532 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dnnn,  122  U.  S. 

513,  946, 948 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koonce;  34  Neb. 

479,  1659, 1795 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northwestern, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Fed.  R.  652,  2284 

Burlington  v.  Quick,  47  Iowa  222,  1113 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reinhackle,  15 

Neb.  279,  1538,  1628, 1633 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rose,  11  Neb. 

177,  284,  2465,  2554 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Schluntz,  14 

Neb.  421,  1517, 1521 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schweikart,  10 

Colo.  178,  1417, 1418 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shoemaker,  18 

Neb.  369,  1860 

Burlington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Spearman,  12  Iowa 

112,  1107,  1108,  1111 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Stewart,   39 

Iowa  267,  1236,  1460 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson.,  31 

Kan.  180,  887,  893,  894 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Webb,  18  Neb. 

215,  967 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wendt,  12  Neb. 

76,  1760,  1872 

Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Westover,  4 

Neb.  268,    1895, 1896, 1902, 1909, 1910, 1925, 1936 
Burmeister,  In  re,  76  N.  Y.  410,  1105 

Burmeister  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Railroad 

Co.,  (15  J.  &  S.)  47  N.  Y.  S.  C.  264,  1588 

Burmester  v.  Norris,  6  Exch.  796,  578 

Burnell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y. 

184,  2616,  2626, 2629,  2631 


TABLE    OF 


Cl 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Burnell  v.  West  Side,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Wis. 

387,  2040 

Burnes  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129 

Mo.  41,  1998 

Burnes  v.  Pennell,  2  H.  L.  Cases  497, 

367,  437,  442,  911 
Burnett  v.  Great  North  of  Scotland  R. 

Co.,  L.  R.  10  App.  Cas.  147,  495,  969 

Burnett  v.  Hoffman,  40  Neb.  569,  675 

Burnett  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Pa. 

St.)  34  Atl.  R.  972,  2517,  2330 

Burnham  v.  Bowen,  111  U.  S.  776,    707,  708,  818 
Burnham  v.  Goffstown,  50  N.  H.  560,  1472 

Burnham  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  63  Me. 

298,  2483,  2484,  2492,  2505 

Burnham  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  Co.,  76 

Cal.  24,  221 

Burnham  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mich. 

523,  2480 

Burns  v.  Bellefontaine  R.  Co.,  50  Mo.  139,   2557 
Burns  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Iowa 

450,  2706 

Burns  v.  Cork,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Irish  C.  L. 

R.  543,  2470 

Burns  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113 

Ind.  169,  2129,  2140 

Burns  v.Metropolitan  Bid.  Ass'n,2  Mackey 

(D.  C.)  7,'  94 

Burns  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Wis. 

450,  1548,  1551 

Bums  v.  Multnomah  R.  Co.,  8  Sawyer  (U. 

S.)  543,  1476, 1532 

Burns  v.  North  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65 

Wis.  312,  1739, 1754 

Burns  v.  Pethcal,  75  Hun  437,  2022 

Burns  v.  Poulson,  L.  R.  8  Com.  p.  563,         303 
Burns  v.  Washburn,  160  Mass.  457, 

2022,  2105,  2115 
Burnsville  Turnp.  Co.  v.  McCalla,  119  Ind. 

382,  915 

Burr  v.  Bucksport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Me. 

130,  1532 

Burr  v.  Carbondale,  76  IU.  455,  1151 

Burr  v.  Chariton  County,  2  McCrary  (U. 

S.)  603,  1165 

Burr  v.  McDonald,  3  Gratt.  (Va.)  215, 

291,  340,  369,  854 

Burr  v.  Wilcox,  22  N.  Y.  551,  224 

Burrall  v.  Bushwick  R.  R.  Co.,  75  N.  Y. 

211,  144,  145,  335,  417,  565 

Burrell  v.  Gowen,  134  Pa.  St.  527,  2047 

Burrell  v.  North,  2  Car.  &  Kir.  680,  2190 

Burrill  v.  Nahant  Bank,  2  Mete.  (Mass.) 

163,  319,  347,  355,  555,  640 

Bnrritt  v.  City  of  New  Haven,  42  Conn. 

174,  1642, 1661, 1676 

Burroughes  v.  Bayne,  29  L.  J.  Exch.  185,   2387 


III,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  £765-«7?5.] 

Burroughs  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  67 

Mich.  351,  2323 

Burroughs  v.  Housatonic  R.  Co.,  15  Conn. 

124>  1564,  1888,  1895, 1936, 1937 

Burroughs  v.  North  Carolina  R.  R.  Co., 

67  N.  C.  376,  251,  417,  419 

Burroughs  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  Co.,  100  Mass. 

26,  411,  412,  608,  2187,  2232,  2244 

Burrow  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107 

Ind.  432,  1265, 1273, 1293, 1297, 1329, 1423 

Burrows  v.  Smith,  10  N.  Y.  550,  21, 170 

Barrus,  In  re,  136  U.  S.  586,  2638 

Burt  v.  Douglas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Wis.  229,   2558 
Burt  v.  Farrar,  24  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  518,  163 

Burt  v.  Lima,  etc.,  Co.,  21  N.  Y.  Supp. 

482,  1612 

Burt  v.  Merchants'  Ins.  Co.,  106  Mass. 

356,  1334, 1342 

Burt  v.  Rattle,  31  Ohio  St.  116,  120, 125 

Burt  v.  Wigglesworth,  117  Mass.  302,  1151 

Burtis  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y. 

269,  2225, 2263 

Burton  v.  Curyea,  40  111.  320,  2218 

Burton  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Tex. 

526,  1587,  1590 

Burton  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Harr.  (Del.)  252,  1985 

Burton  v.  Schildbach,  45  Mich.  504,  787 

Burton  v.  Wilkinson,  18  Vt.  186,  2385 

Burton  Stock  Car  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  1  Interstate  Com.  R.  329,          2436,  2669 
Burwell  v.  Raleigh,  ete.,R.  Co.,  94  N.  Car. 

451,  2252 

Busby  v.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (S.  Car.)  23 

S.  E.  R.  50,  1914 

Busby  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Mo.  43, 1821 
Busenback  v.  Attica,  etc.,  Co.,  43  Ind.  265, 

26,  53,  54 

Busenbarke  v.  Ramey,  53  Ind.  499,  2220 

Busey  v.  Hooper,  35  Md.  15,        53,  224,  241,  253 
Bush  v.  Marshall,  6  How.  385,  1156 

Bush  v.  Nance,  61  Miss.  237,  895 

Bush  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Mo.  App. 

62,  2365, 2383 

Bush  &  Son's  Co.  v.  Thompson,  65  Fed.  R. 

812,  2371 

Bushee  v.  Freeborn,  11  R.  1. 149,  424 

Bushnell  v.  Consolidated,  etc.,  Co.,  138 

HI.  67,  273 

Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  2  Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  52,       2676,  2682 
Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  2  Interst.  Com.  R.  41,  2686 

Bussian  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

Wis.  325,  1988 

Buswell  v.  Supreme  Sitting,  etc.,  161  Mass. 


224, 


770 


cii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1,1,3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-Z161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Butcher  v.  Dillsburg,  etc.,  R.  K.  Co.,  76 

Pa.  St.  306,  155 

Butcher  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Com. 

B.  13,  2621,  2629 

Butcher  v.  Vaca,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  67  Cal.  518,  1909 
Butchers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  McDonald,  130 

Mass.  264,  876 

Butchers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  67  Fed.  R.  35,  2667, 2669 

Butler's  Appeal,  73  Pa.  St.  448,  1335 

Butler  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Iowa  20, 

6,  2112,  2122 
Butler  v.  Cornwall,  etc.,  Co.,  22  Conn.  335, 

353,376 

Butler  v.  Dunham,  27  111.  473,     1143, 1181, 1246 
Butler  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Lea  32, 

2274,  2279 

Butler  v.  Fayette  County,  46  Iowa  326,       1210 
Butler  v.  Glen  Cove  Starch  Co.,  18  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  47,  117 

Butler  v.  Glens,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  N.  Y.  112,   248 
Butler  v.  Heane,  2  Camp  415,  2325 

Butler  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  3  E.  D. 

Smith  571,  2612 

Butler  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  143  N.  Y  417,  309 
Butler  v.  Murray,  30  N.  Y.  88,  2445 

Butler  v.  Nevin,  88  111.  575,  1104 

Butler  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  Pa. 

St.  195,  2180,  2558 

Butler  v.  Rahm,  46  Md.  541, 

476, 634,  639,  655,  658 
Butler  v.  Sewer  Commissioners,  39  N.  J. 

Law,  665,  1417 

Butler  v.  Thomasville,  74  Ga.  570,  1347 

Butler  v.  Woolcott,  2  B.  &  P.  N.  E.  64,       2443 
Butler  v.  Wooster,  112  Mass.  541,  1465 

Butman  v.  Fowler,  17  Ohio  101,  1511 

Butman  v.  Vermont  Central  R.  Co.,  27 

Vt.  500,  1453, 1454 

Butner  v.  Western,  etc.,  Telegraph  Co.,  2 

Okla.  234,  2320 

Butte,  etc  ,  R.  Co.  v.  Montana,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  16  Mont.  504, .  1682,  1683, 1687, 1695 

Butterfleld  v.  Cowing,  112  N.  Y.  486,  725 

Butterfield  v.  Spencer,  1  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  1,    113 
Butterfield  v.  Town  of  Ontario,  44  Fed.  R. 

171,  634 

Butterfleld  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  10  Allen 

532,  1772 

Butternuts,  etc.,  T.  Co.  v.  North,  1  Hill 

(N.  Y.)  518,  184, 1280 

Button  v.  Hoffman,  61  Wis.  20,        244,  246,  859 
Button  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  18  N.  Y. 

248,  2596 

Buttrick  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  B.  R.  Co.,  62  N. 

H.  413,  135, 146,  358 


Buttz  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  119  U.  S. 

55,  1119 

Butz  v.  Muscatine,  8  Wall.  (U.  S.)  575, 

1165, 1260 
Buxby  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126 

Pa.  St.  559,  1778 

Buxton  v.  Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  3  Q.  B.  548,  614,  2002 

Buzby  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126 

Pa.  St.  559,  1648 

Buzzell  v.  Loconia  Manuf.Co.,  48  Mo.  113, 

2047,  2063,  2067 
Bybee  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  139  U.  S. 

663,  860,  1129,  1130 

Byers  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Colo.  552,  562 
Byers  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Tenn. 

345,  2149 

Byers  v.  Rollins,  13  Colo.  22,  878 

Byrne  v.  Boadle,  2  Hurl.  &  C.  722,       1984, 2278 
Byrne  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  61 

Fed.  R.  605,  10, 1708, 1714,  2450 

Byrne  v.  New  York,  etc.,  83  N.Y.  620,    1785, 1978 
Byrne  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  N.  Y. 

362,  1643,  1743, 1750,  1951,  1957 

Byrne  v.  Schuyler,  etc.,  Co.,  (Conn.)  31 

Atl.  R.  833,  240,  242 

Byrne  v.  Wilson,  15  Irish  C.  L.  332,  300 

Byrne  v.  Weeks,  7  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  372,  2207 

Byrnes  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  N.  Y. 

251,  2087, 2088 

Byrnes  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Hun 

209,  2038 

Bywaters  v.  Paris,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Tex.  624,   73 

C 

Cabeen  v.  Campbell,  30  Pa.  St.  254,  2395 

Cable  v.  Ellis,  110  U.  S.  389,  932 

Cable  v.  McCune,  26  Mo.  371,  266 

Cabot,  etc.,  Bridge  v.  Chaplin,  6  Gush. 

(Mass.)  50,  28 

Cadle  v.  Muscatine  Western  R.  Co.,  44 

Iowa  11,  1629 

Cadmus  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  N.  J. 

Law  179,  1531 

Cadwallader  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  9  L. 

Canada  169,  2608,  2631 

Cadwallader  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128 

Ind.  518,  1771, 1772, 1784 

Cady  v.  Sanford,  53  Vt.  632,  385 

Caffyn  v.  State,  91  Ind.  324,  1201, 1278 

Caflero  v.  Welsh,  8  Phila.  (Pa.)  130,  2203 

Cage  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Miss.)  7 

So.  R.  509,  1852 

Cagill  v.  Wooldridge,  8  Baxt.  580,          773,  799 
Cagwin  v.  Town  of  Hancock,  84  N.  Y.  532, 

1175, 1237, 1242 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cm 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Cahail  v.  Citizens',  etc.,  Ass'n,  61  Ala.  232, 

876 
Cahill  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Ky. 

345,  1732, 1733, 1791 

Cahill  v.  Hilton,  106  N.  Y.  477,  2058 

Cahill  v.  Kalamazoo  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  2 

Doug.  (Mich.)  124,  278,  280,  340,  343,  361 

Cahill  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Com.  B. 

(N.  S.)  154,  2611,  2612 

Cahn  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  71  111.  96, 

2352,  2382 

Cahn  v.  Barnes,  5  Fed.  E.  326,  1133 

Cain  v.  Commissioners,  86  N.  Car.  8,  1100 

Cairns  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  4  Ry.  & 

Canal  T.  Gas.  221,  2686 

Cairns  v.  Robins,  8  M.  &  W.  258,  2381 

Cairo  v.  Zane,  149  U.  S.  122,  1162, 1169, 1217 
Cairo,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Brevoort,  62  Fed.  R. 

129,  905, 1402,  1405,  1406,  1423, 1566 

Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cauble,  85  111.  555,  1602 
Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cauble,  4  111.  App. 

133,  1602 

Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Delap,  7  Brad.  (111.) 

60,  180, 181 

Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fackney,  78  111.  116,  1605 
Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mahoney,  82  111.  73, 

316,  319 

Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  92  111.  170,  1611 
Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peoples,  92  IU.  97,  1812 
Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sparta,  77  111.  505, 

1150,  1171, 1218 
Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  73  Ind.  278, 

1405, 1566 
Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner,  31  Ark.  494, 

1335,  1342, 1454,  1460, 1539 
Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trout,  32  Ark.  17, 

1465, 1540 

Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watson,  85  IU.  531,  1600 
Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woolsey,  85  111.  370, 

1520, 1565, 1862 
Cake  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Pa. 

St.  307,  1393, 1552 

Calahan  v.  Babcock,  21  Ohio.  St.  281, 

2395,2396 
Calcasieu  Lumber  Co.  v.  Harris,  77  Tex. 

18,  540,  549, 1304 

Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Ball.  386,  974,  982 

Calderon  v.  Atlas  Steamship  Co.,  64  Fed. 

R.  874,  2324,  2338 

Caldwell  v.  East  Broad  Top,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

169  Pa.  St.  99,  495 

Caldwell  v.  Erie  Transfer  Co.,  33  N.  Y. 

Supp.  993,  2628 

Caldwell  v.  Lawrence,  10  Wis.  331,  1605 

Caldwell  v.  Lincoln  City,  19  Neb.  569,  1070 
Caldwell  v.  Nat.  Mohawk  Valley  Bank, 

64  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  333,  296 


in,  pp.  ms-vm,  vol.  iv,  pp. 

Caldwell  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  47  N.  Y. 

282,  2466, 2473 

Caldwell  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Ga. 

550,  2449 

Caledonia,  The,  43  Fed.  R.  681,  2209 

Caledonian,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Helensbnrgh,  2 

Macq.  391,  20 

Caledonian,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  North  British, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Nev.  &  Macq.  R.  Cas.  403,  2645 
Caledonian  R.  Co.  v.  Ogilvy,  2  Macq.  H. 

L.  Cas.  229,  1676 

Caledonian  R.  Co.  v.  Walker's  Trustees, 

L.  R.  7  App.  Cas.  259,  1411 

Caley  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Pa. 

St.  363,  168, 169, 184, 185 

Calhoun  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Tex.  226,  2717 
Calhoun  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.,  2  Flip 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  442,  7,  647,  650,  652 

Calhoun  v.  Paducah,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  9 

Cent.  L.  J.  66,  652 

California  v.  Pacific  R.  R.,  127  U.  S.  1, 

22, 1085,  2636,  2643,  2656,  2661 
California  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  2  Inter- 
state Com.  R.  153,  52 
California,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Russell,  88  Cal. 

277,  169 

California  Ins.  Co.  v.  Union  Compress  Co., 

133  U.  S.  387,  2195,  2307 

California,  etc.,  Land  Co.  v.  Munz,  29  Fed. 

R.  837,  1123, 1125 

California,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Armstrong,  46 

Cal.  85,  1445 

California,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Butte  Co.,  18 

Cal.  671,  1212 

California,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co., 

47  Cal.  528,  1273,  1378, 1423, 1557 

California,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Colton,  etc.,  Co., 

(Cal.)  14  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  194,  1421 

California,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Colton,  etc.,  Co., 

(Cal.)  2  Pacific  R.  38,  1498 

California,  etc.,  R-  Co.  v.  Frisbie,  41  Cal. 

356,  1523, 1528 

California,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gould,  21  Cal.          * 

254,  .     1*90 

California,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hooper,  76  Cal. 

404,  1345, 1348,  1492,  1500 

California,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kimball,  61  Cal. 

90,  "21 

California,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  65  Cal.  409,  1«B 

California,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  65  Cal.  295,  1553 

California,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  Pacific 

R.  Co.,  67  Cal.  59,  1440,  1445, 1502,  1691 

California  State  Tel.  Co.  v.  Alta  T.  Co., 

22  Cal.  398,  ^»  1"^2 

Calkins  v.  State,  18  Ohio  St.  366,  1063 


CIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-%m,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Callaghan  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 
Hun  276,  1784 

Callaghan  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  N. 
Y.  Supp.  285,  1755 

Callahan  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

Iowa  562,  1588,  1591 

Callahan  v.  Davis,  90  Mo.  78,  1136 

Callahan  v.  Eel  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Cal. 

89,  1973, 1974 

Callahan  v.  Gilman,  1  Am.  St.  R.  843,  1639 
Callahan  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

Fed.  R.  536,  34,  44 

CaUanan  v.  Shaw,  19  Iowa  183,  777 

Callanan  v.  Windsor,  78  Iowa  193,  130 

Callaway  v.  Allen,  64  Fed.  R.  297,  2054 

Callaway  v.  Foster,  93  U.  S.  567,  1145 

Callaway  v.  Mellett,  (Ind.  App.)  44  N.  E. 

Rep.  198,  2483 

Callaway  County  v.  Foster,  93  U.  S.  567,  1170 
Callaway,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Clark,  32  Mo.  305,  538 
Callender  v.  Painesville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

Ohio  St.  516,  466 

CaUison  v.  Hedrick,  15  Qratt.  244,  1458 

Calumet  Paper  Co.  v.  Knight,  etc.,  Co.,  43 

111.  App.  566,  875 

Calvo  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  S.  Car. 

526,  1998,  2078,  2079 

Camblos  v.  Phila.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Brew- 

ster  (Pa.)  563,  48,  49,  2428 

Cambria  St.,  In  re,  75  Pa.  St.  357,  1104,  1475 
Cambridge  v  County  Commissioners,  117 

Mass.  79,  1419 

Cambridge  v.  Railroad  Commissioners, 

153  Mass.  161,  987 

Cambridge  R.  Co.  v.  Charles  River  St.  R. 

Co.,  139  Mass.  454,  1395 

Camden  v.  Mulford,  26  N.  J.  Law  49,  1202 
Camden  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  21  Wis. 

582,  2230 

Camden  v.  Stuart,  144  U.  S.  104,  130,  132, 165 
Camden,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Causch,  (Pa.  St.)  7 

Atl.  R.  371,  2517 

Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baldauf ,  16  Pa.  St. 

67,  2207,  2309,  2325,  2614,  2631,  2633, 

Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belknap,  21  Wend. 

354,  2454,  2615,  2619 

Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Briggs,  22  N.  J.  L. 

623,  62, 1033 

Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burke,  13  Wend. 

611,  2466,  2614,  2632 

Camden,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Elkins,  36  N.  J. 

Eq.  273,  230,  249, 250 

Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Forsyth,  61  Pa.  St. 

81,  2228,  2229,  2245 

Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoosey,  99  Pa.  St. 

492,  2556 


Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  May's  Landing, 

etc.,  Co.,  48  N.  J.  L.  530,  508,  584 

Cameron  v.  Board,  etc.,  47  Miss.  264,  1545 

Cameron  v.  Charing  Cross  R.  Co.,  16  C.  B. 

N.  S.  430,  1443 

Cameron  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Minn. 

153,  1514 

Cameron  v.  Hodges,  127  U.  S.  322,  948 

Cameron  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145  N. 

Y.  400,  2019 

Cameron  v.  Stephenson,  69  Mo.  372,  1177 

Cameron  v.  Tome,  64  Md.  507,  635 

Camp  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  Co.,  43  Conn.  333, 

2320,  2697 

Campagnie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fortier,  Mont- 
real L.  R.  5  Q.  B.  224,  2381 
Campbell,  Matter  of,  1  N.  Y.  S.  R.  768,       1530 
Campbell  v.  Alford,  57  Tex.  159,  2218 
Campbell  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  122  N.  Y. 

455,  119 

Campell  v.  Argenta,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Fed.  R.  1, 

238 
Campbell  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Ga. 

488,  2123 

Campbell  v.  Boyd,  88  N.  Car.  129,  1743 

Campbell  v.  Bridwell,  5  Ore.  311,  1805 

Campbell  v.  Campbell,  63  111.  362,  1476 

Campbell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Iowa 

587,  995,  1008,  2655 

Campbell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Iowa 

641,  1084 

Campbell  v.  City  of  Providence,  9  R.  I. 

262,  302, 305 

Campbell  v.  City  of  York,   (Pa.  St.)  83 

Atl.  R.  879,  2152 

Campbell  v.  Collins,  62  Fed.  R.  849,  940 

Campbell  v.  Cook,  86  Tex.  630,  815, 

968,  2025,  2108 
Campbell  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Fed. 

R.  241,  884 

Campbell  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

110  Ind.  490,          103,  547, 1304,  1322,  1326, 1327 
Campell  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

Kan.  536,  1969 

Campbell  v.  Marietta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

Ohio  St.  168,  449, 1271 

Campbell  v.  McCoy,  31  Pa.  St.  263,  1327 

Campbell  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  82 

Ga.  320,  1442,  1613,  1637 

Campbell  v.  Mississippi  Union  Bank,  6 

How.  (Miss.)  625,  89 

Campbell  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  Mo. 

340,  1892,  1894,  1933, 1939 

Campbell  v.  Morse,  1  Harp.  L.  (S.  Car.) 

468,  2268 

Campbell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50 

Conn.  128,  1805, 1807, 1810 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-ISM,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161*,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  t!6S-t7tS.] 

Candee  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  21  Wis. 

412, 2228,  2493,  2626 


Campbell  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  51 

Minn.  488,  1990 

Campbell  v.  Paris,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  111.  611, 

1157,  1165, 1175,  1208,  1230 
Campbell  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Me. 

552,   .  1949,1950 

Campbell  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Fed. 

R.  484,  2530,  2582,  2587 

Campbell  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1  Woods  (U. 

S.)  368,  711,  1452 

Campbell  v.  Stillwater,  32  Minn.  308,         1642 
Campbell  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.R.  Co.,  2  Woods 

263,  647,  651,  655,  700 

Campbell  v.  Trustees  of  Cincinnati,  etc., 

Co.,  (Ky.)  6  S.  W.  R.  337,  1570, 1574 

Campion  v.  Canadian  P.  R.  Co.,  43  Fed. 

R.  775,  2190,  2275,  2282 

Campbell  v.  Watson,  8  Ohio  498,  1452 

Campbell  v.  Wing,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  431, 

2035,2047 
Canada,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clouse,  13  Can.  S. 

C.  R.  139,  1722,  1726, 1730 

Canada,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Erwin,  13  Can.  S. 

C.  R.  162,  1722 

Canada,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  International 

Bridge  Co.,  L.  R.  8  App.  Gas.  723,  2425 

Canada,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  International,  etc., 

Co.,  8  Fed.  R.  190,  2645 

Canada  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Qebhard,  109 

U.  S.  527,  271,  672,  702,  718,  722,  723 

Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  In  re,  32  Atl.  R.  863, 989 
Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Chalifoux^  22 

Can.  S.  Ct.  R.  721,  2567 

Canadian,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  Mon- 
treal, L.  R.  6  Q.  B.  213,  2461 
Canadian,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Robinson,  14  Can. 

Sup.  Ct,  105,  2125,  2129,  2137,  2144 

Canal  Appraisers,  etc.,  v.  People,  17  Wend. 

(Nv  Y.)  571,  1401 

Canal  Bank  v.  Mayor  of  New  Albany,  9 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  244,  1533 

Canal  Co.  v.  Key,  3  Cranch  (C.  C.)  599,       1414 
Canal  &  Street  R.  Co.  v.  Crescent  City  R. 

Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  561,  1372, 1626,  1627 

Canal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

44  La.  Ann.  54,  1627 

Canal  St.  Gravel  R.  Co.  v.  Paas,  95  Mich. 

372,  874 

Canal  &  C.  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Charles  St.  R. 

Co.,  44  La.  Ann.  1069,  509 

Canandaigua,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Payne,  16 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  273,  1436 

Canda,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Inhabitants,  etc.,  (N. 

J.)  32  Atl.  R.  66,  481 

Candee  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mo.) 

31  S.  W.  R.  1029,  1968 


582, 
Candelaria  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N. 

Mex.)  27  Pac.  R.  497,  1957 

Candiff  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  42  La.' 

Ann-  477,  312, 1990,  2461,  2554 

Candon   v.  Southside  R.  Co.,  14  Gratt. 

(Va.)  302,  1572 

Canfleld  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  N. 

Y.  532,  2329,  2345 

Canfleld  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  N 

Y.  144,  2381 

Canfield  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  J.  & 

S.  (N.  Y.)  238,  2194 

Canfleld  v.  Northern  R.  Co.,  18  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  586,  2422 

Canney  v.  South  Pacific  Coast  R.  Co.,  63 

CaL  501,  318 

Cannon  v.  Mathes,  8  Heisk.  504,  1141 

Cannon  v.  New  Orleans,  20  Wall.  577,         2656 
Cannon  v.  Wildman,  28  Conn.  472,  1579 

Cannon  River,  etc.,  Co.v.  Rogers,  51  Minn. 

388,  353 

Canter  v.  Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Fed. 

R.  41,  2030 

Cantini  v.  Tillman,  54  Fed.  R.  969,  2637 

Cantling  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Railroad,  54 

Mo.  385,  2281,  2609 

Cantillon  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,    R.  Co.,   78 

Iowa  48,  450, 1171, 1190, 1199, 1224 

Cantlon  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  45  Minn.  481, 

608, 1899,  1902, 1920 

Cantu  v.  Bennett,  39  Tex.  303,  2312 

Cantwell  v.  Pacific  Express  Co.,  58  Ark. 

487,  2695 

Canty  v.  Latterner,  31  Minn.  239,  1294 

Caotes  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Iowa 

486,  2152 

Cape  Breton  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  26  Ch.  Div. 

221,  18 

Cape  Girardeau  Co.  Ct.  v.  Hill,  118  U.  S. 

68,  H68 

Cape  Girardeau,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dennis, .67 

Mo.  438,  128!?,  1506 

Cape  May,  etc.,Co.,  Matter  of,  51  N.  J.  78,     22» 
Capehart  v.  Furman  Imp.  Co.,  103  Ala. 

671,  2354 

Capehart  v.  Furman,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ala.) 

16  So.  R.  627,  2196 

Capehart  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  In- 

terst.  Com.  R.  278,  2685 

Capehart  v.  Seaboard,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  N. 

Car.  438,  2320,  2321 

Capel  v.  Sim's,  etc.,  Co.,  58  L.  T.  N.  S. 

807,  20 

Capers  v.  Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Ga.  90,    1561 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  i,  pp.  i-vs,  Vol.  ii,  pp.  US-IMS,  Vol.  ill,  pp.  nes-nsu,  Vol.  iv,  pp.  sies-ms.] 


Capital  City  Bank  v.  Hodgin,  22  Fed.  R. 

209,  937 

Caples  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Fed.  R.  9,   943 
Capps  v.  Hastings,  etc.,  Co.,  40  Neb.  470, 

27,  252 

Capps  v.  Hastings,  etc.,  Co.,  (Neb.)  58  N. 

W.  R.  956,  153 

Capron  v.  Strout,  11  Nev.  304,  858 

Carbine  v.  Bennington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Vt. 

348,  2003 

Card  v.  Carr,  1  C.  B.  N.  S.  197,  290 

Card  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  103  N.  Y.  670,    2548 
Card  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  39,  1793,  2476 

Cardot  v.  Barney,  63  N.  Y.  281,  811,  813 

Carew  v.  Rutherford,  106  Mass.  1,        909,  2688 
Carew  v.  Stubbs,  155  Mass.  549,  1604 

Carey  v.  Berkshire  R.  Co.,  1  Gush.  475,       2125 
Carey  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158  Mass. 

228,  2008,2044 

Carey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Wis.  608,  2706 
Carey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Wis.  71, 

1816, 1818,  1866 

Carey  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Iowa 

357,  35,  88 

Carey  v.  Giles,  9  Ga.  253,  90,  778 

Carey  v.  Houston,  45  Fed.  R.  438,    662,  711,  728 
Carey  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Fed.  R. 

671,  698,  724 

Carey  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Wis. 

71,  1819 

Carle  v.  Bangor,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Me.  269, 

2074,  2075 
Carl  v.  Sheboygan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Wis. 

625,  1538,  1634 

Carleton  v.  Franconia  Iron  &  Steel  Co.,  99 

Mass.  216,  1742 

Carleton  v.  Rugg,  149  Mass.  550,  903 

Carli  v.  Stillwater,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Minn. 

260,  1439,  1450, 1487, 1555 

Carli  v.  Still  water,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  28  Minn. 

373,  6,  8, 1403,  1635 

Carli  v.  Union  Depot  St.  R.  Co.,  32  Minn. 

101,  1637 

Carlin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Iowa 

316,  1787 

Carlisle  v.  Brisbane,  113  Pa.  St.  544,  1799 

Carlisle  v.  Saginaw,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  27 

Mich.  315,  155 

Carlisle  v.  Sheldon,  38  Vt.  440,  1790, 1799 

Carlisle  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  1  Macn. 

&  G.  689,  436,  437 

Carlson  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Ore.  450 

2028,  2055,  2151 
Carlson  v.  Phenix  Ridge  Co.,  132  N.  Y.  273, 

2013 


Carlton  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  104  N.  Car. 

365,  1851,  1854, 1855 

Carman  v.  Steubenville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Ohio  St.  399,  1567,  1590 

Carmanty  v.  Mexican,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  La. 

Ann.  703,  2703 

Carmody  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co  ,  87  Ga. 

602,  1354 

Carmody  v.  Powers,  60  Mich.  26,  20 

Carnahan  v.  W.  U.  Tel.  Co.,  89  Ind.  526,  1023 
Carneal  v.  Banks,  10  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  181,  932 
Carnegie  Bros.  v.  Lancaster,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

1  Ohio  N.  P.  300,  1598 

Garner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Minn. 

375,  1930 

Carney  v.  Caraquet  Railway  Co.,  29  N.  B. 

425,  2086 

Carney  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Minn. 

220,  1778, 2144 

Carney  v.  Hadley,  32  Fla.  344,  907 

Caro  v.  Metropolitan  El.  R.  Co.,  46  N.  Y. 

Super.  Ct.  438,  1397 

Carolina  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Love,  81  N.  Car. 

434,  1385, 1391 

Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKaskiU,  94  N. 

C.  746,  1011,  1458 

Caron  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  164  Mass. 

523,  2005,  2031,  2113,  2121,  2122 

Carothers  v.  Alexander,  74  Tex.  309,  336 

Carpenter  v.  Black  Hawk  G.  M.  Co.,  65  N. 

Y.  43,  637, 639 

Carpenter  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  N.  Y. 

494,  1965,2475,2584 

Carpenter  v.  Catlin,  44  Barb.  (N.Y.)  75,  702,  724 
Carpenter  v.  County  Commissioners,  21 

Pick.  258,  1257 

Carpenter  v.  Danforth,  52  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

581,  137, 397 

Carpenter  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  N.  Y. 

574,  1914 

Carpenter  v.  Easton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  J. 

Eq.  249,  1448 

Carpenter  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  72  Me. 

388,  2492, 2498 

Carpenter  v.  Grisham,  59  Mo.  247,  1546 

Carpenter  v.  Gwynn,  35  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  395,  1317 
Carpenter  v.  Longan,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.)  271, 

675,681 
Carpenter  v.  Mexican,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Fed. 

R.  315,  2029,  2088 

Carpenter  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  124  N. 

Y.  53,  2535,  2536,  2539,  2621 

Carpenter  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5 

Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  277,  433,  436,  911 

Carpenter  v.  O'Dougherty,  67  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  397,  674 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Carpenter  v.  Oswego,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y. 

655,  1542,  1651 

Carpenter  v.  Rommel,  5  Phila.  (Pa.)  34,      628 
Carpenter  v.  Schooner  Emma  Johnson,  1 

Cliff.  (U.S.  C.  C.)  633,  2655 

Carpenter  v.  Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121 

U.  S.  474,  2505 

Carr  v.  Boone,  108  Ind.-  241,  1508 

Carr  v.  Eel  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Cal.  366, 

2544,  2548 

Carry.  Iglehart,  3  Ohio  St.  457,  212 

Carr  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  Railway,  7  Exch. 

707,  2294,  2430,  2543 

Carr  v.  LeFevre,  27  Pa.  St.  413,       166,  626,  673 
Carr  v.  Morris,  85  Va.  21,  812 

Carr  v.  Quigley,  79  Cal.  130,  1121 

Carr  v*.  Schafer,  15  Colo.  48,  2298,  2406 

Carr  v.  St.  Louis,  9  Mo.  191,  275 

Can-  v.  State,  127  Ind.  204,  1058, 1133 

Carr  v.  Steamboat  Michigan,  27  Mo.  196,    2213 
Carrey  v.  Spencer,  36  N.  Y.  S.  886,  2644 

Carrico  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 

W.  Va.  389,  1792,  2470,  2477,  2563,  2571 

Carrico  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

W.  Va.  86,  1589 

Carrier  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa 

80,  2431 

Carrier  v.  Shawangunk,  10  Fed.  R.  220,      1236 
Carrington  v.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 

Blatchf.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  467,  948 

Carrington  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 

Ala.  472,  1948 

Carris  v.  Commissioners,  2  Hill  (N.  Y.) 

443,  1273 

Carrol  v.  Green,  92  U.  S.  509,  1139 

Carroll  v.  East  St.  Louis,  67  111.  568,  543 

Carroll  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82 

Ga.  452,  2037 

Carroll  v.  Interstate,  etc.,  Co.,  107  Mo.  653, 

2564,  2572,  2722 

Carroll  v.  Minnesota  Valley  R.  Co.,  13 

Minn.  30,  1764, 1955 

Carroll  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Mo. 

239,  2083,  2128,  2151,  2510,  2514,  2515 

Carroll  v.  Mullanphy,  etc.,  Bank,  8  Mo. 

App.  249,  148 

Carroll  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Duer 

(N.  Y.)  571,  2560 

Carroll  v.  Staten  Island,  etc.,  Co.,  58  N. 

Y.  126,  2468,  2473 

Carroll  v.  Staten  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65 

Barb.  32,  2263 

Carroll  v.  Willcutt,  163  Mass.  221,  2115 

Carroll  County  v.  Smith,  111  U.  S.  556, 

1222,  1239, 1242 

Carrter  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Ga.  158,    1600 


Carruthers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

Kan.  600,  2063 

Carson  v.  Arctic  Min.  Co.,  5  Mich.  288,  216 
Carson  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  35  Cal.  325,  1632 
Carson  v.  City  of  Hartford,  48  Conn.  68,  1504 
Carson  v.  Dunham,  121  U.  S.  421,  942,  945,  948 
Carson  v.  Federal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  147  Pa.  St. 

219,  1648 

Carson  v.  Harris,  4  Greene  (Iowa)  516, 

2205,2252 
Carson  v.  Iowa  City  Gaslight  Co.,  80  Iowa 

638,  241,  250 

Carson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Tenn. 

646,  887,  893,  894,  895 

Carson,  etc.,  Lumber  Co.  v.  Holtzclaw,  39 

Fed.  R.  578,  934,  940,  941 

Carstairs  v.  Mechanics,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  18 

Fed.  R.  473,  2335 

Carsten  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  44  Minn. 

454,  2495,  2499 

CarsweU  v.  Schley,  59  Ga.  17,  946 

Carter  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  S.  Car. 

20,  1977,  1990 

Carter  v.  Ford  Plate  Glass  Co.,  85  Ind. 

180,  725 

Carter  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65 

Iowa  287,  1934 

Carter  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Fed. 

R.  37,  2473,  2596 

Carter  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  98  Ind.  552, 

311,  1963 

Carter  v.  Machine  Co.,  51  Md.  290,  304 

Carter  v.  Peck,  4  Sneed  (Tenn.)  203, 

2227,  2243,  2306 

Carter  v.  Railway  Co.,  98  Ind.  552,  1962 

Carter  v.  Thurston,  58  N.  H.  104, 

1518,  1519,  1521 

Cartmell's  Case,  L.  R.  9  Ch.  691,  254,  319 

Carton  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Iowa 

148,  951.  2651 

Cartwright  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

Mich.  606,  2549,  2550 

Cartwright  v.  Dickinson,  88  Tenn.  476, 

153,  254,  255 
Cartwright  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 

Vt.  675,  1594 

Cartwright  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Hun 

517, 

Carty  v.  London,  18  Ont.  R.  122,  1643 

Cary  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)35,  476,509,26: 

Cary  v.  Ottawa,  8  Fed.  R.  199,  1239 

Cary,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cain,  70  Miss.  628, 
Casady  v.  Lawry,  49  Iowa  523,  1213 

Cascades  R.  Co.  v.  Sohns,  1  Wash.  Ter. 


557, 
Case!  The  M.  M.,  37  Fed.  R.  708, 


1343 

2396 


CV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


{References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-M2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  J,^-1262,  Vol.  ITT,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-3725.] 


Case  of  Adamson,  L.  R.  18  Eq.  Cas.  670,  202 
Case  of  Anderson,  L.  R.  7  Ch.  Div.  75,  131 
Case  of  Appleyard,  49  L.  J.  Ch.  290,  166 

Case  of  Austin,  24  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  932,  221,  222 
Case  of  Ayre,  25  Beav.  513,  199 

Case  of  Baker,  L.  R.  Chan.  115,  161 

Case  of  Barge,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  Cas.  420,  202 

Case  of  Barton,  4  DeG.  &  J.  46,  214 

Case  of  Bath,  L.  R.  8  Ch.  Div.  334,  255,  477 
Case  of  Bellona  Company,  3  Bland  (Md.) 

442,  859,  1340, 1347 

Case  of  Bennett,  5  DeGex,  M.  &  G.  284,  373 
Case  of  Bigg,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  309,  217 

Case  of  Binney,  2  Bland  Ch.  (Md.)  99,  1347 
Case  of  Bottomley,  L.  R.  16  Ch.  Div.  681, 

205,  219 

Case  of  Cartmell,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  588,  319 

Case  of  Cartmell,  L.  R.  9  Ch.  691,  254 

Case  of  Currie,  3  DeG.,  J.  &  S.  367,  131 

Case  of  Daniell,  22  Beav.  43,  140 

Case  of  Davidson,  3  DeG.  &  S.  21,  170 

Case  of  Delaware  Railroad  Tax,  18  Wall. 

206,  1056,  1089 

Case  of  Dodgson,  3  DeGex  &  S.  85,  326 

Case  of  Drummond,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  772,  165 

Case  of  Ebbett,  L.  R.  5  Chan.  App.  C.  302, 

136, 161 
Case  of  Farmers'  Bank  of  Maryland,  2 

Eland's  Ch.  (Md.)  394,  151 

Case  of  French  Bank,  53  Cal.  495,  760 

Case  of  Gateward,  6  Coke  60,  1318 

Case  of  Gilbert,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  App.  C.  559, 

137,  397 

Case  of  Gower,  L.  R.  6  Eq.  77,  218 

Case  of  Grady,  1  DeG.,  J.  &  S.  488,  140 

Case  of  Habershon,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  286,  205 

Case  of  Heyburn,  2  Dall.  409,  980 

Case  of  Haydon,  3  Re.  (Coke.)  7,  916 

Case  of  Karuth,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  506,  338 

Case  of  King,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  714,  216 

Case  of  Knight,  L.  R.  2  Chan.  321,  219, 220, 221 
Case  of  Lord  Belhaven,  3  DeG.,  J.  &  S.  41,  255 
Case  of  Lumsden,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  App.  C.  31,  136 
Case  of  Maltby,  1  Dow.  294,  328 

Case  of  Meux,  2  DeGex,  M.  &  G.  522,  367 

Case  of  Minot,  33  Alb.  L.  Jour.  106,  421 

Case  of  Mitchell,  L.  R.  9  Eq.  363,  161 

Case  of  Mrs.  Matthewman,  L.  R.  3  Eq.  781,  161 
Case  of  Munt,  22  Beav.  55,  140 

Case  of  Nicols,  3  DeG.  &  J.  387,  140 

Case  of  Northampton  Bridge,  116  Mass. 

442,  1372 

Case  of  Pellatt,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  527,  170 

Case  of  Poole,  L.  R.  9  Ch.  D.  322,  202 

Case  of  Pugh,  L.  R.  3  Eq.  566,  161 

Case  of  Ramwell,  50  L.  J.  (Ch.)  827,  133, 141 
Case  of  Root,  77  Pa.  St.  276,  1426 


Case  of  Royal  Bank  of  India,  L.  R.  4  Ch. 

App.  Cas.  252,  143, 1292 

Case  of  Sewell,  L.  R.  3  Ch.  131,  126 

Case  of  Shepherd,  L.  R.  2  Eq.  564,  134 

Case  of  Siford,  11  Coke  46,  53ft 

Case  of  Snell,  L.  R.  5  Chan.  22,  21& 

Case  of  Stanhope,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  161,  218 

Case  of  State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  232,  107» 
Case  of  Stewart,  L.  R.  Ch.  App.  574,  199 

Case  of  Stringer,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  475,  431,  43ft 

Case  of  Sunderland  Bridge,  122  Mass.  459, 

1379 

Case  of  Sutton,  3  DeG.  &  Sm.  262,  26$ 

Case  of  Button's  Hospital,  10  Coke  1,  475 

Case  of  Syke,  L.  R.  13  Eq.  Cas.  256,  202 

Case  of  The  Bank  Tax,  2  Wall.  200,  ,  1073 
Case  of  Thetford,  1  Salk.  192,  279 

Case  of  Thomas,  L.  R.  13  Eq.  437,  254 

Case  of  Wheatcroft,  29  L.  T.  R.  324,  174 

Case  of  Whitcomb,  120  Mass.  118,  980 

Case  of  Wood,  L.  R.  15  Eq.  236,  171 

Case  of  Woodfall,  3  DeG.  &  Sm.  63,  166 

Case  of  Woollaston,  4  DeG.  &  J.  437,  221 

Case  v.  Bank,  100  U.  S.  446,  145, 148 

Case  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa  762, 

2065 
Case  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Ind. 

App.  517,  2341,  2343 

Case  v.  Kelly,  133  U.  S.  21, 

512,  536,  537,  551,  1384 
Case  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Barb. 

644,  1895, 1935 

Case  v»St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Mo.  668, 

1819, 1880 

Case  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Soxman,  138  U.  S.  431,  19 
Casement  v.  Brown,  148  U.  S.  615,  1587,  1588 
Cases  of  Confiscation,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  454, 

1028 

Cases  of  Head  Money,  112  U.  S.  580,  1079 

Cases  of  Illinois  Tax,  92  U.  S.  575,  1060 

Cases  of  Kentucky  Railroad  Tax,  115,  U. 

S.  321,  1091,  1095,  1336 

Cases  of  Kentucky  Railroad  Tax,  92  U.  S. 

663,  1059 

Cases  of  Legal  Tender,  12  Wall.  457,  1058 

Cases  of  Legal  Tender,  110  U.  S.  421,  1166 

Cases  of  License  Tax,  5  Wall.  462,  964 

Cases  of  New  Haven  Wire  Company,  57 

Conn.  352,  516 

Cases  of  Pacific  Railroad  Removal,  115  U. 

S.  1,  942,  976 

Cases  of  Pennsylvania  College,  13  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  190,  450,  10S9 

Cases  of  Pulaski  County,  etc.,  49  Ark.  518,  1059 
Cases  of  Railroad  Commission,  116  U.  S. 

307,  953,  981,  997,  1097 

Cases  of  Removal,  100  U.  S.  457,  94T 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


C1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT.  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  t'GS-216/,,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 


Cases  of  Shepaug  Voting  Trust,  60  Conn. 

553,  616 

Cases  of  Slaughter  House,  16  Wall.  36,  961 
Cases  of  Sinking  Fund,  99  U.  S.  700,  869, 1138 
Cases  of  State  Railroad  Tax,  92  U.  S.  575, 

1056,  1071,  1092 
Cases  of  State  Railroad  Tax,  115  U.  S.  321, 

1091 
Cases  of  The  Passenger,  7  How.  (U.  S.) 

282,  1083 

Cases  of  The  Tax,  12  Gill  &  J.  117,  1058 

Cases  of  Virginia  Coupon,  114  U.  S.  270,  1010 
Casey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Wis.  113, 

2024 
Casey  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Union,  45  Fed. 

R.  135,  2688 

Casey  v.  Galli,  94  U.  S.  673,  211,  252,  447,  1237 
Casey  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  N.  Y. 

518,  1754 

Casey  v.  People,  132  111.  546,  1221 

Cashman  v.  Brownlee,  128  Ind.  266,  456 

Cashman  v.  Chase,  156  Mass.  342,  2119 

Caskie  v.  Webster,  2  Wall.  Jr.(U.  S.  C.  C.) 

131,  849 

Cass  v.  Dillon,  2  Ohio  St.  607,  1144 

Cass  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Fed.  R. 

640,  335,  578 

Cass  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Pa.  St. 

31,  171, 172, 176,  210 

Cass  County  v.  Gillett,  100  U.  S.  585, 

1145,  1163,*1201, 1221,  1244 
Cass  County  v.  Johnston,  95  U.  S.  360, 

232,  1179, 1232,  1238,  1239 
Cassaboglou  v.  Gibb,  L.  R.  11  Q.  B.  D. 

797,  2391 

Cassady  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  164  Mass. 

168,  2033,  2074,  2113,  2114 

Cassedy  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  (Miss.)  17 

So.  R.  373,  2588 

Cassell  v.  Lexington,  etc.,  Co.,  (Ky.)  9  S. 

W.  R.  502,  237,  343 

Cassida  v.  Oregon  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Ore. 

551,  1741,  1789,  1967 

Cassidy  v.  Angell,  12  R.  I.  447,  1766,  2069 

Cassidy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Wis. 

440,  1328 

Cassidy  v.  Kennebec,  etc,  R.  Co.,  45  Me. 

263,  1484 

Castello  v.  Landwehr,  28  Wis.  522,  2153 

Castle  v.  Belfast,  etc.,  Co.,  72  Me.  167, 

391,394 

Castle  v.  Hutchinson,  25  Fed.  R.  394,  2654 
Caswell  v.  Allen,  10  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  118,  1029 
Caswell  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Mass. 

194,  2460 

Caswell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Wis. 
193,  1924 


Caswell  v.  Worth,  5  El.  &  Bl.  848,  102:5 

Catawissa,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Armstrong,  52 

Pa.  St.  282,  2153 

Catawissa,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Pa.  Co.  R.  280,  585,  588 

Catchpole  v.  Ambergate,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Ellis  &  B.  Ill,  219,  222 

Caterham,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  London,  etc., 

Ry.  Co.,  1  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  410,  1016,  2454,  2670 
Cateril  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.Co.,  2  Idaho  540,  1813 
Catlett  v.  Railway  Co.,  57  Ark.  411,  197.1 

Catlin  v.  Adirondack  Co.,  20  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

19,  2630 

Catlin  v.  Adirondack  Co.,  11  Abb.  N.  Cas. 

(N.  Y.)  377,  26% 

Catlin  v.  Eagle  Bank,  6  Conn.  233,  854 

Catlin  v.  Green,  120  N.  Y.  441,  625 

Catlin  v.  Wilcox,  etc.,  Co.,  123  Ind.  477, 

771,  798 

Caton  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Ore.  391,  1926 
Caton  v.  Rumney,  13  Wend.  387,  2175 

Cator  v.  Board  of  Works,  etc.,  34  L.  J.  Q. 

B.  74,  1540 

Cattell  v.  Lowry,  45  Iowa  478,  1208 

Cauley  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Pa. 

St.  498,  1962,  2725 

Cauley  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Pa. 

St.  398,  1736, 1963, 1973 

Caulkins  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  Co.,  85  Tenn. 

683,  139, 425 

Cavanagh  v.  Ocean,  etc.,  Co.,  13  N.  Y. 

Supp.  540,  2143 

Cave  v.  Cave,  L.  R.  15  Ch.  Div.  639,  322 

Cawley,  In  re,  L.  R.  42  Ch.  Div.  209,  137 

Cayley  v.  Cobourg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  14 

Grant  Ch.  (U.  Can.)  571,  625 

Caylus  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  10 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  295,  627 

Cayuga  Lake  R.  Co.  v.  Kyle,  64  N.  Y.  185, 

53, 157 

Cayuga  Lake  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Kyle,  5  Thomp. 

&  C.  (N.  Y.)  659,  27, 184 

Cayzer  v.  Taylor,  10  Gray  274,  2062 

Caze  v.  Baltimore  Ins.  Co.,  7  Cranch  (U. 

S.)  359,  2427 

Cazeaux  v.  Mali,  25  Barb.  578,  387 

Cazman  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  (Mass.)  37 

N.  E.  R.  311, 

Cecil,  Matter  of,  36  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  477, 
Cecil  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  47  Mo.  246,  1873 

Cecil  Nat.  Bank  v.  Watsontown  Bank, 

105  U.  S.  217,  15° 

Cedar  Falls,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rich,  33  Iowa 

113,  I*7- 1311 

Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boone 

County,  34  Iowa  45,  1181,  1183,  U«6 


ex 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  216S-2725.] 


Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago, 

etc.,  E.  Co.,  60  Iowa  35,  1486, 1555 

Cedar  Eapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eaymond,37 

Minn.  204,  1439, 1719 

Cedar  Eapids,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eyan,  37 

Minn.  38,  1431 

Cedar  Eapids,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Spafford,  41 

Iowa  292,  184,  494,  527, 130$ 

Cedar  Eapids,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stewart,  25  Iowa 

115,  298 

Cedar  Eapids,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Whelan,  64 

Iowa  694,  1557 

Ceeder  v.  Loud,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Mich.  541,  390 
Center  v.  McQuestion,  24  Kan.  480,  890 

Center  v.  Torrey,  8  Mart.  La.  R.  206,  2209 

Central  Bank  v.  Empire  Stone  Co.,  26 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  23,  620 

Central  Bridge  Co.  v.  Lowell,  4  Gray 

(Mass.)  474,  1379 

Central  Park,  In  re  Commissioners  of,  61 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  40,  1533 

Central  Park,  In  re  Commissioners  of,  51 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  277,  1526 

Central,  etc.,  Boats  v.  Lowe,  50  Ga.  509,  2300 
Central,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Clemens,  16  Mo.  359,  512 
Central,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Howard,  52  Cal.  227,  1097 
Central,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Platt,  3  Daly  (N.  Y.) 

263,  639 

Central,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  B.  Co., 

69  Fed.  E.  683,  2303 

Central  Iowa  Co.  v.  Board,  etc.,  67  Iowa 

199,  1059 

Central  Mills  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  127  Mass.  537,  1265,  1296 

Central  Nat.  Bank  v.  Hazard,  30  Fed.  R. 

484,  705,  842,  843,  844 

Central  Nat.  Bank  v.  Worcester  Horse  R. 

Co.,  13  Allen  (Mass.)  105,  849 

Central  R.  Co.,  Appeal  of,  102  Pa.  St.  38,  1479 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  1  Thomp.  & 

C.  (N.  Y.)  419,  1688 

Central  Branch  U.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Andrews, 

26  Kan.  702,  1435,  1447, 1539 

Central  Branch  Union  Pac.  v.  Andrews, 

30  Kan.  590,  1634 

Central  Branch  U.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Andrews, 

37  Kan.  641,  1515 

Central  Branch  II.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Andrews, 

37  Kan.  162,  1515, 1517,  1520 

Central  Branch,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Andrews, 

41  Kan.  370,  1417 

Central  Branch,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Atchison, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Kan.  669,          1270,  1284, 1386 
Central  Branch,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Atchison, 

etc.,  R.Co.,  28  Kan.  453,    1333,  1548, 1554, 1555 
Central  R.  &  Bkg.  Co.  v.  Avant,  80  Ga.  195, 

2233 


Central  E.  Co.  v.  Bayonne,  52  N.  J.  L.  503,  564 
Central  B.  Co.  v.  Brewer,  (Md.)  28  Atl.  R. 

615,  304 

Central  E.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bridger,  94  Ga.  471, 

2245 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Bridges,  57  Fed.  E. 

753,  307 

Central,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Brinson,  70  Ga.  207, 

50, 1740, 1756,  1947,  1952, 1980,  2073 
Central  E.,  etc., Co. v.  Brunswick,  etc.,Co., 

87  Ga.  386,  2571 

Central  E.  Co.  v.  Bryant,  73  Ga.  722,  2412 

Central  B.  Co.  v.  Bryant,  89  Ga.  457,  1869 

Central,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Bush,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  34  S.  W.  B.  133,  1774 

Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Chapman,  96  Ga. 

769,  2012, 2057 

Central  E.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cheatham,  85  Ala. 

292,  64, 403 

Central,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Claghorn,  1  Speers 

Eq.  (S.  C.)  545,  244,  378 

Central  E.  Co.  v.  Collins,  40  Ga.  582, 

57,  70, 142,  230,  243,  348,  508,  512,  526,  862,  911, 

2663 

Central  E.  Co.  v.  DeBray,  71  Ga.  406,          2020 
Central  E.  Co.  v.  Dixon,  42  Ga.  327,  1780 

Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Dwight  Mfg.  Co., 

75  Ga.  609,  2325 

Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Feller,  84  Pa.  St. 

226,  1748,  1762, 1786 

Central  City  Horse  By.  Co.  v.  Fort  Clark 

Horse  By.  Co.,  81  111.  523, 

61, 1380, 1393, 1627, 1692 
Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  Ex- 
change, 91  Ga.  389,  2226,  2239,  2271,  2302 
Central  E.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  Co., 

32  S.  Car.  319,  886- 

Central  E.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Georgia,  92  U.  S. 

665,  457,  461,  462,  463,  464,  465,  860,  1065 
Central,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Golden,  93  Ga.  510, 

1757,  1785,  1979 
Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Great  Western, 

etc. ,  E.  Co. ,  4  E.  <fe  Canal  Traf .  Cas.  110,  2686 
Central  B.  &  B.  Co.  v.  Grant,  46  Ga.  417,  1590 
Central,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Guthrie,  35  Ohio  St. 

666,  500,2663 
Central  E.  B.  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  71  Ga.  461,  1862 
Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Hasselkus,  91  Ga. 

382,  2199,  2323,  2349 

Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Henigh,  23  Kan. 

347,  17C8,  1973,  1975 

Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Henning,  52  Tex. 

466,  1596 

Central  E.  Co.  v.  Hetfield,29  N.  J.  L.  206, 

1324,  1335, 1544 
Central  R.  v.  Hines,  19  Ga.  145,  2183 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXI 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-W,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol. 

Central  Ohio,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Holler,  7  Ohio 

St.  220,  1417, 1530 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keegan,  160  U.  S. 

259,  2007,  2029,  2037,  2079 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  58  Ga.  107,  2123 
Central  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Kuhn,  86  Ky.  578, 

1753,  1898, 2570 
Central,  etc.,R.  Co.  v.  Lampley,  76  Ala. 

357,  2173,  2281,  2419 

Central  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lawrence,  13 

Ohio  St.  66,  1805,  1850,  1852 

Central  R.  Co.  v.  Lanier,  83  Ga.  587,  1997 
Central  Branch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lea,  20  Kan. 

353,  1803 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  96  Ala.  444,  1854 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Letcher,  69  Ala. 

106,  2459, 2475 

Central  R.  Co.  v.  Merkel,  32  Tex.  723,  1487 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Miles,  88  Ala.  256,  2548 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Mills,  113  U.  S.  249,  933,  943 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  63  Ga.  173, 

1471,  2123 

Central  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  24  N.  J.  L.  824,  2721 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  68  Tex.  49, 

5,  611,  2419,  2693 
Central  Iowa  R.  Co.  v.  Moulton,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  57  Iowa  249,  1289 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murray,  93  Ga. 

256,  1931 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nichols,  24  Kan. 

242,  1879,  1880, 1885 

Central  Tex.,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Nycum,  (Tex.) 

34  S.  W.  R.  460,  1746 

Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Papot,  59  Ga.  342,  419 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Peacock,  69  Md.  257, 

1990,2481,2583 
Central  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Pearson,  35  Cal. 

247, 

1434, 1519, 1520, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1527, 1528,  1530, 
1533, 1534,  1572 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Penn.  R.  Co.,  4  Stewart 

(31  N.  J.  Eq.)  475,    25,  55,  348, 1342, 1370,  1557 
Central,  etc.,  Road  Co.  v.  People,  5  Colo. 

39,  74,  75,  83,  87 

Central  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perry,  58  Ga.  461, 

24C9,  2475,  2545, 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pettus,  113  U.  S. 

116,  597 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Philippi,  20  Kan.  9,  1857 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phinazee,  93  Ga. 

488,  604, 2450 

Central  Railroad  Co.  v.  Raiford,  82  Ga. 

400,  1757 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richards,  62  Ga. 

306,  2152 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Roberts,  91  Ga.  513,  2490 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rouse,  80 Ga.  442,  2153 


III,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rylee,  87  Ga.  491, 

1781, 1971, 1976, 1980 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ryles,  84  Ga.  420,  2037 
Central  R.,  etc.,Co.  v.  Skellie,  86  Ga.  686,  2248 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.v.  Skellie,  90  Ga.  694,  286 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  69  Ga.  268,  2595 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  76  Ala.  572, 

501,  511 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  78  Ga.  694, 

1025, 1745, 1746 

Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smitha,  85  Ala.  47,  2339 
Central  Vt.  R.  Co.  v.  Soper,  59  Fed.  R. 

879,  2321,  2340,  2342,  2699 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spurck,  24  111.  587,  1574 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  State,  32  N.  J.  L.  220, 

460,  1650 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Strickland,  90  Ga.  562, 

2453,2506 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

32  Fed.  448,  2061 

Central  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  76  Ga.  770,  2549 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Twenty-third  St. 

R.  Co.,  54  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  168,  6 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Twine,  23  Kan.  585, 

1629,1633 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Horn,  38  N.  J.  L. 

133,  2549 

Central  R.  Co.  v.  Vaughan,  93  Ala.  209, 

1955, 1970 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warren,  84  Ga. 

329,  1881 

Central  R.  Co.  v.  Whitehead,  74  Ga.  441, 

2480,2544 

Central  Vermont  R.  Co.  v.  Woodstock  R. 

Co.,  50  Vt.  452,  1546,  1681, 1694, 1698 

Central  Ohio  Salt  Co.  v.  Guthrie,  35  Ohio 

St.  666, 

Central  Sav.  Bank  v.  Mayor,  71  Md.  515,  2710 
Central  Un.  Tel.  Co.  v.  State,  118  Ind.  194, 

920,  2692 

Central  Un.  Tel.  Co.  v.  State,  123  Ind.  113, 

920,  2692 

Central  Transp.  Co.  v.  Pullman's  Car  Co., 

139  U.  S.  24,          59, 104,  475,  491,  503,  505,  507, 
524,  533,  571,  591,  693 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Bridges,  57  Fed.  B. 

753,  246,  448,  762, 1568, 1583,  1601 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  65  Fed.  R.  264,  709,  710 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Chattanooga,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  68  Fed.  R.  685, 

470,  773,  806,  808,  893,  894 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  J.  &  M. 

Ry.Co.,(C.C.)58Fed.  R.500, 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Condon,  67  Fed.  R. 

84,        392,  641,  644,  1579, 1580, 1604, 1608 


CX11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-iUH,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216^,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Central  Trust  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  30  Fed.  R.  895,  814 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  59  Fed.  E.  523,  806,  942 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  E. 

Co.,  65  Fed.  E.  332,  2483,  2484 

Central,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  70  Fed.  R.  764,  2274,  2696,  2697 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Florida  R.,  etc.,  Co., 

43  Fed.  R.  751,  680 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Grant  Locomotive 

Works,  135  U.  S.  207,  s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R. 

736,  690 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Kneeland,  138  U.  S. 

414,  653 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  70  Fed.  R.  282,  1575, 1603 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Marietta,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  48  Fed.  R.  850,  690 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Moran,  56  Minn.  188,  913 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  33  Hun  (N.  Y.)  513,  663,  666,  685 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  110  N.  Y.  250,  657,  710,  820 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Ohio  Central  R.  Co., 

23  Fed.  R.  306,  499,  500,  591 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  68  Fed.  R.  90.  1601, 1602, 1607 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Seasongood,  130  U.  S. 

482,  839, 846 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Sheffield,  etc.,  Co.,  42 

Fed.  R.  106,  1595 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Sheffield,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  44  Fed.  R.  526,  845,  680 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  South  Atlantic,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  57  Fed.  R.  3,  763 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

40  Fed.  R.  426,  805,  806 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, etc.,  R.  Co., 

41  Fed.  R.  551,  37,  707,  783,  806,  807,  808 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Tappan,  6  N.  Y.  Supp. 

918,  835 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

22  Fed.  R.  135,  770 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

23  Fed.  R.  703,  1597 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

Fed.  R.  846,  685 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 

Fed.  R.  178,  1597 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

23  Fed.  R.  675,  827 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

26  Fed.  R.  12,  814,  1883 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

26  Fed.  R.  896,  1968 


Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
27  Fed.  R.  159,  1752,  1754,  1782,  1788 

Central,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  Co.,  29 
Fed.  546,  494 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

29  Fed.  R.  618,  759,  768,  770 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

30  Fed.  R.  332,  707,  708 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

31  Fed.  R.  246,  1785,  1978 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

31  Fed.  R.  247,  2626,  2627,  2632 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

32  Fed.  R.  187,  825 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

32  Fed.  R.  566,  61 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  34  Fed.  R.  254,  59 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

34  Fed.  R.  259,  821 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

39  Fed.  Rep.  417,  2611 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  52  Fed.  R.  908  791 

Central  Turnpike  Corp.,  7  Pick.  (Mass.) 

13,  1478 

Centralia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  31  I1L 

App.  456,  1507 

Chadderdon  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  100 

Mich.  293,  1949 

Chadron,  City  of,  v.  Glover,  43  Neb.  732,  2713 
Chadwick  v.  Tower,  6  Bing.  (N.  Gas.)  1,  1891 
Chafee  v.  Quidnick  Co.,  13  R.  I.  442,  773,  809 
Chaffe  v.  Ludeling,  27  La.  Ann.  607, 

100,  105,  273,  449 
Chaffe  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.,  59  Miss. 

182,  2222 

Chaffee  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  Mass. 

108,  1783 

Chaffee  v.  Middlesex  R.  R.  Co.,  146  Mass. 

224,  624,  626,  635 

Chaffee  v.  Rutland  R.  Co.,  55  Vt.  110, 

118,  119,  120, 121,  418,  429,  431,  433,  436,  439 
Chaffee  v.  United  States,  18  Wall.  516,  1026 
Chaffin  v.  Cummings,  37  Me.  76,  199,  228 

Challis  v.  Atehison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Kan. 

398,  2260 

Challiss  v.  Atehison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Kan. 

117,  1335, 1338, 1481,  1551 

Challiss  v.  Parker,  11  Kan.  394,  1151 

Chamber,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rochdale  Canal,  L. 

R.  (1894)  2  Q.  B.  632,  1435 

Chamberlain,  Ex  parte,  55  Fed.  R.  704, 

790,  914 

Chamberlain  v.  Bromberg,  83  Ala.  476,  264,  347 
Chamberlain  v.  Chandler,  3  Mason  (U.  S. 

C.  C.)  242,  2578 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CX111 


[  Vol.  T,  pp.  1-i 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-12G2,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2m,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2J65-2725.] 


Chamberlain  v.  Cleveland,  34  Ohio  St.  551, 

1101 
Chamberlain  v.  Conn.  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  54 

Conn.  472,  658,  663,  681 

Chamberlain  v.  Hugenot,  etc.,   Co.,  118 

Mass.  532,  266 

Chamberlain  v.  Lyndeborough,  64  N.  H. 

563,  1209 

Chamberlain  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 

Wis.  425;  2470 

Chamberlain    v.    Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Mo.)  33  S.  W.  R.  437,  1953 

Chamberlain  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  41 

S.  Car.  399,  1288 

Chamberlain  v.  Painesviile,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

15  Ohio  St.  225,  168,  173, 182, 183 

Chamberlain  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Mo. 

App.  474,  2539 

Chamberlain   v.  Rochester,   etc.,  Co.,  7 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  557,  735 

Chamberlain  v.  Walter,  60  Fed.  R.  788,       1059 
Chamberlain  v.   Western  Trans.   Co.,  45 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  218,  2611 

Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  2  Inter st.  Com.  R.  553,  2686 

Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  Great  Northern 

R.  Co.,  4  Interst.  Com.  R.  230,  2675 

Chambers  v.  Baltimore  &  O.  R.  Co.,  139 

Pa.  St.  347,  898 

Chambers  v.  Carteret,  etc.,  Co.,  54  N.  J. 

Law  85,  1451, 1558 

Chambers  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

Ga.  320,  1423, 1545 

Chambers  v.  Lewis,  9  Iowa  583,  1558 

Chambers  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  91  N.  Car. 

471,  2072 

Chambersburg  Ins.  Co.  v.  Smith,  11  Pa. 

St.  120,  145 

Chambliss  v.  Mary  Lee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104 

Ala.  665,  2118 

Champ  v.  Kendrick,  130  Ind.  549,  617 

Champion  v.  Bostwick,  18  Wend.  175, 

2243,  2244,  2493 
Champion  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  Co.,  45  Kan. 

103,  634 

Chance  v.  East  Texas  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  152,      905 
Chandler  v.  Bacon,  30  Fed.  R.  538,  17, 19 

Chandler  v.  Beldon,  18  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  157, 

2444,2447 

Chandler  v.  Brown,  77  111.  333,    255,  264,  787,  795 
Chandler  v.  Fulton,  10  Tex.  2,  2390,  2391 

Chandler  v.  Hanna,  73  Ala.  390,  1011,  2131 

Chandler  v.  Jamaica  Pond,  etc.,  Co.,  122 

Mass.  305,  1513 

Chandler  v.  Jamaica  Pond  Acqueduct  Co., 

125  Mass.  544,  1518, 1520, 1522 

CORP. — viii 


Chandler  v.  Keith,  42  Iowa  99,  212 

Chandler  v.  Manchester  &  L.  R.  Co.,  62  N. 

H.  29,  918 

Chandler  v.  Monmouth  Bank,  13  N.  J. 

Law  255,  371 

Chandler  v.  Monmouth  Bank,  1  Green  (N. 

J.)  255,  378 

Chandler  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159 

Mass.  589,  2048,  2124,  2138 

Chandler  v.  Northern  Cross  R.  Co.,  18 11L 

190,  276 

Chandler  v.  Siddle,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.)  477,  211,  771 
Chaney  v.  State,  118  Ind.  494,  1113 

Chapin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa 

582,  2403 

Chapin  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

Gray  (Mass.)  69,  893 

Chapin  v.  Sullivan  R.  Co.,  39  N.  H.  564, 

1359, 1843 
Chapin  v.  Sullivan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  N.  H. 

53,  1803 

Chapin  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8  Gray 

(Mass.)  575,  627 

Chaplin  v.  Commissioners,  126  111.  264,  1388 
Chapman  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Me. 

92,  1889,  1894 

Chapman  v.  Board,  etc.,  107  U.  S.  348,  507 
Chapman  v.  Brewer,  43  Neb.  890,  1600, 1608 
Chapman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Wis. 

295,  1929, 1932 

Chapman  v.  City  Council,  30  S.  Car.  549,  139 
Chapman  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co., 

42  L.  T.  R.  (N.  S.)  252,  2374 

Chapman  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

L.  R.  5  Q.  B.  Div.  278,  2278 

Chapman  v.  Hamilton,  19  Ala.  121,  1609 

Chapman  v.  Mad  River,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  6 

Ohio  St.  119,  449,  527, 1281 

Chapman  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

N.  Y.  341,  2570 

Chapman  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

La.  Ann.  224,  2345,  2346 

Chapman  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  484,  1758 

Chapman  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33 

N.  Y.  369,  1845 

Chapman  v.  Oshkosh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Wis. 

629,  1435-  16W 

Chapman  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

W.  Va.  184,  1582 

Chapman  v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Lans. 

(N.  Y.)  96,  1593,  1594 

Chapman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Oconto  Water  Co., 

89  Wis.  264,  1599 

Charge  to  Grand  Jury,  In  re,  66  Fed.  R. 

146,  2523 


cxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27S5.] 


Charge  to  Grand  Jury,  In  re,  62  Fed.  R. 

828,  1047 

Charitable  Assn.  v.  Baldwin,  1  Mete. 

(Mass.)  359,  341 

Charitable  Corporation  v.  Sutton,  2  Atk. 

405,  382, 384 

Charity  Hospital  v.  New  Orleans,  etc., 

Co.,  40  La.  Ann.  382,  459 

Charles  H.  Heer,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Citizens'  R. 

Co.,  41  Mo.  App.  63,  900 

Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren  Bridge,  7 

Pick.  344,  559 

Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren  Bridge,  6 

Pick.  (Mass.)  376,  47 

Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren  Bridge,  11 

Peters  (U.  S.)  420, 

48,  59,  571, 1381,  1382,  1419, 1470 
Charless  v.  Rankin,  22  Mo.  566,  1566 

Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blake,  12  Rich. 

L.  (S.  C.)  634,  367, 1388, 1436, 1511 

Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Blakely,  (S. 

Car.)  3  Strob.  245,  154 

Charleston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Comstock,  36 

W.  Va.  263,  1463, 1483, 1485,  1524 

Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  County  Com- 
missioners, 7  Mete.  (Mass.)  78,        1421, 1422 
Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Leech,  33  S. 

Car.  175,  1295 

Charlton  v.  Newcastle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Jur. 

N.  S.  1096,  444,  454,  2663 

Charman  v.  Daniel,  6  Jones  (N.  C.)  444  986 
Charnock  v.  Levee  Co.,  38  La.  Ann.  323,  1100 
Chartered,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Netherlands, 

etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  9  Q.  B.  Div.  118,  1790 

Chartiers,  etc.,  R.  v.  Hodgens,  85  Pa.  St. 

501,  168, 639 

Chartiers  R.  Co.  v.  Hodgens,  77  Pa.  St. 

187,  .  512 

Charlotte,   etc.,    R.   Co.    v.  Blakely,  3 

Strobh.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  245,  160, 184 

Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gibbes,  142 

U.  S.  386,          '  981, 1077, 1092,  1095. 1096 

Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gibbes,  27  S.  Car. 

385,  •  68,981 

Chase  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Iowa 

675,  2124 

Chase  v.  Curtis,  113  U.  S.  452,  259,  266 

Chase  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5 

Lea  (Tenn.)  415,  163,  213,  217 

Chase  v.  Jamestown,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  N.  Y. 

S.  954,  2450 

Chase  v.  Lord,  77  N.  Y.  1,  212,  266,  270 

Chase  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Me.  62,  2718 
Chase  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.Co.,  78 Maine  346,  1776 
Chase  v.  Miller,  88  Va.  791,  778 

Chase  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  26  N.  Y. 

523,  2483,2506 


Chase  v.  New  Nork  Cent.  R.  Co.,  21  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  273,  1405 

Chase  v.  Petroleum  Bank,  66  Pa.  St.  169,  796 
Chase  v.  Second  Av.  R.  Co.,  97  N.  Y.  384,  480 
Chase  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Cal.  468,  2692 
Chase  v.  Sycamore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  38  111. 

215,  176 

Chase  v.  Tuttle,  55  Conn.  455,  359,  360,  853 
Chase  v.  Vanderbilt,  62  N.  Y.  307,  35, 124,  376 
Chase  v.  Westmore,  5  M.  &  S.  180,  2447 

Chateau  v.  Allen,  70  Mo.  290,  396 

Chatfleld  v.  Wilson,  28  Vt.  49,  1405 

Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  84  Ga. 

256,  1295 

Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cincinnati, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Fed.  R.  456,  933, 946 

Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  89  Ga. 

708,  64, 489 

Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Evans,  66  Fed. 

R.  809,  165,  514,  727,  850,  851, 1292 

Chattanooga  R.  Co.  v.  Felton,  69  Fed.  R. 

273,         598,  770,  914, 1269,  1365, 1380, 1413, 1415 
Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Huggins,  89 

Ga.  494,  2703 

Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  80  Ga. 

264,  898 

Chattanooga,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Liddell,  85  Ga. 

482,  296, 2450 

Chatterton  v.  Parrott,  46  Mich.  432,  .  1551 
Chattock  v.  Bellamy,  64  L.  J.  Q.  B.  (N.  S.) 

250,  2176 

Chauntlerv.  Robinson,  4  Exch.  163,  1490 

Chautauqua,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Risley,  19  N.Y. 

369,  785, 804 

Cheaney  v.  Hooser,  9  B.  Mon.  330,  1166 

Cheeney  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  111. 

570,  378 

Cheeney  v.  Ocean  Steamship  Co.,  95  Ga. 

381,  2084 

Cheesebrough  v.  Millard,    1  Johns.  Ch. 

(N.  Y.)  409,  a.  c.  7  Am.  Dec.  494,  644 

Cheesman  v.  ExaU,  6  Exch.  341,  2214 

Cheever  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.Co.,  39  Vt.  653, 

738,  742,  743,  744,  746 
Cheltenham,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Daniel,  2  Q.  B. 

281,  157 

Chelmsford   Co.    v.    Demarest,    7    Gray 

(Mass.)  7,  329 

Chemical,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Col  well,  132  N.  Y. 

250,  v  145, 338 

Chemical,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Wagner,  93  Ky. 

525,  397, 490 

Chenango  B.  Co.  v.  Binghamton  B.  Co.,  27 

N.  Y.  87,  48 

Chenango  B.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  63  Barb.  Ill,  48 
Chenango  Bridge  Co.v.  Paige,  83  N.Y.  178,  271 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXV 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-1,1,2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-126S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-9725.} 


Chenery  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  160  Mass. 

211,  1741,  1967 

Cheney  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Met. 

(Mass.)  121,  284,  2491,  2504 

Cheney  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  16  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  415,  1759 

Chenowith  v.  Dickinson,  8  B.  Monr.  156,  2275 
Cheraw,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  White,  14  S.  C. 

51,  28, 169 

Cheraw,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Commissioners, 

88  N.  Car.  519,  463,  860 

Cherokee  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  Co.,  52  Iowa 

279,  1338 

Cherokee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jones,  52  Ga.  276,  911 
Cherokee  County  v.  Wilson,  109  U.  S.  621,  1212 
Cherokee  Nation  v.  Southern  Kan.,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  135  U.  S.  641, 

979, 1270, 1333,  1414, 1415, 1422,  2636 
Cherokee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hilson,  95  Tenn.  1, 

1964,2458 
Cherry  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Mo. 

App.  499,  2490 

Cherry  v.  North,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Ga.  633,  1602 
Cherry  Creek  v.  Becker,  123  N.  Y.  161,  1202 
Cherry  Creek  v.  Becker,  2  N.  Y.  Sup.  514, 

1198,  1230 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 

Ca.,  66  Md.  399,  916 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 

R.  R.  Co.,  4  G.  &  J.  (Md.)  1, 

24,  83,  85,  235,  860, 1267,  1289 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Blair,  45  Md.  102,  636 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Binney,  4 

Cranch  (C.  C.)  68,  1473,  1527 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Grove,  11 

G.  &  J.  (Md.)  398,  1453,  1454 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Hoye,  2 

Gratt.  (Va.)  511,  1528, 1530, 1552 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Key,  3 

Cranch  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  590,  1484 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Mason,  4 

Cranch  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  123,          1384, 1391, 1532 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Union 

Bank,  5  Cranch  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  509, 

1403, 1414, 1476,  1478, 1527 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  American 

Exch.  Bank,  (Va.)  23  S.  E.  R.  935, 

2340,  2408,  2411,  2414 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barren  Co.,  10 

Bush  (Ky.)  604,  1200 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bradford,  6 

W.  Va.  220,  1508 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clowes,  (Va.) 

24  S.  E.  R.  833,  2477 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dyer  Co.,  38 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  676,    1643, 1659,  1666, 1669 


Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Griest,  85  Ky. 

619,  703, 851 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Halstead,  7  W. 

Va.301,  1530 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Miller,  114 

U.  S.  176,  88,  96,  702, 1067 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pack,  6  W. 

Va.  397,  1383, 1529, 1535 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Paine,  29     " 

Gratt.  (Va.)  502,  146,  891 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patton,  5  W. 

Va.  234,  1546 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patton,  6  W. 

Va.  147,  1417, 1530 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Radbourne, 

52  111.  App.  203,  2346 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Virginia,  94 

U.  S.  718,  457,  1065 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wells,  85  Tenn. 

613,  2644 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  3  Md. 

480,  1547 

Cheshire  R.  Co.  v.  Foster,  51  N.  H.  490,       2363 
Chestnut  v.  Pennel,  92 111.  55,  259 

Chestnut  Hill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rutter,  4  Serg. 

&  R.  6,  298,  874 

Chesshire  v.  People,  116  111.  493,  85 

Chester  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  Pa. 

St.  275,  1665, 1674 

Chester  v.  Dickerson,  54  N.  Y.  1,  377 

Chester  Glass  Co.  v.  Dewey,  16  Mass.  94,      114 
Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commissioners  of 

Caldwell  County,  72  N.  Car.  486,  1211 

Chetlain  v.  Republic  Life  Ins.  Co.,  86  111. 

220,  128,344 

Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2  Tex.  115, 

125,  2265,  2269 

Chew  v.  Bank  of  Baltimore,  14  Md.  299,       136 
Chew  v.  Ellingwood,  86  Mo.  260,  853 

Chew  v.  Henrietta,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Fed.  R.  5,     629 
Chewacla  Lime  Works  v.  Dismukes,  87 

Ala.  344,  505 

Chewning  v.  Ensly,  etc.,  R.  Co.  100  Ala. 

493,  308 

Chicago  v.  Baer,  41  111.  306,         1108, 1110, 1111 
Chicago  v.  Burcky,  158  111.  103,  1640 

Chicago  v.  Cameron,  22  111.  App.  91, 

242,  512,  629,  877 
Chicago  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105 11L 

73  1620 

Chicago  v.  Dalle,  115  111.  386,  1797 

Chicago  v.  Evans,  24  111.  52,  9,  478 

Chicago  v.  Hall,  103  111.  342, 
Chicago  v.  Hutchinson,  11  Biss.  484, 
Chicago  v.  McDonough,  112  111.  85, 
Chicago  v.  O'Brennan,  65  111.  160, 
Chicago  v.  Powers,  42  111.  169,  1797 


CXV1 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Chicago  v.  Eumpff,  45  111.  90, 
Chicago  v.  Sheldon,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  50, 


277 


Chicago  v.  Trotter,  136  111.  430, 
Chicago  v.  Taylor,  125  U.  S.  161, 


59,  1641 

1624 

1410, 1640 


Chicago  v.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Fed.  R.  15,      354 
Chicago  v.  Union,  etc.,  Asso.,  102  111.  379, 

1417, 1632 

Chicago  v.  Wright,  32  111.  192,  1103 

Chicago  Board  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

44  111.  App.  253,  1776 

Chicago  City  v.  Bobbins,  2  Black  (U.  S.) 

418,  1592, 1643 

Chicago,  etc.,  Brick  Co.  v.  Sobkowiak,  45 

111.  App.  317,  2033 

Chicago,  etc.,  Brick  Co.  v.  Sobkowiak,  148 

111.  573,  2083 

Chicago,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.  v.  Fowler,  55 

Kan.  17,  851 

Chicago,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.  v.  Pacific,  etc., 

Co.,  36  Kan.  113,  1545 

Chicago,  etc.,  Cab  Co.  v.  Yerkes,  141  111. 

320,  483 

Chicago,  etc.,  Coke  Co.  v.  People's,  etc., 

Co.,  121  111.  530,  2664 

Chicago  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Auditor,  101  111. 

82,  852 

Chicago  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Needles,  113  U.  S. 

574,  70, 75 

Chicago  Park  Commrs.  v.  McMullen,  134 

111.  170,  1610 

Chicago,  etc.,  H.  Co.,  Re,  2  Interst.  Com. 

137,  2679 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Abbot,  44  Kan. 

170,  1501 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Abels,  60  Miss. 

1017,  497,  2263,  2399,  2403 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ackley,  94  U.  S. 

179,  956 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.    v.    Addizoat,   17 

Bradw.  (111.  App.)  632,  2629 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adler,  56  111.  344, 

83,1028 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allerton,  18  Wall. 

233,  335 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ames,  40  IU.  249,    2417 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  42  Kan. 

297,  1293 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Armstrong,  62  111. 

App.  228,  2706 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arnol,  144  IU.  261, 

2465,  2471,  2476,  2549,  2552,  2554 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Artery,  137  U.  S. 

507,  2122 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Auditor-General, 

53  Mich.  79,  37,  41 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Aurora,  99  IU.  205, 

170, 1184,  1197, 1242 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Avery,  109  111.  314,  2030 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Avery,  8  App.  133, 

2001 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ayres,  106  IU.  511, 

1411, 1632 
Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ayres,  140  IU.  644, 

444,  491 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bannerman,  15  IU. 

App.  100,  2500 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnes,  116  Ind. 

126,  1823, 1824, 1879 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barrie,  55  IU.  226, 

1817, 1818, 1819 
Chicago,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Barrett,  16  IU. 

App.  17,  2481 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v,  Bartlett,  120  IU. 

603,  331 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bayfield,  37  Mich. 

205,  2058 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beatty,  13  Ind. 

App.  604,  2034 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Becker,  35  Fed.  R. 

883,  953, 1001 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Becker,  32  Fed.  R. 

849,  44,  308,  1014 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Becker,  84  IU.  483, 

1761 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bell,  70  IU.  102,  1756 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  BeU,  (Kan.)  41  Pac. 

R.  209,  2180 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  BeU,  1  Kan.  App. 

71,  2468, 2475 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bell,  44  Neb.  44, 

2155,  2157,  2158 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benjamin,  63  111. 

283,  2205 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bills,  118  Ind.  221,  2575 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  BiUs,  104  Ind.  13,  2485 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blake,  116  IU.  163, 

1426,  1520,  1526 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  etc.,  49 

Kan.  763,  1660 

Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Board,  etc.,  38 

Kan.  507,  1199 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  etc.,  36 

Kan.  121,  189 

Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Board,  etc.,  43 

Kan.  760,  1203 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  etc.,  44  IU. 

244,  1060 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  54  Kan.  781, 

1062,  1069 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  etc.,  49 

Kan.  399,  177,  1208 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXV11 


[  VOL  i,  pp.  1-1, 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2/65-27£5.] 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bockoven,  53  Kan. 

279,  1973,  1975, 1977 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Boger,  1  Bradw. 

(111.)  472,  284 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boggs,  101  Ind.  522, 

1025, 1737, 1744, 1746, 1750,  1756, 1761 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boyce,  73  111.  510, 

2607,  2609,  2616,  2617 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boyd,  4  W.  Rep. 

137,  1307 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bowman,  122  111. 

595,  1513 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bradfleld,  63  111. 

220,  1853 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bragonier,  119  111. 

51,  2044 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Branyan,  10  Ind. 

App.  570,  2137 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan,  90  111.  126, 

2575,  2577 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryant,  65  Fed.  R. 

969,  301,  305,  2457 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burden,  (Ind. 

App.)  43  N.  E.  R.  155,  1930, 1934 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burger,  124  Ind. 

275,  2065 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Co., 

34  Fed.  R.  481,  910,  914,  2691,  2692 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Byrum,  153  111.  131, 

2544 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carey,  90  111.  514, 

1404, 1432, 1439 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carpenter,  56  Fed. 

R.  451,  2003,  2512,  2516,  2553,  2561 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carroll,  5  111.  App. 

201,  2451,  2463,  2556 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Casey,  9  111.  App. 

632,  311, 1963,  1964,  2463 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cason,  133  Ind.  49, 

748,  775 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Casper,  42  Kan. 

561,  1517, 1719 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Catholic  Bishop, 

119  111.  525,  1514,  1516 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cauffman,  38  111. 

424,  1737,  1738, 1849 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Caulfleld,  63  Fed. 

R.  396,  1971 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chamberlain,  84 

111.  333,  1203,  1488, 1494, 1495, 1509, 1510 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chambers,  68  Fed. 

R.  148,  1709, 1710 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Champion,  9  Ind. 

App.  510,  2034 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Champion,  (Ind.) 

36  Cent.  L.  Jour.  280,  2714 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Champion,  (Ind.) 

32  N.  E.  R.  874,  2714 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Champion,  36 

Cent.  L.  Jour.  280,  2715 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chapman,  133  111. 

^  2318,  2336,  2337,  2339 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  121  m. 

176>  1612, 1619 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  132  111. 

372,  1500 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  140  111. 

309,  1662 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago  City  Rail- 
way Co.,  10  Nat.  Corp.  R.  651,  50 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  (Iowa)  58  N.  W.  R.  918,  1697 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  6  Biss.  219,  1694,  1698 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  15  111.  App.  587,  1546, 1702 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  79  111.  121,  477,  2424,  2431,  2656 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  112  111.  589, 

62, 1266, 1361, 1378,  1432, 1437, 1448, 1501, 1512 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago  Third 

Nat.  Bank,  134  U.  S.  276,  851 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chisholm,  79  111. 

584,  2502 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Church, 12  111.  App. 

17,  2236 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  126  Ind.  513,  1683, 1684 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Chicago, 

139  111.  573,  1107, 1109 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Chicago, 

140  111.  309,  1654, 1659, 1660 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Chicago, 

143 IU.  641,  896 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Joliet,  79 

111.  25,  1620 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Joliet,  153 

111.649,  111,1108,1111 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Joliet,  154 

IU.  522,  1100 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Quincy, 

136  IU.  563,  U05 

Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Clampit,  63  IU.  95, 

993,  1937 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  26  Neb. 

645,  1590 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clay  ton,  78  IU.  616, 

2620,  2622,  2623 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clerk  of  Norton 

County,  (Kan.)  40  Pac.  R.  654,  1209 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clonch,  (Kan. 

App.)  43  Pac.  R.  1140,  1835 


CXV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JW-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2 W,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2105-2725.] 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clough,  134  111. 

586,  1782 

Chicago,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Coleman,  18  111. 

297,  390 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  56  111.  212, 

2608,  2610 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Conklin,  32  Kan. 

55,  2612, 2631 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commrs.,  49  Kan. 

399,  1237 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Conklin,  32  Kan. 

55,  2275 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crane,  113  U.  S. 

424,  596,  599,  916,  933 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crisman,  19  Colo. 

30,  1746, 1756, 1771 

Chicago,  ete.,  R.  Co.  v.  Damerell,  81  111. 

450,  1758 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Darke,  148  111.  226, 

614, 1632 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davenport,  51 

Iowa  451,  1058, 1097 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davidson,  49  Kan. 


589, 


1514 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  53  Fed.  R. 

61,  2072 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  54  111.  App. 

130,  2293 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  86  IU.  20,  1544 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  159  IU.  53,  2294 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  143  U.  S.  596,  491,  492,  586 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  46  Fed.  R.  145,  589 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Derkes,  103  Ind. 

520,  517 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dewey,  26  111.  255,  1780 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dey,  35  Fed.  R. 


866, 


953,  981, 1005, 1013, 1014,  2487 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dey,  38  Fed.  R. 


656, 


994, 1001 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dickinson,  74  111. 

249,  2381 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dickson,  88  111. 


431, 


1758, 1955, 1987 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dignan,  56  111. 

487,  1949 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dillon,  24  IU.  App. 


203, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  DiUon,  123  111. 


1733 


570, 


1678, 1762 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doherty,  53  IU. 

App.  282,  1963 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dougherty,  110  IU. 

521,  1744 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doyle,  60  Miss.  977, 

1023,  2085,  2107,  2115,  2134 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doyle,  18  Kan.  58, 

2149,  2150 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Drake,  33 111.  App. 

114,  2544, 2545 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  DuBois,  56  IU. 

App.  181,  2008,  2012,  2064 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dumser,  (IU.)  43  N. 

E.  R.  698,  2452 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dumser,  109  111. 

402,  1811 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dumser,  161  IU. 

190,  2556 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunbar,  100  IU. 

110,    1265,  1345, 1351,  1389, 1390, 1391, 1610, 1612 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  23  111.  App. 

148,  2047 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  52  IU.  451,  1987 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Durant,  44  Minn. 

361,  1300 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Easley,  46  Kan. 

337,  1555 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  T.  Eichman,  47  IU. 

App.  156,  1724, 1728 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eisert,  127  Ind. 

156,  1613 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  EUis,  52  Kan.  41,  1555 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Engel,  35  IU.  App. 

490,  2179 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Engle,  58  IU.  381,  1875 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Engle,  84  IU.  397,  1866 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Englewood,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  17  IU.  App.  141,  1546, 1700 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Englewood,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  115  IU.  375,  1397, 1700, 1702, 1703 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Epperson,  26  IU. 

App.  72,  1990 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Erickson,  91  IU. 


613, 


2401,  2651, 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estes,  71  Iowa  603, 

306,  1308 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eubanks,  32  Mo. 

App.  184,  1532 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fahey,  52  111.  81,    2626 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fairclough,  52  IU. 


106, 


2617 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  FarreUy,  3  IU.  App. 

60,  1843. 1847 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Felton,  125  IU.  458, 

2593,  2704 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fenton,  125  IU.  458, 

2596 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ferguson,  3  Colo. 

App.  414,  1587, 1592 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Field,  7  Ind.  App. 

172,  2463, 2554 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fillmore,  57  111. 


265, 


1949 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


CX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 

[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-W,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2J65-2725.] 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Graham,  3  Ind. 

2452,  2488,  2503,  2507 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher,  49  Kan. 

460,  1747, 1767, 1777, 1781 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher,  31  111.  App. 


36, 


2451,  245. 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitzsimmons,  40 

111.  App.  360,  1770 

Chicago,  etc.,  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Flagg,  43  111. 


364, 


2191, 257: 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flexman,  103  111. 


546, 


2580,  2582,  2583 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Florens,  32  111. 

App.  365,  1770 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flynn,  54  111.  App. 

387,  2048 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flynn,  154  111.  448, 

2020,2071 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fosdick,  106  U.  S. 

47, 

663,  666,  667,  668,  670,  672,  673,  685,  686,  690, 

698,  699,  707,  716 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Francis,  70  111. 

238,  1436 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frazer,  55  Kan. 


582, 


2462,  2590 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Freeman,  38  Kan. 

597,  1156 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fry,  131  Ind.  319, 

2015,  2708 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ft.  Howard,  21 

Wis.44,  47,  536 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fuller,  17  Wall. 

560,  958,  1043 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gait,  133  111.  657,  • 

547, 1321,  1457, 1458, 1463 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Garrity,  115  111. 

155,  1358 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Garvy,  58  111.  83, 

1760,  1763 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gasaway,  71  111. 

570,  2651 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gates,  120  111.  86, 

1428, 1492, 1506 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  German  Ins.  Co., 

(Kan.)42Pac.  R.  594,  1916 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gilbert,  52  Fed. 

R.  711,  1939 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goldman,  46  111. 

App.  625,  2243 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goodwin,  111  111. 

273,  898,  1295,  1327, 1460 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goss,  17  Wis.  428, 

1863,1864 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goyette,  133  111.  21, 

1901, 1902 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grablin,  38  Neb. 

90,  1828,  1967, 1978,  2002 


948 


App.  28, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gray,  131  U.  S. 

396, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Griffin,  68  111.  499, 

2487,  2504,  2574,  2578 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Groh,  85  Wis.  641,    1323 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Groves,  (Kan,)  44 


Pac.  R.  628, 


2450,  2570 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grovier,  41  Kan. 


685, 


1274, 1555 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Guertin,  115  111. 

466,  1816 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Guffey,  120  U.  S. 

569,  1066 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hagar,  11  111.  App. 

498,  2009 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haggerty,  67  111. 

H3,  1044,  1624 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hagne,  (Neb.)  66 

N.  W.  R.  1000,  2550 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Hale,  2  111.  App. 

150,  2330, 2697 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  90  111.  42, 

1436,  1438 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hans,  111  111.  114,  .  1836 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harmon,  12  App. 

54,  2400 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harney,  28  Ind. 

28,  1983, 2025 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  54  111.  528, 

1818, 1845 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hartshorn,  30  Fed. 

R.  541,  1161 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harwood,  80  111. 

88,  1760, 1761,  2151 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harwood,  90  111. 

425,  1756 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawk,  36  111.  App. 

327,  2517 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawk,  42  111.  App. 

322,  2318 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hazels,  26  Neb. 

364,  1409, 1417 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hazzard,  26  111. 

373,  2470,  2551,  2552 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hedges,  105  Ind. 

398,  1743, 1764, 1771, 1792 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henneberry,  42  111. 

App.  126,  1563 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Henneberry,  153  111. 

a54,  1448, 1451 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  7  111.  App. 

322,  2011, 2080 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Herring,  57  111.  59, 

2573 


cxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-Z7Z5.] 


Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Hildebrand,  136 

111.  467,  1556 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hinds,  (Kan.)  44 

Pac.  E.  993,  2718 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hines,  132  111.  161,  2708 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hoag,  90  111.  339,  1402 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hock,  118  111.  587,  1466 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hoeffner,  44  111. 

App.  137,  2701 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hogan,  30  Neb. 

686,  1837 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Holdridge,  118 

Ind.  281,  2578 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hopkins,  90  111. 

316,  1496, 1499, 1523, 1524 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hough,  61  Mich. 

507,  954, 1660,  1662 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Howard,  38  I1L  414, 

1027 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Howard,  7  Wall. 
'    (U.  S.)  392,  64,  65,  620,  677 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hoyt,  122  HI.  369,  2088 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hubbell,  54  Kan. 

232,  2434,  2435,  2668 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Huncheon,  130 

Ind.  529,  1387 

Chicago,  etc.,  B,  Co.  v.  Hunter,  128  Ind. 

213,  1493 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hurst,  30  Iowa  73, 

1528, 1555 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hutchinson,  120 

111.  587,  1754,  1783 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Illinois  Central  E. 

Co.,  113  111.  156,  598,  908, 1351,  1370,  1699 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Ingraham,  33  111. 

App.  351,  17J37 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  155, 

4,  916,  956,  978,  984,  1:331,  2424,  2486 
Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  55  111.  492, 

2005,2044 
Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Jacobs,  110  111. 

414,  1437 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  James,  22  Wis.  194, 

290,  389,  390 
Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  James,  24  Wis. 

388,  389, 394 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  James,  26  Neb.  194, 

1809, 1814 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Jarrett,  59  Miss. 

470,  1880,  1881 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  103  111. 

588,  286,  2274,  2436 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  89  Ind.  88,  5 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  116  111. 

206,  2003 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  36  111. 

App.  564,  308 


Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Joliet,  etc.,  B.  Co., 
105  111.  388, 

1654,  1661, 1684, 1705,  1711, 1712, 1713 
Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Jones,  149  111.  361, 

981,  992,  995 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.v.  Jones,  59  Miss.  465, 

1852 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Kansas  City,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  52  Fed.  E.  178,  494 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Kansas  City,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  110  Mo.  510,  1687, 1689 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Katzenbach,  118 

Ind.  147,  2344 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Keefe,  47  111.  108,  2601 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  2  Kan. 

App.  — ,  43  Pac.  E.  802,  1745, 1746,  2066 

Chicago,  etc.,  By.  Co.  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  Co., 

108  111.  317,  773,  785,  799 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Kern,  9  Ind.  App. 

505,  1923 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Klauber,  9  I1L 

App.  613,  2711 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Kneirim,  48  111. 

App.  243,  2088 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Kneirim,  152  111. 

458,  2005,  2010,  2044 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Knox  College,  34 

111.  195,  1542 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Knuffke,  36  Kan. 

367,  1390 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Koehler,  47  111. 

App.  147,  2548 

Chioago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lake,  71  111.  333, 

1336,  1372 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  5  Fed.  B.  19,  469 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  30  111.  App.  120,  906 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Landauer,  36  Neb. 

642,  2720 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Leah,  152  111.  249,  14:39 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lee,  60  111.  501,  1797 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lee,  87  111.  454, 

1614, 1762 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Legg,  32  111.  App. 

218,  2714 

Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  109  111.  120, 

2149,  2150 
Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  145111.  67, 

2472,  2477 
Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Linney,  59  Fed.  B. 

45,  2011,  2016,  2034 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Loeb,  118  111.  203, 

560. 1037, 1411, 1539, 1632,' 1638 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Loewenthal,  93  111. 
433,  682, 699 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXI 


[References  are  to  Pages.]  - 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-442,  Vol.  II, pp.  443-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lonergan,  118  111. 

41,  2006 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lowell,  151  U.  S. 

209,  2551 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lundstrom,  16 

Neb.  254,  2077,  2091 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Luddington,  10 

Ind.  App.  636,  1905 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  MaGee,  60  111. 

529,  1845 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mahara,  47  111. 

App.  208,  2478,  2591 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maher,  91  111.  312, 

1487, 1539 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mallory,  101  111. 

583,  1257 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Makepeace,  44  Kan. 

676,  1207 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maney,  55  111.  App. 

588,  2070 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manning,  23  Neb. 

552,  880, 2347 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marseilles,  84  111. 

145,  127, 1208 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mason,  11  111.  App. 

525,  889 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  May,  108  111.  288,  2077 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McAra,  52  111.  296,  2476 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McBride,  54  Kan. 

172,  1909, 1910 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCammon,  61 

Fed.  R.  772,  710 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarthy,  20  111. 

385,  614,  1589, 1820 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDaniels,  63  111. 

122,  1042, 1759 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGrew,  104  Mo. 

282,  905, 1418 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLallen,  84  111. 

109,  288,  2051,  2084,  2452 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLaughlin,  47 

111.  265,  1973 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mehlsack,  44  111. 

App.  124,  2707 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Melville,  66  111. 

329,  1530 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Nat. 

Bank,  136  TJ.  S.  268,  626 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Merrill,  48 111.  425,   2374 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Metcalf,  44  Neb. 
v    848,  1757,1986 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Metropolitan,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  152  111.  519,  1371, 1450 

Chicago, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meyer,  117  Ind.  563,  895 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  91  Mich. 
166,  477 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Milwaukee,  89  Wi.«. 

506,  1106, 1107, 1108,  1114 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  134 

TJ.  S.  418,      4,  67,  953,  966,  997, 1013,  2486,  2487 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  29  Fed.  R.  337,  936 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mitchie,  83  111.  427, 

311,  1963,  2463,  2509,  2561 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moffitt,  75  111.  524, 

459,  460,  461, 1402, 1642,  1674 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montfort,  60  HI. 

175,  2234 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moranda,  108  I1L 

576,  2025 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moranda,  93  111. 

302,  287 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Morris,  26  111.  400,  2142 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moss,  60  Miss.  641, 

973,  2346 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nash,  1  Ind.  App. 

298,  1849 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Netolicky,  67  Fed. 

R.  665,  1678, 1744, 1756, 1797 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

24  Fed.  R.  516,  914, 1300 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  265,  477 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nix,  137  111.  141,  1441 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northern,  etc., 

Co.,  70  111.  217,  2209,  2238,  2246,  2256,  2257 

Chicago,  etc.,R.  Co.v.  Northwestern,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  38  Iowa  377,  2446 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Notzki,  66  111.  455,  1753 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nuney,  19  Colo.  36, 

1784 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Connor,  119  111. 

586,  2145 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Connor,  42  Neb. 

90,  1629 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Ohle,  117  U.  S.  123,  936 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Olmstead,  46  Iowa 

316,  1212 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Osborne,  52  Fed. 

R.  912, 

1000, 1011,  2432,  2646,  2658,  2659,  2660,  2678, 2679 

2685,2686 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ostrander,  116  Ind. 

259,  1898, 1937, 1942, 1943 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Sullivan,  143  111. 

48,  "» 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ozark  Township, 

46  Kan.  415,  1201 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Owen,  21  111.  App. 

339,  2400 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Packwood,  59  Miss. 


280, 


1852 


CXX11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-/U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-Z7ZB.\ 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Paddock,  75  111. 

616,  1069 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.'Co.  v.  Painter,  15  Neb. 

394,  892, 2390 

Chicago,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Parks,  18  IU.  460,    2506 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parsons,  51  Kan. 

408,  1525 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Payne,  59  IU.  534,    1665 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peck,  112  111.  408, 

628,  668,  686,  707 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  PeUetier,  134  IU. 

120,  2574 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  PenneU,  94  IU.  448, 

1925, 1926 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  PenneU,  110  IU. 

435,  1909, 1937 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  67  IU.  11, 

993,  2284,  2285,  2436,  2669,  2678 
Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  People,  73  IU.  541, 

76,  98,  494,  1618 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  4  IU.  App. 

468,  1384, 1391 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  44  IU.  App. 

632,  1040 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  56  IU.  365, 

63,  286,  596,  916,  920,  2227,  2671,  2691 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  77  IU.  443, 

1011 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  91  IU.  251, 

1611 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  105  111.  657,     968 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  120  IU. 

667,  1044, 1107 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  People,  120  IU.  104, 

1101, 1105,  1107, 1108 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People's,  etc.,  Co., 

121  IU.  530,  500,  507 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  152  IU. 

230,  958 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pf aender,  23  Minn. 

217,  702 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  PiUsbury,  (IU.)  8 

N.  E.  R.  803,  2454 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  PiUsbury,  123  IU. 

9,  2455,  2480,  2584 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pioneer  Fuel  Co., 

Dist.  Ct.  of  Woodbury  Co.,  Iowa,  Janu- 
ary, 1892,  2438 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pondrom,  51  111. 

333,  2563 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pontious,  157  U.  S. 

209,  2114 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Porter,  43  Minn. 

527,  64,  1340, 1353 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Pounds,  11  Lea 

130,  2127 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prescott,  59  Fed. 

R.  237,  1780,  1783 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  President,  etc., 

Town  of  MarseiUes,  84  IU.  145,  141 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Price,  138  U.  S. 

185,  1570,  1573, 1578 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  PuUman,  etc.,  Co., 

139  U.  S.  79,  2664 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  PuUman  Palace 

Car  Co.,  49  Fed.  R.  400,  896 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Putnam,  36  Kan. 

121,  447,  457,  1225 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pyne,  30  Fed.  R. 

86,  637 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quaintance,  58  111. 

389,  993, 1897, 1898, 1905, 1943,  1945 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ragland,  84  IU. 

375,  894 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Randolph,  53  IU. 

510,  284,  2454,  2595 

Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Randolph,  etc.,  103 

Mo.  451,  1494,  1536 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ransom,  (Kan.)  44 

Pac.  R.  6,  2569 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reid,  24  IU.  144,  1843 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reidy,  66  111.  43,  971 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rend,  6  Bradw. 

(IU.  App.)  243,  1644 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richardson,  28 

Neb.  118,  1851, 1875 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ritter,  (Tex.)1883, 

10  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  202,  1438 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson,  127  IU. 

9,  1648, 1761,  1774,  1982 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson,  106111. 

142,  1744, 1758 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ross,  112  U.  S.  377, 

2049,  2076,  2091 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rung,  104  IU.  641,  2051 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Russell,  91  IU.  298, 

1999,  2001 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ryan,  ^0  IU.  211,  1759 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sanford,  23  Mich. 

418,  1466,  1501,  1502, 1528 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Saunders,  85  111. 

288,  1817, 1818,  1845, 1846 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sawyer,  69  111.  285, 

2299,2306 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scates,  90  IU.  586. 

2479,  2547,  2572 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schaffer,  124  IU. 

112,  1563 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott,  42  IU.  132, 

2278,  2368 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seirer,  60  IU.  295, 

1818, 1846 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXX111 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp. . 


301 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shannon,  43  111. 

338, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sharp,  63  Fed.  R. 

532,  1755, 1759, 1760,  1764, 1767 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shea,  66  IU.  471, 

2209,  2262,  2268,  2339,  2695 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shea,  67  Iowa  728, 

1181, 1224, 1236 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Siders,  88  111.  320,    1060 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simms,  18  111.  App. 

68,  2340, 2343 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  46  Mich. 

504,  1961, 1962 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  6  Ind.  App. 

262,  1906 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  11  Bradw. 

(IU.  App.)  348,  1896 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  78  IU.  96, 

1476, 1480, 1482 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  62  111.  268, 

3, 1143, 1178, 1335 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  111  IU.  363, 

560, 1301, 1453 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sowle  Elevator 

Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  2204 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  SpUker,  134  Ind. 

380,  1744,1760,1761,1792 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Springfield,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  67  IU.  142,  560,  1521,  1700, 1702 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Anne,  101  IU. 

151,  1199 

Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

54  Minn.  411,  493 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stahley,  62  Fed. 

R.  363,  1087,  2114 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  134  U.  S.  418,   991 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  StiU,  19  IU.  499, 

1749, 1758 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stumps,  55  111.  367, 

1748,  2706 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stumps,  69  111. 

409,  1975,  2466,  2468 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sturgis,  44  Mich. 

538,  1581,  1594, 1600 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Suffern,  129  111. 

274,  915,  918,  926,  968,  2286,  2296,  2671 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swett,  45  IU.  197, 

2007,  2707 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swinney,  38  Iowa 

182,  562, 1293 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  69  IU.  461,    2016 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Third  Nat.  Bank, 

26  Fed.  R.  820, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Third  Nat.  Bank, 

134  U.  S.  276, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  19  IU. 

578,  2168,  2208,  2309 


579 


597 


Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Totten,  1  Kan. 

App.  558,  1864 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Totten,   (Kan. 

App.)  42  Pac.  R.  269,  1877, 1878 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Touhy,  26  HI. 

App.  99,  2123 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Town  of  Cicero, 

.154  IU.  656,  1485 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Town  of  Lake,  71 

111-  333,  1338>  1343 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Town  of  Mar- 

seiUes,  84  IU.  145,  1134, 11^5 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Town  of  St.  Anne, 

101  IU.  151,  1212 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Triple tt,  38  IU. 

482,  1759, 1764 

Chicago,  ete.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trotter,  60  Miss. 

442.  1025, 2598 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Umphenour,  69  111. 

198-  1814, 1817 

Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Union  Pac.  Ry. 

Co.,  47  Fed.  R.  15,  237,  491,  589 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Unioa,  etc.,  Co., 

109  U.  S.  702,  1604, 1607, 1608 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States,  104 

U.  S.  687,  1129 

Chicago,  etc.,  Min.  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  etc.,  Co., 

57  Pa.  St.  83,  776,  779 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Utley,  38  IU.  410,    1815 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. v. Van  Dresar,  22  Wis. 

511,  2406, 2410 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  VanVleck,  143  IU. 

480,  2723 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Volk,  45  IU.  175, 

306,  1798 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vosburgh,  45  IU. 

311,  1580 

Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  61  Fed.  R.  993,  78,  500 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  9  Lea 

(Tenn.)  475,  882 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  WaUace,  66  Fed. 

R.  506,  2169,  2173,  2174 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ward,  16  IU.  522,   1823 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watkins,  43  Kan. 

50,  1423, 1551 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  WeUman,  143  U. 

S.  339,  953 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.West,  37  Ind.  211,    1582 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. v.  West  Chicago,  etc., 

Co.,  156  IU.  255,  1407,  1713 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whipple,  22  IU. 

105,  612,  1500,  15SU 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whipple,  20  IU. 

337,  614 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White,  46  IU.  App. 

446,  "85 


cxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1,1,3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216J,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitton,  13  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  270,  32,  34 

Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Whiting,  etc.,  Co., 

(Ind.)  38  N.  E.  R.  604,  12 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whiting,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  139  Ind.  297,  906,  1407,  1714 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. Wiggins  Ferry  Co., 

108  U.  S.  18,  943 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Wilcox,  (111.)  8  L. 

R.  A.  494,  1982 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  138  111. 

370,  1978 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilgus,  40  Neb. 

660,  1953 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Willard,  31  111. 

App.  435,  2487,  2577 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  55  111. 

185,  63,  287,  2581 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  (Kan.) 

43  Pac.  R.  246,  1777 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  131  Ind. 

30,  2722 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  17  111.  123, 

538,  558, 1284,  1355,  1369,  1386,  1471,  1664 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. Wilson,  23111.  App. 

63,  2577 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wiltse,  116  111.  449, 

1270, 1271, 1332,  1338,  1347,  1355,  1367 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Witty,  32  Neb.  275, 

2337,2339 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wolcott,  141  Ind. 

267,  951,  2225,  2431,  2694 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. Woodward,  48  Kan. 

599,  1519 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woolridge,  32  111. 

App.  237,  2590 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woosley,  85  111. 

370,  1591 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  153  111. 

307,  1290 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wymore,  40  Neb. 

645,  2161 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  96  Mo.  39, 

1468,  1493, 1557 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  26  111.  App. 

115,  2084 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Zimmerman,  12 

Ind.  App.  504,  1939,  1944 

Chicago  Vault  Co.  v.  McNulta,  153  U.  S. 

554,  790 

Chick  v.  Southeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Ga. 

a57,  2127 

Chickaming  v.  Carpenter,  106  U.  S.  663,     1225 
Checkering,  In  re,  56  Vt.  82,  669 

Chickering  v.  Fowler,  4  Pick.  (Mass.) 

371,  2354 
Chicot  v.  Lewis,  103  U.  S.  164,  1155 


Child  v.  Hearn,  L.  R.  9  Exch.  176,  1804, 1826 
Child  v.  Hudson's  Bay  Co.,  2  Peere  Wms. 

207,  274 

Child  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  Mass. 

170,  698 

Childs  v.  Central,  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  33  N.  J. 

Law  323,  1385,  1386,  1390 

Childs  v.  Hurd,  32  WT.  Va.  66,  25,  27 

Childs  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133 

Mass.  253,  1427 

Childs  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  La. 

Ann.  154,  1768 

Childs  v.  Penn  R.  Co.,  150  Pa.  St.  73,  1749, 1750 
Chiles  v.  Drake,  2  Mete.  (Ky.)  146,  2128 

Chillicothe  v.  Raynard,  80  Mo.  185,  309 

Chilton  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  M.  & 

W.  212,  280,  281,  287 

Chilton  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  Mo. 

88,  2453 

China,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Force,  142  N.  Y.  90, 

2420,2427 
Chippendale  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

7  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  395,  2408 

Chippewa,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  75  Wis.  224,  512,  522 

Chirac  v.  Chirac,  2  Wheat,  259,  2656 

Chisholm  v.  Forny,  65  Iowa  333,  132,  166,  254 
Chisholm  v.  Williams,  128  111.  115,  1608 

Chittenden  v.  Brewster,  2  Wall.  191,  764 

Choate  v.  Croninshield,  3  Cliff.  (C.  C.) 

184,  2205 

Choate  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.) 

36  S.  W.  R.  247,  2468,  2476 

Choisser  v.  People,  140  111.  21, 

1150,  1162,  1169,  1173 
Chollette  v.  Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Neb. 

159,  603,  612,  693,  694 

Chope  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Mich. 

195,  1037 

Chopin  v.  Badger,  etc.,  Co.,  83  Wis.  192,  2024 
Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2  Ohio  St.  114,  1603 
Choteau,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Holmes,  68  Mo.,  601, 

359,  360 

Chouteau  v.  Allen,  70  Mo.  290,  1139 

Chouteau  v.  Dean,  7  Mo.  App.  210,  165,  167 
Chouteaux  v.  Leech,  18  Pa.  St.  224, 

2212,  2230,  2239,  2305 
Chouteau  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  Co.,  122 

Mo.  375,  1296, 1301,  1303 

Chouteau  Co.  v.  Floyd,  74  Mo.  286,  170,  ?55 
Chouteau  Spring  Co.  v.  Harris,  20  Mo.  382,  1 44 
Chowan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parker,  105  N. 

Car.  246,  i:.:« 

Christ's  Church  v.  Philadelphia,  24  How. 

(U.  S.)  300,  103, 1087 

Christenson  v.  American  Ex.  Co.,  15  Minn. 
270,  2178,  2260,  2318,  2324 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-UX,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-SM,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27.',-.] 


Ckristensen  v.  Colby,  43  Hun  (N.  Y.)  362,  268 
Christensen  v.  Eno,  106  N.  Y.  97,  131,  261 

Ckristensen  v.  Quintard,  29  N.  Y.  S.  R.  61,  130 
Christian  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Ala. 

198,  46 

Christian  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79 

Ga.  460,  1989 

Christian  v.  First  Div.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  20  Minn.  21,  288 

Christian  Jansen,  In  re,  128  N.  Y.  550,  731,  803 
Christian  Union  v.  Yount,  101  TT.  S.  352,  33 
Christie  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn.) 

63  N.  W.  R.  482,  2479 

Christie  v.  Griggs,  2  Camp.  79,  2466,  2614 

Christie  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  94  Mo. 

453,  497,  2433,  2666,  2673 

Christie  v.  The  Craigton,  41  Fed.  R.  62,  2380 
Christman  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

141  Pa.  St.  604,  2111 

Chrystal  v.  Trou,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  N.  Y. 

164  1976 

Chubb  v.  Upton,  95  U.  S.  665, 

169, 198, 199,  200, 225,  252,  253,  260,  264,  1237 
Chubbuck  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77 

Mo.  591,  1816 

Chumasero  v.  Potts,  2  Mont.  242,  926 

Church  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4Okla. 

44,  2243 

Church  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Minn.  218, 

408,  2057,  2060 
Church  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (S.  Dak.) 

60  N.  W.  R.  854,  2485,  2572 

Church  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70 

Ind.  161,  1449,  1486, 1489,  1496 

Church  v.  Northern  Central  R.  Co.,  45  Pa. 

St.  339,  1558 

Church  of  Holy  Trinity  v.  United  States, 

143  U.  S.  457,  815 

Churchill  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  111. 

390,  2491,  2496,  2497,  2504 

Chy  Lung  v.  Freeman,  92  U.  S.  275, 

966,  1083,  2641 
Cicero,  etc.,  D.  Co.  v.  Craighead,  28  Ind. 

274,  873 

Cicotte  v.  Anciaux,  53  Mich.  227,  345 

Cincinnati  v.  Bryson,  15  Ohio  St.  625,  1103 
Cincinnati  v.  Cameron,  33  Ohio  St.  336,  553 
Cincinnati  v.  Lessee  of  White,  6  Pet.  431,  493 
Cincinnati  v.  Morgan,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.)  275, 

660,  1239 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

81  Ky.  492,  1092 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  115  U.  S. 

321,  1059,  1092 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mara,  26  Ohio  St. 

185,  308 


Cincinnati  Cooperage  Co.  v.  Bate,  (Ky.) 

26  S.  W.  R.  538,  81 

Cincinnati  Cooperage  Co.v.Bate,  10  Lewis' 

Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  653,  54,  272 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barker,  94  Ky. 

71,  .  1924 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belle  Celtre,  48 

Ohio  St.  273,  1373, 1392 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Longworth,  30 

Ohio  St.  108,  1436 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v/Bosworth,  46 

Ohio  St.  81,  559,  561 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bunnell,  61  Ind. 

183,  1860 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Butler,  103  Ind. 

31,  1745, 1746, 1756,  2718 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carper,  112  Ind. 

26,  2457,  2481,  2546,  2548,  2551,  2594,  2595 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Case,  122  Ind. 

310,  2210, 2415 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chattanooga, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Fed.  R.  470,  1698,  1714 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Ander- 
son, 139  Ind.  490,         907, 1379, 1663,  1664, 1698 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
48  Ohio  St.  390,  13, 1407 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Claire,  6  Ind. 
App.  390,  1653 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke,  57  Fed. 
R.  125,  2065,  2085,  2062 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clarkson,  7  Ind. 
595,  165 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clifford,  113  Ind. 
460,  24,  29,  67,  74,  82,  897 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clinton  Co.,  1 
Ohio  St.  77,         965, 1147, 1199, 1212, 1257, 1331 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cole,  29  Ohio  St. 
126,  24,  958,  2578 

Cincinnati  R.  Co.  v.  Com.,  80  Ky.  137, 

1036,  1650 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cooper,  120  Ind. 

469,  1787, 1788,  1969,  2576 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  CumminsvUle, 

14  Ohio  St.  523,  1635 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Danville,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  75  111.  113,  25,550,1349 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  126  Ind. 

99,  316, 405 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Duncan,  143  Ind. 

524,  2718 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gaines,  104  Ind. 

526,  1988 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Geisel,  119  Ind. 

77>  8, 1302,  1303 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grames,  136 


Ind.  39, 


1767 


CXXV1 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  arc  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-ltW,  Vol.  II, pp.  6&S-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Haas,  42  Ohio 

St.  239,  1458, 1510 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Harris,  61  111.  290,    1808 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Hildreth,  77 

Ind.  504,  1829 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Hiltzhauer,  99 

Ind.  486,  1865 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Howard,  124 

Ind.  280,  1776,  1777, 1783, 1791 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Hudson,  88  Ky. 

480,  1722 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Interst.  Com. 

Com.,  162  U.  S.  184, 

2646,  2658,  2659,  2660,  2667,  2676,  2678, 2680, 2681, 
2684,  2685,  2686 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Jones,  111  Ind. 

259,  1835, 1839, 1879 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Kassen,  49  Ohio 

St.  230,  1792,  2576 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Long,  112  Ind. 

166,  2049 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Longworth,  30 

Ohio  St.  108,  1425, 1433, 1514 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Madden,  134 

Ind.  462,  2033,  2059 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Marcus,  38  111. 

219,  2208, 2609 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Margrat,  51 

Ohio  St.  130,  2115 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  McClain,  (Ind.) 

44  N.  E.  E.  306,          2546,  2551,  2555,  2595,  2703 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  McCool,  26  Ind. 

140,  2278,  2279,  2382 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  McDougall,  108 

Ind.  179,  874 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  McMullen,  117 

Ind.  439,  2015,  2088,  2134 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Mealer,  50  Fed. 

B.  725,  2066 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Mims,  71  Ga. 
'  240,  1520 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Palmer,  (Ky.) 

33  S.  W.  B.  199,  2083 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Pearce,  28  Ind. 

502,  113 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Peters,  80  Ind.  168, 

2477,  2550,  2590,  2595 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Pontius,  19  Ohio 

St.  221,  412,  2201,  2210,  2224,  2235,  2324 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eidge,  54  Ind. 

39,  1822,  1824 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Sampson,  (Ky.) 

30  S.  W.  E.  12,  2003 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Skillman,  39 

Ohio  St.  444,  2574,  2577 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Sloan,  31  Ohio 

St.  1,  738,  776,  779 


Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Smith,  22  Ohio 

St.  227,  1804,  1854,  1855 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Smock,  133  Ind. 

411,  1942 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Spratt,  2  Du- 

vall  4,  2243,  2244,  2246 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  32 

Ohio  St.  152,  970,  1044 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Van  Home,  69 

Fed.  E.  139,  2145 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Washington,  25 

Ind.  259,  1300 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Waterson,  4 

Ohio  St.  424,  1822 

Cincinnati, etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wells,  39  Ind. 

539,  1187 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Whitcomb,  66 

Fed.  E.  915,  1645,  1646, 1649 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wood,  82  Ind. 

593,  1836, 2720 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Wright,  (Ky.) 

34  S.  W.  E.  526,  1774 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wright,  43  N. 

E.  E.  688,  1978 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Zinn,  18  Ohio 

St.  417,  1507 

Ciriack  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Co.,  151  Mass. 

152,  2024 

Ciriack  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Co.,  146  Mass. 

182,  2022 

Citizens',  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Coriell,  34  N.  J. 

EG.  383,  384 

Citizens',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gillespie,  115  Pa.  St. 

564,  212 

Citizens'  Bank  v.  Barnes,  70  Iowa  412,  2149 
Citizen's  Bank  v.  City  of  Terrell,  78  Tex. 

450,  1176 

Citizens'  Bank  v.  Nantucket,  etc.,  Co.,  2 

Story  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  16,  2281,  2419 

Citizens'  Nat.  Bk.  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  (Gin.  Super.  Ct.)  29  Wkly.  Law  Bui. 

15,  115 

Citizens'  Coach  Co.  v.  Camden,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  33  N.  J.  Eq.  267,  906, 1382, 1627 

Citizens'  Insurance  Co.  v.  Kountz  Line,  4 

Woods  268,  2244 

Citizens'  Mut.  Ins.  Co.v.  Lott,  45  Ala.  185,  425 
Citizens'  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Sortwell,  8  Allen 

(Mass.)  217,  237 

Citizens',  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Harrisburg,  etc., 

B.  Co.,  164  Pa.  St.  274,  1714 

Citizens',  etc.,  B.  Co.v.  Merl,  134  Ind.  609,  2179 
Citizens',  Horse  E.  Co.v.  City  of  Belleville, 

47  111.  App.  388,  73,  87 

Citizens'  Pass.  E.  Co.  v.  Foxley,  107  Pa. 

St.  537.  1647 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[Vol.  I, pp.  i-uz,  Vol.  ii, pp.  us-1262,  Vol.  in, pp.  nes-neu,  Vol.  iv,  pp.  2165-2715.] 


Citizens'  Passenger  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pittsburg, 

104  Pa.  St.  522,  9 

Citizens'  Savings  Assn.  v.  Perry  County, 

156  U.  S.  692,  1145,  1180,  1203,  1209, 1237 

Citizens'  Sav.  Assn.  v.  Topeka,  20  Wall. 

655,  1232,  1244 

Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Carey,  56  Ind.  396,  1647 
Citizens'  Street  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Memphis, 

53  Fed.  R.  715,  458,  459,  462,  464 

Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.  v.  City  R.  Co.,  64  Fed. 

R.  647,  1616 

Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  34  Fed.  R. 

579,  494,  1617,  1619,  1620 

Citizens'  St.  Ry.  v.  Robbins,  128  Ind.  449,  144 
Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Steen,  42  Ark.  321,  1647 
Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Stoddard,  10  Ind. 

App.  278,  1785, 1979, 1983 

Citizens'  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Twiname,  111  Ind. 

587,  2179,  2449,  2703 

Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Willoeby,  134  Ind. 

563,  2575, 2713 

City  v.  Lamson,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  477,  1256 

City  Bank  v.  Bartlett,  71  Ga.  797,  199 

City  Bank  v.  Bruce,  17  N.  Y.  507,  128, 141 

City  Bank  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  N.  Y. 

136,  2215, 2360 

City  Council  v.  Ashley,  etc.,  Co.,  34  S.  Car. 

541,  2710 

City  Council  v.  Sayre,  65  Ala.  564,  1070 

City  Council  v.  Wentworth,  etc.,  Baptist 

Church,  4  Strob.  306,  1158 

City  Hotel  v.  Dickinson,  6  Gray  (Mass.) 

586,  28 

City  Ins.  Co.  v.  Commercial  Bank,  88  111. 

348,  867 

City  F.  Insurance  Co.  v.  Carrugi,  41  Ga. 

660,  642 

City  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  50  N.  J.  L.  435,  2572 

City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  Savan- 
nah, 77  Ga.  731,  971 
City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Findley,  76  Ga.  311,      2179 
City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moores,  80  Me.  348, 

1589,  1592, 1594 

City, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Savannah,  77  Ga.  731,  1623 
City  of  Albany  v.  Watervliet,  etc.,  Co., 

108  N.  Y.  14,  1623 

City  of  Alleghany  v.  Millville,  etc.,  St.  R. 

Co.,  159  Pa.  St.  411,  1616, 1621, 1622 

City  of  Antonio  v.  Jones,  28  Tex.  19,  74 

City  of  Atchison  v.  Butcher,  3  Kan.  104,  1153 
City  of  Atlanta  v.  Grant,  etc.,  57  Ga.  340,  696 
City  of  Atlanta  v.  Gate  City,  etc.,  Co.,  71 

Ga.  106,  23 

City  of  Augusta  v.  Hafers,  61  Ga.  48,  1797 
City  of  Augusta  v.  Murphey,  79  Ga.  101,  1104 
City  of  Auburn  v.  Paul,  84  Me.  212,  1102 

City  of  Aurora  v.  Hillman,  90  111.  61,  1797 


City  of  Aurora  v.  West,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  82,  634 
City  of  Aurora  v.  West,  22  Ind.  88, 

1153, 1221, 1223 
City  of  Aurora  v.  West,  9  Ind.  74, 

1144, 1146, 1331 
City  of  Austin  v.  Austin,  etc.,  Co.,  69  Tex. 

180,  1102 

City  of  Bangor  v.  Smith,  83  Me.  422,  951,  994 
City  of  Bath  v.  Miller,  54  Me.  308,  647 

City  of  Bedford  v.  Neal,  143  Ind.  425,  2721 
City  of  Belfast,  In  re,  53  Me.  431,  1531 

City  of  Belleville  v.  Citizens',  etc.,  Co., 

152  111.  171,  1618 

City  of  Bloomington  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  134  111.  451,  1103 

City  of  Boston  v.  Brookline,  156  Mass.  172,  1378 
City  of  Boston  v.  Richardson,  13  Allen, 

(Mass.)  146,  1615 

City  of  Brenham  v.  German  Am.  Bank, 

144  U.  S.  173,  1162, 1167, 1229 

City  of  Bridgeport  v.  Giddings,  43  Conn. 

304,  1470 

City  of  Bridgeport  v.  Housatonic  Co.,  15 

Conn.  475,  1139,  1153,  1231, 1250 

City  of  Bridgeport  v.  N.  Y.  R.  R.,  36  Conn. 

255,    59, 1101, 1268, 1371, 1373,  1377,  1395,  1655, 

1662, 1704 

City  of  Brooklyn,  In  re,  143  N.  Y.  596,  1372 
City  of  Brooklyn  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co., 

47  N.  Y.  475,  1643 

City  of  Brooklyn  v.  Copeland,  106  N.  Y. 

496,  1460 

City  of  Buffalo,  Matter  of,  139  N.  Y.  422, 

1467, 1468 
City  of  Buffalo,  Matter  of,  68  N.  Y.  167, 

1377, 1393, 1395 

City  of  Buffalo  v.  Pratt,  131  N.  Y.  293,  1629 
City  of  Burlington  v.  Quick,  47  Iowa  222,  1113 
City  of  Cairo  v.  Zane,  149  U.  S.  122, 

1162, 1169, 1217 

City  of  Cambridge  v.  County  Commission- 
ers, 117  Mass.  79,  1*19 
City  of  Cambridge  v.  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners, 153  Mass.  161,                             987,991 
City  of  Camden  v.  Mulford,  26  N.  J.  Law 

49,  I202 

City  of  Chadron  v.  Glover,  43  Neb.  732,  2713 
City  of  Chester  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

140  Pa.  St.  275,  1665, 1674 

City  of  Chicago,  In  re,  64  Fed.  R.  897,         930 
City  of  Chicago  v.  Baer,  41  111.  306, 
City  of  Chicago  v.  Barbian,  80  111.  482,       1507 
City  of  Chicago  v.  Burcky,  158  111.  103,       1640 
City  of  Chicago  v.  Cameron,  120  111.  447, 

512,  629,  877,  878 
City  of  Chicago  v.  Cameron,  22  111.  App. 

91, 


212 


CXXV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


City  of  Chicago  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

105  111.  73,  1620 

City  of  Chicago  v.  Dalle,  115  111.  386,  1797 

City  of  Chicago  v.  Evans,  24  111.  52,  9,  478 
City  of  Chicago  v.  Hall,  103  111.  342,  270 

City  of  Chicago  v.  Hutchinson,  11  Biss. 

484,  930 

City  of  Chicago  v.  McDonough,  112  111. 

85,  1520 

City  of  Chicago  v.  O'Brennan,  65  111.  160,  2693 
City  of  Chicago  v.  Powers,  42  111.  169,  1797 
City  of  Chicago  v.  Rumpff ,  45  111.  90,  277 

City  of  Chicago  v.  Taylor,  125  U.  S.  161,  1410 
City  of  Chicago  v.  Trotter,  136  111.  430,  1624 
City  of  Chicago  v.  Union,  etc.,  Assn.,  102 

111.  379,  1417, 1632 

City  of  Chicago  v.  Wright,  32  IU.  192, 

1103, 1104 
City  of  Cincinnati  v.  Bryson,  15  Ohio  St. 

625,  1103 

City  of  Cincinnati  v.  Cameron,  33  Ohio 

336,  553 

City  of  Cincinnati  v.  Lessee  of  White,  6 

Pet.  431,  493 

City  of  Cincinnati  v.  Morgan,  3  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  275,  1239 

City  of  Clinton  v.  Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  24  Iowa  455,  1166, 1611, 1621 

City  of  Clinton  v.  Clinton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Iowa  61,  1623 

City  of  Columbus  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  37  Ind.  294,  1288 

City  of  Columbus  v.  Columbus  St.  R.  Co., 

45  Ohio  St.  98,  1643 

City  of  Columbus  v.  Dennison,  69  Fed.  R. 

58,  1215, 1224 

City  of  Colorado  Springs  v.  Smith,  19 

Colo.  554,  2672 

City  of  Concord  v.  Concord,  etc.,  Co.,  65 

N.  H.  30,  1563, 1613 

City  of  Council  Bluffs  v.  Kansas  City, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Iowa  338,      994,  996,  1610,  2656 
City  of  Covington  v.  Covington,  etc., 

Bridge  Co.,  10  Bush  (Ky.)  69,  38,  296 

City  of  Crawfordsville  v.  Barr,  45  Ind.  258, 

1598 
City  of  Crawfordsville  v.  Bond,  86  Ind.  236, 

1405 
City  of  Davenport  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  38 

Iowa  633,  1058 

City  of  Delphi  v.  Lowery,  74  Ind.  520,  1797 
City  of  Denver  v.  Bayer,  7  Colo.  113, 

1397, 1411, 1634 
City  of  Denver  v.  Knowles,  17  Colo.  204, 

1100, 1101 
City  of  Detroit  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  Co.,  37 

Mich.  558,  99, 1618, 1621, 1622 


City  of  Detroit  v.  Detroit  City  R.  Co.,  55 

Fed.  R.  569,  949 

City  of  Detroit  v.  Detroit  City  Ry.  Co.,  56 

Fed.  R.  867,  59, 1615 

City  of  Detroit  v.  Detroit  City  R.  Co.,  64 

Fed.  R.  628,  1615 

City  of  Detroit  v.  Detroit  Plank  Road 

Co.,  43  Mich.  140,  91,  92,  954,  1660 

City  of  Detroit  v.  Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  90  Mich.  646,  1623 

City  of  Dubuque  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  47     . 

Iowa  196,  1056,  1058 

City  of  Dubuque  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  Co.,  39 

Iowa  56,  1058, 1060 

City  of  Duluth  v.  Duluth  St.  R.  Co., 

(Minn.)  62  N.  W.  R.  267,  1642 

City  of  Duluth  v.  Mallett,  43  Minn.  204, 

326,  1624 
City  of  East  St.  Louis  v.  Amy,  120  U.  S. 

600,  1258 

City  of  East  St.  Louis  v.  Maxwell,  99  111. 

439,  1170 

City  of  East  St.  Louis  v.  O'Flynn,  119  IU. 

200,  1631 

City  of  Elizabeth  v.  Force,  29  N.  J.  Eq. 

587,  630, 1221 

City  of  Erie  v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  59  Pa.  St. 

174,  971 

City  of  Evansville  v.  Woodbury,  60  Fed. 

R.  718,  1162 

City  of  Eureka  v.  Merrifield,  53  Kan.  794,  2125 
City  of  Fairfield  v.  Ratcliff ,  20  Iowa  396,  1103 
City  of  Fort  Wayne  v.  Cody,  43  Ind.  197,  1103 
City  of  Fort  Dodge  v.  Minneapolis,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  87  Iowa  389,  815.  924 

City  of  Fort  Wayne  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 

Ry.  Co.,  132  Ind.  558, 

61,  800,  907,  1268,  1376,  1378,  1380,  1654,  1655, 

1663,1664 

City  of  Fort  Wayne  v.  Shoaff ,  106  Ind.  66,  1102 
City  of  Fort  Worth  v.  Allen,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  31  S.  W.  Rep.  235,  1641, 1643 

City  of  Galena  v.  Amy,  5  Wall.  705,  1168 

City  of  Galena  v.  Corwith,  48  111.  423,  1248 
City  of  Glasgow  U.  R.  Co.  v.  Hunter,  L.  R. 

2  H.  L.  Sc.  78,  1441 

City  of  Grand  Rapids  v.  Grand  Rapids 

Hydraulic  Co.,  66  Mich.  606,  93 

City  of  Grand  Rapids  v.  Grand  Rapids, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Mich.  42,  1662 

City  of  Greeley  v.  Hamman,  12  Colo.  94,  2710 
City  of  Halifax  v.  City  R.  Co.,  1  Russ. 

Eq.  (Nova  Scotia)  319,  1642 

City  of  Hannibal  v.  Hannibal  &  St.  Jo  R. 

Co.,  49  Mo.  480,  1378, 1654, 1681 

City  of  Helena  v.  Harvey,  6  Mont.  114,  1499 
City  of  Hartford  v.  Talcott,  48  Conn.  525,  1023 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol. 

City  of  Houston  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

83  Tex.  548,  1620, 1621 

City  of  Huntington  v.  First,  (Ind.  App.) 

43  N.  E.  E.  17,  2721 

City  of  Huntington  v.  Pease,  56  Ind.  305,  2710 
City  of  Indianapolis  v.  Bieler,  138  Ind.  30,  1625 
City  of  Indianapolis  v.  Consummers'  Gas 

Trust  Co.,  140  Ind.  107,  1621 

City  of  Indianapolis  v.  Emmelman,  108 

Ind.  530,  1952,  1972, 1973 

City  of  Indianapolis  v.  Kingsbury,  101  Ind. 

200,  1417, 1628 

City  of  Indianapolis  v.  Scott,  72  Ind.  196,  2013 
City  of  Indianola  v.  Gulf  Western,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  56  Tex.  594,  1611 

City  of  lola  v.  Merriman,  46  Kan.  49, 

1162, 1227 

City  of  Janesville  v.  Carpenter,  77  Wis.  288,  959 
City  of  Jeffersonville  v.  Patterson,  26  Ind. 

15,  635 

City  of  Joliet  v.  Harwood,  86  111.  110,  1589 
City  of  Jonesboro  City  v.  Cairo,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  110  U.  S.  192,  1161, 1167, 1171 

City  of  Kansas  v.  Baird,  98  Mo.  215,  1419, 1467 
City  of  Kansas  v.  Butterfleld,  89  Mo.  646,  1523 
City  of  Kansas  v.  Kansas,  etc*,  R.  Co.,  84 

Mo.  410,  1526 

City  of  Kansas  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

102  Mo.  633, 1665,  1669, 1702 

City  of  Kansas  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  18 

Kan.  331,  1508, 1557 

City  of  Kansas  City  v.  Smart,  128  Mo.  272,  1465 
City  of  Kansas  City  v.  Vineyard,  128  Mo. 

75,  1465 

City  of  Kenosha  v.  Lamson,  9  Wall.  477, 

632,  633, 1172 

City  of  Knoxville  v.  Knoxville,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  22  Fed.  R.  758,  67 

City  of  Lafayette  v.  Cox,  5  Ind.  38,  1216 

City  of  Lafayette  v.  Weaver,  92  Ind.  477,  1797 
City  of  Lake  View  v.  Tate,  130  111.  247,  1624 
City  of  Lanark  v.  Dougherty,  153  111.  163,  2713 
City  of  Leavenworth  v.  Norton,  1  Kan. 

432,  1103 

City  of  Xiebanon  v.  McCoy,  12  Ind.  App. 

500,  2059 

City  of  Lexington  v.  Butler,  14  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  282,  632,  633, 1239 

City  of  Lexington  v.  Headley,  5  Bush  (Ky.) 

508,  1104 

City  of  Lexington  v.  McQuillan's  Heirs, 

9  Dana  (Ky.)  513,  1100, 1177, 1218 

City  of  Logansport  v.  Dick,  70  Ind.  65,  1589 
City  of  Logansport  v.  Justice,  74  Ind.  378,  247 
City  of  Logansport  v.  Shirk,  88  Ind.  563,  1386 

CORP. — ix 


III,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27S5.] 

ity  of  Louisville  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co., 
90  Ky.  409,  1081 

City  of  Ludlow  v.  Cincinnati  Southern, 
78  Ky.  a57,  1107 

ity  of  Lynchburg  v.  Slaughter,  75  Va. 
57,  1157 

ity  of  Madison  v.  Smith,  83  Ind.  502, 

1155, 1218 
ity  of  McPherson  v.  Nichols,  48  Kan.  430, 

2710 
ity  of  Memphis  v.  Bolton,  9  Heisk.  508, 

1417, 1426 

Ity  of  Menasha  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  52  Wis.  414,  703 

lity  of  Michigan  City  v.  Boeckling,  122 
Ind.  39,  1614,  1790 

City  of  Minneapolis  v.  Lundin,  58  Fed.  R. 

525,  2080 

City  of  Minneapolis  v.  Wilkin,  30  Minn. 

140,  1470, 1552 

City  of  Middletown  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  62  Conn.  492,  974 

City  of  Montgomery  v.  Townsend,  80  Ala. 

89,  1411 

City  of  MoundsviUe  v.  Ohio  R.  Co.,  (W. 

Va.),20L.  R.  A.  161,  913 

City  of  Moundsville  v.  Ohio  Riv.  R.  Co., 

37  W.  Va.  92,  918, 1667, 1668 

City  of  Mt.  Vernon  v.  Hovey,  52  Ind.  563, 

189,  1163, 1199, 1224, 1254 
City  of  Muscatine  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  88 

Iowa,  291,  1110, 1116 

City  of  Muscatine  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  1  Dill.  (U.  S.)  5:36,  1199 

City  of  Nevada  v.  Gilfillan,  123  Mo.  546,     1107 
City  of  New  Albany  v.  McCulloch,  127 

Ind.  500,  1100 

City  of  New  Haven  v.  Fair  Haven,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  38  Conn.  422,  1207, 1643 

City  of  New  London  v.  Brainard,  23  Conn. 

522,  475 

City  of  New  Orleans  v.  Kaufman,  29  La. 

Ann.  283,  1060 

City  of  New  Orleans  v.  Wire,  20  La.  Ann. 

500,  H12 

City  of  Newport  v.  South  Covington,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  89  Ky.  29,  1621 

City  of  Newton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 

Iowa  422,  I673 

City  of  New  York  v.  Twenty-third  Street 

R.  Co.,  113  N.  Y.  311, 
City  of  Noblesville  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  130  Ind.  1, 
City  of  Northampton,  In  re,  158  Mass. 


299, 


97,-, 


cxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[VoL'I,pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1S62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1S6S-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 


City  of  Ohio  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

Ohio  St.  489,  123,  419,  4*5 

City  of  Omaha  v.  Kramer,  25  Neb.  489,  1409 
City  of  Opelika  v.  Daniel,  59  Ala.  211,  1139 
City  of  Oshkosh  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  74  Wis.  534,  915,  919, 1010, 1667 

City  of  Ottawa  v.  People,  48  111.  233,  2671 
City  of  Paris  v.  Mason,  37  Tex.  447,  1425 

City  of  Parkersburg  v.  Brown,  106  U.  S. 

487,  324,  507 

City  of  Paterson  v.  Society,  -24  N.  J.  L. 

385,  1102, 1105 

City  of  Pekin  v.  McMahon,  154  111.  141,  1978 
City  of  Pekin  v.  Reynolds,  31  111.  529,  1219 
City  of  Peoria  v.  Johnston,  56  111.  45,  1417 

City  of  Philadelphia  v.  Dyer,  41  Pa.  St. 

463,  1457 

City  of  Philadelphia  v.  Empire  Pass.  R. 

Co.,  3  Brews.  (Pa.)  570,  1641 

City  of  Philadelphia  v.  Field,  58  Pa.  St. 

320,  1151 

City  of  Philadelphia  v.  Ridge  Ave.  R.  R. 

Co.,  102  Pa.  St.  190,  112 

City  of  Philadelphia  v.  Tryon,  35  Pa.  St. 

401,  1102 

City  of  Philadelphia  v.  Western  U.  TeL 

Co.,  11  Phila.  327,  105 

City  of  Philadelphia  v.  Wright,  100  Pa. 

St.  235,  1458 

City  of  Plattsmouth  v.  Fjtzgerald,  10  Neb. 

401,  ^        1245 

City  of  Portland  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  66 

Md.  485,  1643 

City  of  Portland  v.  Kamm,  10  Ore.  383,  1520 
City  of  Portland  v.  Portland,  etc.,  Co.,  67 

Me.  135,  1064 

City  of  Potwin  Place  v.  Topeka  R.  Co.,  51 

Kan.  609,  917 

City  of  Providence  v.  St.  John's  Lodge,  2 

R.  I.  46,  491 

City  of  Providence  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  12  R. 

1. 473,  1622 

City  of  Pueblo  v.  Strait,  20  Colo.  13,  1640 
City  of  Quincy  v.  Jones,  76  111.  231,  1456 

City  of  Racine  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Wis.)  65  N.  W.  R.  857,  1675 

City  of  Richmond  v.    Daniel,  14  Qratt. 

(Va.)  385,  1103 

City  of  Richmond  v.  Davis,  103  Ind.  449,  478 
City  of  Richmond  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co., 

21  Gratt.  604,  1064 

City  of  Roxbury  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

Cush.  424,  975 

City  of  Rushville  v.  Rushville,  etc.,  Co., 

132  Ind.  575,  4,  956 

City  of  Salem  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  98  Mass. 
431,  1036, 1274,  1477 


City  of  San  Antonio  v.  Jones,  28  Tex.  19,  71 
City  of  San  Antonio  v.  Lane,  32  Tex.  405,  1241 
City  of  San  Bernardino  v.  Southern,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  107  Cal.  524,  2640 

City  of  San  Diego  v.  jSan  Diego,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  44  Cal.  106,  377 

City  of  San  Francisco  v.  Scott,  4  Cal.  114,  1470 
City  of  San  Jose  v.  San  Jose,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

53  Cal.  475,  1623 

City  of  Santa  Ana  v.  Harlin,  99  Cal.  538,  1512 
City  of  Savannah  v.  Hancock,  91  Mo.  54, 

1338,1339 
City  of  Savannah  v.  Kelly,  108  U.  S.  184, 

1215, 1216 
City  of  Scranton  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal 

Co.,  12  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  Rep.  283,  896 

City  of  Seattle  v.  Yesler,  1  Wash.  Ter.  571,  1113 
City  of  Seattle  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

6  Wash.  379,  124« 

City  of  Sedalia  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

17  Mo.  App.  105,  1557 

City  of  Seymour  v.  Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  126  Ind.  466,  61,  1378 

City  of  Sioux  City  v.  Weare,  59  Iowa  95,  1144 
City  of  Sioux  Falls  v.  Kirby,  (S.  Dak.)  60 

N.  W.  R.  156,*  963 

City  of  Springfield  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  4  Cush.  (Mass.)  63,  1377, 1378 

City  of  Springfield  v.  Sale,  127  111.  359,  1104 
City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Alexander,  23  Mo.  483, 

362,  1153, 1223 

City  »f  St.  Louis  v.  Allen,  53  Mo.  44,  1102 

City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Gleason,  15  Mo.  App. 

25,  1510 

City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Gleason,  93  Mo.  33,  1469 
City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Manufacturers'  Sav- 
ings Bank,  49  Mo.  574,  1063 
City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Ranken,  96  Mo.  497,  1104 
City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Shields,  62  Mo.  247,  1240 
City  of  St.  Louis  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

89  Mo.  44,  1623 

City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Western  U.  Tel.  Co., 

63  Fed.  R.  68,  1618 

City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Western  U.  Tel.  Co., 

148  U.  S.  92,  1085, 1096 

City  of  St.  Paul  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  49 

Minn.  88,  1320 

City  of  St.  Paul  v.  Nickl,  42  Minn.  262,  1476 
City  of  St.  Paul  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co.,  23 

Minn.  459,  1090 

City  of  Tiffin  v.  McCormack,  34  Ohio  St. 

638,  1590 

City  of  Topeka  v.  Martineau,  42  Kan.  387,  1525 
City  of  Valparaiso  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  123  Ind.,  467,  1663 

City  of  Vicksburg  v.  Lombard,  51  Miss. 

Ill,  1133 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXX1 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-W2,  Vol.  ir,  pp.  1^-1262.  Vol. 

City  of  Virginia  v.  Hall,  96  111.  278,  1113 

City  of  Waterbury's  Appeal,  57  Conn.  84,  1671 
City  of  Waverly  v.  Auditor,  100  111.  354,  1211 
City  of  Wheeling  v.  Mayor,  1  Hughes, 

(U.  S.)  90,  913 

City  of  Wilmington  v.  Yopp,  71  N.  C.  76,  1102 
City  of  Winona  v.  Burke,  23  Minn.  254,  2710 
City  of  Wyandotte  v.  Corrigan,  35  Kan.  21,  387 
City  of  Ysleta  v.  Canda,  67  Fed.  R.  6,  937 
City  of  Zanesville  v.  Fannan,  (Ohio)  42 

N.  E.  R.  703,  1641, 1642 

City  of  Zanesville  v.  Richards,  5  Ohio  St. 

589,  1101 

City  of  Zanesville  v.  Zanesville,  etc.,  Co., 

47  Ohio  St.  1,  4,  956 

Clardy  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Mo. 

576,  1816, 1817 

Claflin  v.  Boston,  R.  Co.,  7  Allen  (Mass.) 

341,  2362, 2383 

Claflin  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank,  25  N.  Y. 

293,  395 

Claflin  v.  South  Car.  R.  Co.,  4  Hughes 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  12,  656 

Claflin  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  8  Fed. 

R.  118,  378,  380,  628,  636,  706 

Claiborne  County  v.  Brooks,  111  U,  S.400, 

1087, 1148, 1153, 1158, 1167, 1168, 1228,  1243, 1256 
Claiborne  St.,  Matter  of,  1  La.  Ann.  7,  1533 
Claim  of  Zulueta,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  444,  140 

Clampit  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Iowa 

71,  1739, 1951 

Clap  v.  Interstate  Ry.  Co.,  61  Fed.  R.  537,  770 
Clapp  v.  Astor,  2  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  379,  419 
Clapp  v.  City  of  Spokane,  53  Fed.  R.  515,  684 
Clapp  v.  Clapp,  49  Hun  (N.  Y.)  195,  826 

Clapp  v.  County  of  Cedar,  5  Iowa  15,  1221 
Clapp  v.  Kemp,  122  Mass.  481,  2106 

Clapp  v.  Manter,  78  Me.  358,  1540 

Clapp  v.  Peterson,  104  111.  26,  128, 141,  433 

Clapp  v.  Railway  Co.,  36  Minn.  6,  2153 

Clapper,  Ex  partc,  3  Hill  (N.  Y.)  458,  1383 
Clarence  R.  Co.  v.  Great  North  of  Eng- 
land Junction  R.  Co.,  4  Q.  B.  46,  108 
Clarmont,  etc.,  v.  Royce,  42  Vt.  730,  543 
Clark,  In  re,  3  Interst.  Com.  C.  R.  649,  2686 
Clark  v.  American  Coal  Co.,  86  Iowa  436,  114 
Clark  v.  Averill,  31  Vt.  512,  889 
Clark  v.  Barnard,  108  U.  S.  436,  37,  41,  221 
Clark  v.  Barnwell,  12  How.  272, 

2205,  2207,  2209,  2300,  2301,  2347 
Clark  v.  Sever,  139  U.  S.  96,  130 

Clark  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  N.  H.  323, 

971, 1044, 1745 

Clark  v.  Brockway,  3  Keyes  (N.  Y.)  13,  796 
Clark  v.  Burns,  118  Mass.  275,  2621 

Clark  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  R. 
'   543,  1744 


in,  pp.  1263-2M,  Vol.  iv,  pp.  s 

Clark  v.  Central  R.  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  66  Fed. 

R.  803,  708,  818 

Clark  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  127  Mo.  197, 

2469,2569 
Clark  v.  City  of  Washington,  12  Wheat. 

(U.  S.)  40,  693 

Clark  v.  Continental,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Ind. 

135,  157, 224 

Clark  v.  Edgar,  84  Mo.  106,  387 

Clark  v.  Eighth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y.  135, 

2555,  2559,  2572 

Clark  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Co.,  15  Wend.  256,  364 
Clark  v.  Farrington,  11  Wis.  306,  166 

Clark  v.  Foot,  8  Johns.  421,  1891 

Clark  v.  German,  etc.,  Bank,  61  Miss.  611,  146 
Clark  v.  Glidden,  60  Vt,  702,  1327 

Clark  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Mo.  202, 

1037, 1400, 1454,  1565,  1591 
Clark  v.  Iowa  City,  20  Wall.  (U.  S.)  583, 

633,  1089 

Clark  v.  Janesville,  10  Wis.  136,  1144, 1237 
Clark  v.  Janesville,  13  Wis.  414,  1204 

Clark  v.  Listen,  54  111.  App.  578,  2054 

Clark  v.  Lynch,  4  Daly  83,  2390 

Clark  v.  Manchester,  62  N.  H.  577,  1973 

Clark  v.  Masters,  1  Bosw.  177,  2420 

Clark  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  151  Mass.  352,  2103 
Clark  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Railway  Co.,  35 

Kan.  350,  1757 

Clark  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  47  Minn. 

380,     •  1777 

Clark  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  W.  Va.  200,  1807 
Clark  v.  Reyburn,  8  Wall.  (U.  S.)  318,  715,  716 
Clark  v.  Richards,  1  Conn.  53,  2697 

Clark  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Va. 

709,  2004 

Clark  v.  Ridgely,  1  Md.  Ch.  70,  778 

Clark  v.  Smith,  13  Pet.  195, 

1007, 1012, 1999,  2028,  2068 

Clark  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.Co.,  64  Mo.  440, 

2308,  2348,  2405,  2697, 2699 

Clark  v.  Turner,  73  Ga.  1, 

Clark  v.  Utica,  18  Barb.  451, 

Clark  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Vt.  103, 

1323, 1455, 1456, 1591,  1808 

Clark  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  N. 

Car.  506,  2488,  2508,  2575 

Clark  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  N. 

Car.  430, 

Clark  v.  Worcester,  125  Mass.  226,  1387 

Clarke  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  Bridge  Co., 

41  Pa.  St.  147,  1400- "01 

Clarke  v.  Blackmar,  47  N.  Y.  150, 

1271, 1611, 1650 

Clarke  v.  Carfln  Coal  Co.,  L.  R.  (1891)  A. 
C.  412, 


2138 


CXXX11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165- 

Clarke  v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Fed. 

Rep.  338,  142,  230,  234 

Clarke  v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  54  Fed.  R. 

556,  792 

Clarke  v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  66  Fed.  R. 

16,  817 

Clarke  v.  Cleveland,  9  Ohio  C.  C.  118,  1450 
Clarke  v.  Cuckfield  Union,  21  L.  J.  Q.  B. 

349,  62 
Clarke  v.  Dickson,  6  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  452,          387 
Clarke  v.  Ganz,  21  Minn.  387,                        1070 
Clarke  v.  Gilmanton,  12  N.  H.  515,               1492 
Clarke  v.  Hancock  County,  27  111.  305,        1237 
Clarke  v.  Holmes,  7  H.  &  N.  937, 

2021,  2039,  2063 

Clarke  v.  Manchester,  56  N.  H.  502,  1503 

Clarke  v.  Needles,  25  Pa.  St.  338,  2190 

Clarke  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  39  W.Va.  732, 

1725,  1726 
Clarke  v.  Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Neb.  458, 

104,  694 
Clarke  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132 

Ind.  199,  2081,  2091 

Clarke  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Houst. 

(Del.)  158,  1083 

Clarke  v.  Rochester,  24  Barb.  (N.Y.)  446,  1147 
Clarke  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  N.  Y. 

570,  2301,  2348,  2399,  2404,  2411 

Clarke  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Barb. 

350,  563,  1297 
Clarke  v.  Thomas,  etc.,  Co.,  34 Ohio  St.  46, 

200.  252.  264,  795 
Clarkhuff  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  26 

Fed.  R.  465,  948 

Clarkson  v.  DePeyster,  3  Paige  320,  107 

Clarkson  v.  Clarkson,  18  Barb.  646,  422,  424 
Clarkson  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y. 

304,  25 

Clarksville,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Atkinson, 

1  Sneed  (Tenn.)  426,  1523, 1526, 1532 

Clawson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Ind. 

152,  1039,  1656,  1666, 1667 

Clary  v.  Hoagland,  5  Cal.  476,  1557 

Clary  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Iowa  344,  1920 
Clary  v.  Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Iowa 

344,  1860 

Clason  v.  Milwaukee,  30  Wis.  316,  288 

Clay  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Ga.  345, 

2135,  2137 
Clay  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  III.  App. 

235,  2081 

Clay.v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  6 

Heisk.  (Tenn.)  421,  648 

Clay  v.  Hawkins  County,  5  Lea  (Tenn.) 

137,  1242 

Clay  v.  Nicholas  County,  4  Bush  154,  1153 
Clay  v.  Rufford,  19  Eng.  L.  &  E.  350,  578 


Clay  Co.  v.  McAleer,  115  U.  S.  616,  1213, 1260 
Clay  County  v.  Society  for  Savings,  104 

U.  S.  579,  1159,  1200, 1243 

Claybaugh  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 

Ind.  262,  1531 

Claybaugh  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

Mo.  App.  630,  2091 

Claybrook  v.  Board,  114  N.  C.  453,  1222 

Clayton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Iowa 

238,  1525 

Clayton  v.  Hunt,  3  Camp.  27,  2633 

Clayton  v.  Ore.,  etc.,  Co.,  109  N.  C.  385,  132 
Cleanay  v.  Junction  R.  Co.,  26  Ind.  375,  890 
Clear  Lake  Water,  Matter  of,  48  Cal.  586,  1529 
Clearwater  v.  Meredith,  1  WaU.  (U.  S.) 

25,  443,  450,  453,  860 

Cleaves  v.  Pigeon,  etc.,  Co.,  145  Mass.  541, 

1765 

Clegg  v.Hamilton,  etc.,  Co.,  61  Iowa  121,  26,  27 
Cleland  v.  Thornton,  43  Cal.  437,  1930 

Clelland  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ind. 

276,  2576 

Clem  v.  Newcastle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Ind.  488, 

191, 192 
Clemens  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Mo. 

366,  1908,  1910 

Clemens  v.  Luce,  101  Cal.  432,  663 

Clement  v.  Canfleld,  28  Vt.  302,  1860 

Clement  v.  Cincinnati,  (Ohio)  16  W.  L. 

Bull.  355,  13 

Clement  v.  City  of  Cincinnati,  16  W.  L. 

Bull.  355,  9 

Clement  v.  Durgin,  5  Me.  9,  1326 

Clements  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

(1894)  2  Q.  B.  482,  2159 

Clements  v.  Schuylkill,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  132 

Pa.  St.  445,  1571 

Clementson  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

42  U.  C.  Q.  B.  263,  2393 

Cleveland  v.  Burnham,  55  Wis.  598,  257 

Cleveland  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42 

Vt.  449,  1891,  1936,  1937,  1945 

Cleveland  v.  Lurnham,  55  Wis.  598,  163 

Cleveland  v.  Marine  Bank,  17  Wis.  545,  257 
Cleveland  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co., 

68  N.  Y.  306,  2586 

Cleveland  v.  Spencer,  73  Fed.  R.  559,  2653 
Cleveland  v.  Tripp,  13  R.  I.  50,  1100 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adair,  12  Ind. 

App.  569,  1742,  1952,  1966, 1976 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Backus,  133  Ind. 

513,  1058,  1077, 1080,  1092,  1095 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ball,  5  Ohio  St. 

568,  1435,  1444,  1517,  1520, 1521 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bartram,  11 

Ohio  St.  457,          63,  283,  2453,  2465,  2482,  2491 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXX111 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


t  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-H42,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol. 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beckett,  11  Ind. 

App.  547,  2489,  2503,  2507 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  56  Fed. 

R.  804,  2091 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  45  Ind. 

90,  1818 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Closser,  126 

Ind.  348,  78,  286,  500,  525,  2285,  2433 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coburn,  91  Ind. 

557,  1307, 1308 

Cleveland  Rolling  Mill  Co.  v.  Corrigan, 

46  Ohio  St.  283,  1978,  2024 

Cleveland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Crawford,  9  Ry.  & 

Corp.  L.  J.  171,  772 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crawford,  24 

Ohio  St.  631,  1766, 1792, 1872, 1901 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crossley,  36  Ind. 

370,  1832 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Curran,  19  Ohio 

St.  1,  2468,  2510,  2514,  2516,  2600 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  EUiott,  28  Ohio 

St.  340,  1771, 1852, 1863 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Erie,  27  Ohio  St. 

380,  82 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harrington,  131 

Ind.  426,  971,  1624 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Himrod,  etc., 

Co.,  37  Ohio  St.  321,  334 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jewett,  37  Ohio 

St.  649,  773,  774 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keary,3OhioSt. 

201,  2077 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keely,  138  Ind. 

600,  1779, 1780, 1783, 1982 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ketcham,  133 

Ind.  346,  2456,  2509 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manson,  30  Ohio 

St.  451,  1982,  2558 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  13  Ind. 

App.  485,  1957,  2057 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McClung,  119 

U.  S.  454,  2443 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McConneU,  26 

Ohio  St.  57,  1832, 1837 

Cleveland  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moline  Plow  Co., 

13  Ind.  App.  225,  2396 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moneyhun,  (Ind.) 

44  N.  E.  R.  1106,  2555,  2556 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newbrander,  40 

Ohio  St.  15,  1842 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newell,  75  Ind. 

542,  2477, 2567 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newell,  104  Ind. 

264,  2474, 2715 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prentice,  13 Ohio 

St.  373,  1500, 1501 


III,  pp.  1265-21$!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.Prewitt,  134  Ind. 

557,  46! 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Robbins, 35 Ohio 

St.  221,  146 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Robbins,  35 Ohio 

St.  483,  117,  420 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rowan,  66  Pa. 

St.  393,  2717 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sargent,  19  Ohio 

St.  438,  2352,  2375 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schneider,  45 

Ohio  St.  678,  1752 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Selsor,  55  111. 

App.  685,  2007 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Speer,  56  Pa.  St. 

325, 

6,  539,  1264, 1265,  1283,  1354,  1356,  1393,  1564 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stephenson,  139 

Ind.  641,  1741, 1949,  2061 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swift,  42  Ind. 

119,  1845 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tartt,  64  Fed. 

R.  823,  1741,  1959 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tartt,  64  Fed. 

R.  830,  1785, 1979 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Terry,  8  Ohio  St. 

570,  1786 

Cleveland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

27  Fed.  R.  250,  115 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tyler,  9  Ind. 

App.  689,  2622,  2623 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walrath,  38 

Ohio  St.  461,  2541 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wynant,  100  Ind. 

160,  1988,  2065,  2546,  2706 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wynant,  114  Ind. 

525,  1639, 1797,  1986, 1988 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wynant,  134  Ind. 

681,  1988, 2721 

Click  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  D.  C. 

363,  1613 

Clifford  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141 

Mass.  564,  2120 

Clifton  v.  State,  73  Ala.  473,         1049, 1050, 1052 
Clifton  Heights,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Randell,  82 

Iowa  89,  552 

Clinksales  v.  Pendleton,  etc.,  Co.,  9  S. 

Car.  318,  870 

Clinton  v.  Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 

Iowa  455,  1166,  1611,  1621 

Clinton  v.  Clinton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Iowa  61, 

1623 
Clonmel  Traders  v.  Waterford,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  4  Ry.  &  C.  T.  Cas.  92,  2686 

Cloppin  v.  Greenless,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Ohio  St. 

275,  1*0 

Close  v.  Brady,  24  N.  Y.  Supp.  567,  256 


CXXX1V 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Close  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  64  Iowa 

149,  1307,  1309,  1314, 1316 

Close  v.  Glenwood  Cemetery,  107  U.  S.  466, 

67,  447,  551,  876, 1089 

Close  v.  Mclntire,  120  Ind.  262,  2126 

Close  v.  Samm,  27  Iowa  503,  1525 

Clouse  v.  Canada,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  4  Ont.  B. 

28,  298, 1721, 1722, 1729 

Clow  v.  Brown,  134  Ind.  287,  133 

Clowes  v.  The  Frank,  etc.,  45  Fed.  E.  494,  2079 
Clussman  v.  Long  Island  B.  Co.,  9  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  618,  1966 

Clussman  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  73 

N.  Y.  606,  2546 

Clyde  v.  Hubbard,  88  Pa.  St.  358,  2228,  2231 
Clyde  v.  Eichmond,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  59  Fed. 

E.  394,  2047,  2108 

Clyde  v.  Eichmond,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  55  Fed. 

E.  445,  669,  670,  710 

Clyde  v.  Bichmond,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  57  Fed. 

E.  436,  1001,  1013, 1016 

Clyde  v.  Eichmond,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  63  Fed. 

E.  21,  710,  790 

Clyde  v,  Eichmond,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  65  Fed. 

B.  482,  2051 

Clymore  v.  Williams,  77  111.  618,  887 

Coal  Co.  v.  Blatchford,  11  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

172,  948 

Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Norman,  49  Ohio  St.  598,  2041 
Coal  and  Mining  Co.  v.  Clay,  51  Ohio  542,  2041 
Coal,  etc.,  Min.  Co.  v.  Davis,  90  Tenn.  711, 

2079,  2091 
Coale  v.  Hannibal  &  St.  J.  B.  Co.,  60  Mo. 

221,  1943 

Coates  v.  Campbell,  37  Minn.  498,  1140 

Coates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (S.  Dak.) 

65  N.  W.  B.  1067,  2233 

Coates  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  81  Mo., 

38,  1926,  1927,  1935 

Coates  v.  Eailton,  6  B.  &  C.  422,  2389 

Coates  v.  United  States  Express  Co.,  45 

Mo.  238,  2244 

Coates  v.  Wilkes,  92  N.  C.  376,  753 

Coats  T.  Chaplin,  L.  E.  3  Q.  B.  483,  2695 

Coats  v.  Donnell,  94  N.  Y.  168,  854 

Cobb  v.  Abbot,  14  Pick.  289,  2246 

Cobb  v.  Boston,  109  Mass.  438,  1420, 1444, 1489 
Cobb  v.  Boston,  112  Mass.  181,  1513 

Cobb  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  37  S.  Car. 

194,  1860, 1881, 1987 

Cobb  v.  Fant,  36  S.  Car.  1,  422 

Cobb  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  68  111.  233, 

1545,  1546 
Cobb  v.  Iowa  Cent.  B.  Co.,  38  Iowa  601, 

<  411,  2225,  2692 

Cobb  v.  McMechen,  6  Johns.  160,  2264 

Cobban  v.  Downe,  5  Esp.  41,  2186 


Cobble  v.  Shoffner,  75  N.  Car.  42,  1033 

Coburn  v.  Boston,  etc.,Co.,  lOGray  (Mass.) 

243,  852, 859 

Coburn  v.  Coxeter,  51  N.  H.  158,  1302 

Coburn  v.  EUenwood,  4  N.  H.  101,  22 

Coburn  v.  Pacific  Lumber  Co.,  46  Cal.  31, 

1544 

Cochran  v.  Peoples'  E.  Co.,  113  Mo.  359,     1571 
Cock  v.  Taylor,  13  East  399,  2421,  2423 

Cockburn  v.  Union  Bank,  13  La.  Ann.  289,    248 
Cocker  v.  Cowper,  1  C.  M.  &  E.  418,  1324 

Cockerell  v.  Van  Diemen's  Land  Co.,  26 

L.  J.  (C.  P.)  203,  217,  220 

Cockle  v.  London,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  L.  E.  7  C. 

P.  321,  2546,  2549 

Coddington  v.  Gilbert,  17  N.  Y.  489,  892 

Coddington  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  103  U.  S.  409, 

711,  712 

Codrington  v.  Parker,  16  Ves.  469,  756 

Cody  v.  Central  Pac.  B.  Co.,  4  Saw.  (U.  S. 

C.  C.)  114,  2495,  2499 

Cody  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  151  Mass. 

462,  1788, 2560 

Coe  v.  Aiken,  61  Fed.  E.  24,  1016, 1385 

Coey  v.  Belfast,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  Irish  B.  2  C. 

L.  112,  442 

Coe  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Ohio  St. 

372,  105 

Coe  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  10  Ohio  St. 

372, 

2,  47,  56, 100,  102,  536,  637,  644,  656,  659,  668,  696, 
808,  868,  1350,  1547 
Coe  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  E.  E.  Co.,  75  Am. 

Dec.  518,  638 

Coe  v.  Del.,  L  &  W.  B.  B.  Co.,  34  N.  J.  Eq. 

266,  653 

Coe  v.  East  &  W.  E.  B.  Co.,  52  Fed.  E.  531, 

131, 167,  483,  681 

Coe  v.  Errol,  116  U.  S.  517,  996,  2661,  2662 

Coe  v.  Johnson,  18  Ind.  218,  658 

Coev.  Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  3  Fed.  B. 

775,  910, 1300 

Coe  v.  McBrown,  22  Ind.  252,  654,  658 

Coe  v.  New  Jersey  Midland  E.  Co.,  31  N.  J. 

Eq.  105, 

368,  563,  640,  642,  645,  660,  681,  1289,  1297, 1603, 

1604 
Coe  v.  New  Jersey  Midland  By.  Co.,  27 

N.  J.  Eq.  37,  707,  844 

Coe  v.  Peacock,  14  Ohio  St.  187,  105,  684 

Coe  v.  Pennock,  6  Am.  Law  Beg.  27,      651,  654 
Coe  v.  Schultz,  47  Barb.  64,  959 

Coeur  D'Alene,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Miners'  Union, 

51  Fed.  E.  260,  910,  2688 

Coey  v.  Belfast,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  Irish  B.  2 

C.  L.  112,  427 

Gofer  v.  Echerson,  6  Iowa  502,  738,  778 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxxxv 


[References  are  to  Pages. \ 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-W,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol. 

Coffee  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  Mass. 

21,  2105,  2116,  2121 

Coffin  v.  Board,  57  Fed.  R.  137,  1162 

Coffin  v.  City  of  Indianapolis,  59  Fed.  R. 

221,  487, 1158 

Coffin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  379,  2354 

Coffin  v.  Ransdell,  110  Ind.  417, 

131,  132,  133, 166 

Coffin  v.  Rich,  45  Me.  507,  212, 1169 

Coffin  v.  United  States,  156  TJ.  S.  432,          2638 
Cofield  v.  McCabe,  58  Minn.  218,  1990 

Coggin  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  62  Ga.  685,  461 

Coggs  v.  Bernard,  2  Ld.  Raym.  909, 

2163,  2268, 2269 

Coghill  v.  State,  37  Ind.  Ill,  1049 

Cogsbill  v.  Railway  Co.,  92  Ala.  252,  1320 

Cogswell  v.  Essex  Mill  Corp.,  6  Pick. 

(Mass.)  94,  1538 

Cogswell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

N.  Y.  10,  903, 1036, 1564, 163$ 

Cogswell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48 

N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  3,  1439 

Cogswell  v.  West,  etc.,  Elec.  Ry.  Co.,  5 

Wash.  46,  1590,  2179,  2558 

Cohen,  In  re,  5  Cal.  494,  787 

Cohen  v.  City  of  Cleveland,  43  Ohio  St. 
i  •  190,  1441, 1459, 1640 

Cohen  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,  69  N.  Y.  170,    299,  1990 
Cohen  v.  Eureka,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Nev. 

376,  1760 

Cohen  v.  Frost,  2  Duer  (N.  Y.)  335,  2620 

Cohen  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Fed. 

R.  227,  37,  940 

Coheii  v.  Solomon,  66  Fed.  R.  411,  678 

Cohen  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Mo. 

App.  66,  2616 

Cohen  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Kan. 

158,  1445, 1446,  1447,  1539 

Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  264,     941 
Cohn  v.  Neeves,  40  Wis.  393,  1033 

Cohoon  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Iowa 

169,  1826 

Coit  v.  North  Carolina  Gold,  etc.,  Co.,  14 

Fed.  R.  12,  132, 166 

Colburn  v.  Swett,  1  Mete.  (Mass.)  232,        1027 
Colcough  v.  City  of  Milwaukee,  (Wis.) 

65  N.  W.  R.  1039,  1640 

Colcough  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Head.  (Tenn.)  171, 

1452, 1454, 1456, 1483, 1488, 1489, 1492, 1539 
Cole  v.  Butler,  43  Me.  401,  270 

Cole  v.  Cassidy,  138  Mass.  437,  384 

Cole  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Wis.  272,    2708 
Cole  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Wis.  114, 

2058,  2059 
Cole  v.  Cunningham,  133  U.  S.  107,         772,  895 


III,  pp.  1263-216^,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 

Cole  v.  Drew,  44  Vt.  49,  1628 

Cole  v.  Fall  Brook,  etc.,  Co.,  87  Hun  584,    2713 
Cole  v.  Goodwin,  19  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  251, 

2208,  2282,  2315,  2316,  2321 

Cole  v.  Juliet,  etc.,  Co.,  79  111.  96,  209 

Cole  v.  Knickerbocker,  etc.,  Co.,  23  Hun 

255,  864 

Cole  v.  La  Grange,  113  U.  S.  1,  1140 

Cole  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.) 

63  N.  W.  R.  647,  1904 

Cole  v.  Oil  Well,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Fed.  R.  534,    773 
Cole  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Hun  467, 

2040,2047 
Cole  v.  Satsop  R.  Co.,  9  Wash.  487, 

161, 173,  732,  796, 
Cole  v.  West  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Beav. 

242,  1272 

Cole,  etc.,  Min.  Co.  v.  Virginia,  etc.,  Co., 

1  Sawyer  478,  1130 

Colegrave  v.  Dias  Santos,  2  B.  &  C.  76,        536 
Colegrove  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

N.  Y.  492,  1799,  2570 

Coleman  v.  Andrews,  48  Me.  562,        1533, 1534 
Coleman  v.  Coleman,  78  Ind.  344,  24,  271 

Coleman  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mich. 

160,  1840 

Coleman  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Ga.  1, 

2456,2545 

Coleman  v.  Kentucky  Cent.  R.  Co.,  (Ky.) 

33  S.  W.  R.  945,  1955 

Coleman  v.  Lambert,  5  M.  &  W.  502,  2422 

Coleman  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 

Mass.  160,  2485,  2581 

Coleman  v.  Riches,  16  Com.  B.  104,  2204 

Coleman  v.  Salisbury,  52  Ga.  470,  787 

Coleman  v.  San  Rafael  Turnpike  Co.,  49 

Cal.  517,  536 

Coleman  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  38  N.  Y. 

201,  371 

Coleman  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  114  N.  Y. 

609,  2563 

Coleman  v.  Spencer,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.)  197, 

146,256 

Coleman  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Minn. 

260,  1120, 1123, 1124 

Coleman  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

S.  Car.  446, 

Coleman  v.  White,  14  Wis.  700,  262 

Coler  v.  Board  County  Com'rs  Santa  Fe 

County,  (N.  M.)  27  Pac.  R.  619,       1158, 1239 
Coles  v.  Kennedy,  81  Iowa  360,  191 

Colfax,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lyon,  69  Iowa  683,          157 
Colgate  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  120, 

2214,  2215,  2376 

Colglazier  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 
Fed.  R.  568,  B35 


cxxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
{  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


CoUenberg,  The  Brig,  1  Black  (U.  S.)  170, 

2301,2420 
Collender  v.  Dinsmore,  55  N.  Y.  200, 

2213,  2359 
Collett  v.  London,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  16  Q.  B. 

984,  2175 

Collier  v.  Coggins,  103  Ala.  281,  2120 

Collier  v.  Collier,  3  Ohio  St.  369,  419,  425 

Collier  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Ga.  611,    1653 
Collier  v.  Swinney,  16  Mo.  484,  2290 

CoUingwood  v.  Berkeley,  15  C.  B.  N.  S.  145,    19 
Collins  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  Ala. 

390,  2371 

Collins  v.  Barnes,  83  Pa.  St.  15,  1582 

Collins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Cush. 

506,  2611, 2624 

Collins  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Exch. 

790,  2237, 2238 

Collins  v.  Campbell,  62  Fed.  R.  850,  941 

Collins  v.  Central  Bank  of  Georgia,  1  Kelly 

(Ga.)  435,  660 

Collins  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Wis.  49,    457 
Collins  v.  Davidson,  19  Fed.  R.  83,  1789 

Collins  v.  Dorchester,  6  Cush.  (Mass.)  396, 

1797 
Collins  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Heisk. 

841,  1744 

Collins  v.  Godefroy,  1  Barn.  &  Adol.  950,      371 
Collins  v.  Hammock,  59  Ala.  448,  875 

Collins  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  N. 

Y.  Supp.  701,  1779 

Collins  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  499,  1898, 1926 

Collins  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y. 

S.  942,  1771 

CoUins  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  N.  Y. 

243,  1940 

Collins  v.  Rupe,  109  Ind.  340,  1502 

CoUins  v.  Sherman,  31  Miss.  679,  48 

Collins  v.  South  Boston  R.  Co.,  142  Mass. 

301,  1647, 1978 

CoUins  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Mich. 

390,  25S9 

CoUis  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  71  Hun 

504,  1741 

CoUman  v.  CoUins,  2  HaU  (N.  Y.)  569,        2443 
Colman  v.  Eastern  Counties  R.  Co.,  10 

Beav.  1,  508,  511,  578,  620 

Colman  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  RusseU 

&  M.  181,  515 

Colman  v.  Eastern  Counties  R.  Co.,  10 

Beav.  1,  243,  389,  393,  872 

Coloma  v.  Eaves,  92  U.  S.  484, 

1153, 1163, 1202,  1225, 1236,  1238,  1243 
Colombo,  The,  3  Blatchf.  521,  2207 

Colonial  Bank  v.  Cady,  63  L.  T.  R.  27.          llo 


Colonial  Bank  v.  Hepworth,  36  Ch.  Div. 

36,  144 

Colorado  Company  v.  Commissioners,  95 

U.  S.  259,  1097 

Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  13  Colo. 

229,  1294, 1463,  1491, 1492,  1497, 1502 

Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  15  Colo. 

193,  1512 

Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  CaldweU,   11 

Colo.  545,  1851 

Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holmes,-5  Colo. 

197,  1768 

Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  28  Fed. 

R.  193,  1«3 

Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lamb,  (Colo.)  40 

Pac.  R.  251,  2027,  2153 

Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Naylon,  17  Colo. 

501,  2077, 2088 

Colorado,  etc.,  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  16  Colo. 

219,  1563 

Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ogden,  3  Colo. 

499,  1998,  2027,  2063 

Colorado,  etc.,  R.  v.  Ruedi,  2  Colo.  App. 

202,  1485 

Colorado  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  5  Cal. 

160,  1542 

Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Union  Pac.  Ry. 

Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  293, 

63, 1265, 1266, 1270, 1345, 1384, 1683, 1687, 1693, 2454 
Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Union  P.  R.  Co., 

(C.  C.  D.  Colo.)  7  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J. 

373,  1343, 1353 

Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Union,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  44  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  10,  7, 1361 

Colorado  Springs,  City  of,  v.  Smith,  19 

Colo.  554,  2672 

Colquitt  v.  Howard,  11  Ga.  556,  385 

Colt  v.  Barnes,  64  Ala.  108,  660 

Colt  v.  Brown,  12  Gray  (Mass.)  233,  796 

Colt  v.  WooUaston,  2  P.  Wms.  154,  19 

Colter  v.  Frese,  45  Ind.  96,  1581 

Colton  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Pa. 

St.  211, 

Coiton  v.  Onderdonk,  69  Cal.  155,  1567 

Columbia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bason,  1  Harp.  L. 

(S.  Car.)  262,  2268 

Columbia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chilberg,  6  Wash. 

612,  1063 

Columbia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Meier,  39  Mo.  53,    26,  231 
Columbia,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.  v.  Geise,  34  N. 

J.  Law  268,  1489, 1491 

Columbia  Delaware  Bridge  Co.  v.  Geisse, 

35  N.  J.  Law  474,  36  N.  J.  Law  537,  1522 

Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  FarreU,  31  Ind. 

408,  2549 

Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Farrington,  1 

Wash.  202,  1936 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXXV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  VoL  I,  pp.  1-WS,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 
Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawthorne,  144         | 

U.  S.  202,  2117,  2708,  2723 

Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prosser,  4  Wash. 

816,  I*03 

Columbia  Finance,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kentucky, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Fed.  R.  794, 

651,  653,  676,  715,  716 
Columbian  Athletic  Club  v.  State,  143  Ind. 

98,  515,  749,  903 

Columbian  Bank,  In  re,  147  Pa.  St.  422,  141 
Columbian  Book  Co.  v.  DeGolyer,  115 

Mass.  67,  807 

Columbian  Ins.  Co.  v.  Catlett,  12  Wheat. 

(U.  S.)  383,  2427 

Columbian  Ins.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  37  N.Y.  536,  812 
Columbus  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Ind.  294,  1288, 1289 

Columbus  v.  Columbus  Street  R.  Co.,  45 

Ohio  St.  98, 

Columbus  v.  Dennison,  69  Fed.  R.  58,  1215 
Columbus,  etc.,  Co.  v.Wright,  89  Ga.  574,  1092 
Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arnold,  31  Ind. 

174>  2076, 2085 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Com- 
missioners, 65  Ind.  427,  1175 
Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Braden,  110  Ind. 

558,  I303 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bradford,  86  Ala. 

574)  2124, 2126 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bridges,  86  Ala. 

448,  2124 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Farrell,  31  Ind. 

408,  .  2546' 2549 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flournoy,  75  Ga. 

745)  2351, 2355 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Indianapolis, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  McLean  450,  490 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  78  Ga. 

646,  1025' 2347 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ludden,  89  Ala. 

612)  2278, 2366 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Powell,  40  Ind. 
37>  295,  296,  461,  2457 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simpson,  5  Ohio 

St.  251,  "24 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Skidmore,  69  111. 

566)  452, 160,  469 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tillman,  79  Ga. 

607, 
Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Waston,  26  Ind. 

50,  I300 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  52 

Ohio  St.-  1327 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Witherow,  82 

Ala.  190,       899,  900, 1483, 1491, 1546, 1612, 1651 


III,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-2725.] 

Columbus  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Woolfolk, 

94  Ga,  507,  2H«> 

Columbus,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wright,  151 

U.  S.  470,  1077, 1092,  261:; 

Colvill  v.  Langdon,  22  Minn.  565,  1548 

Colvill  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Minn. 

283,  1433, 1442, 1526 

Colvin,  In  re,  3  Md.  Ch.  278,  784,  829 

ColweU  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  57  Hun  452,    2564 
Comanche  County  v.  Lewis,  133  U.  S.  198, 

30,1237 

Comba  v.  Smith,  78  Mo.  32,  814 

Combe  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  L.  T.  R. 

(N.  S.)  613,  2295,  2406,  2408 

Combes  v.  Keyes,  89  Wis.  297,  863 

Comeau  v.  Guild  Farm  Oil  Co.,  3  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  218,  146 

Comer  v.  Bray,  83  Ala.  217,  786,  794 

Comer  v.  Felton,  61  Fed.  R.  731,  800,  803 

Comer  v.  Newman,  95  Ga.  434,  1933 

Comly  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  (Pa.  St.) 

12  Atl.  R.  496,  2550 

Commercial  Bank  v.  Cunningham,  24 

Pick.  (Mass.)  270,  366,367 

Commercial  Bank   v.    Nolan,    7   How. 

(Miss.)  508, 

Commercial  Bank  v.  Pfeiffer,  22  Hun  327,  221S 
Commercial  Bank  v.  State,  6  Smedes  & 

M.  599,  76,  77,  84,  85 

Commercial  Bank  v.  Ten  Eyck,  48  N.  Y. 

308,  382 

Commercial,  etc.,  Bank  v.   Corbett,   5 

Sawy.  (U.  S.)  172,  776 

Commercial  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Board,  99  Ala. 

jt  347,  417,  868 

Commercial  Nat.  Bank  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  (111.)  43  N.  E.  R.  756, 
Commercial  Nat.  Bank  v.  Gibson,  37  Neb. 

750,  25ft 

Commercial  Nat.  Bank  v.  lola,  2  Dillon 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  353, 
Comings  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  48  Mo. 

512, 
Commissioners  of  Knox  County  v.  Aspm- 

wall,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  539, 

633, 1202, 1203, 1237, 1239, 1248 
Commissioners  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  B. 

Co.,  77  N.  Car.  289,  619,638 

Commissioners  v.  Bailey,  11  Kan.  631, 
Commissioners  v.  Bolles,  94  U.  S.  104, 

629, 1202, 1236, 1237,  1239, 1245 
Commissioners  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

91  Mich.  291, 

Commissioners  v.  Clark,  94  U.  S.  278,    1256, 124, 
Commissioners  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  K 

Mich.  58, 
Commissioners  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  il  i   '• 

St.  339, 


CXXXV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-lttg,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1,1,3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Commissioners  v.  Holyoke,  etc.,  Co.,  104 

Mass.  446,  93 

Commissioners  v.  Hunt,  33  Ohio  St.  169,  1257 
Commissioners  v.  January,  94  U.  S.  202, 

1236, 1247 
Commissioners  v.  League,  129  U.  S.  494, 

1213,  1258, 1259, 1260 
Commissioners  v.  Long,  1  Pars.  Eq.  Cas. 

(Pa.)  143,  .  902 

Commissioners  v.  Means,  7  Ired.  (Law) 

406,  1103 

Commissioners  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  K.  Co., 

90  Mich.  385,  1387, 1664 

Commissioners  v.  Miller,  7  Kan.  479,  162 

Commissioners  v.  North  German  Lloyd, 

etc.,  Co.,  92  U.  S.  259,  1083 

Commissioners  v.  O'Sullivan,  17  Kan.  58,  1427 
Commissioners  v.  Paola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Kan.  534,  1211 

Commissioners  v.  Purdy,  13  Abb.    Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  434,  1029 

Commissioners  v.  Smith,  48  Kan.  331,  1013 
Commissioners  v.  Supervisors,  27  111.  140,  1559 
Commissioners  v.  Thayer,  94  U.  S.  631,  628 
Commissioners  v.  Thompson,  15  Ala.  134,  1479 
Commissioners  v.  Withers,  29  Miss.  21,  1400 
Commissioners'  Court  v.  Bowie,  34  Ala. 

461,  1385 

Commissioners'  Court  v.  Rather,  48  Ala. 

433,  1169, 1262 

Common  Council  v.  Croas,  7  Ind.  9,  1628 

Commonwealth  v.  Allegheny,  etc.,  Co., 

20  Pa.  St.  185,  76 

Commonwealth  v.  Allen,  148  Pa.  St.  358,  1639 
Commonweath  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

53  Pa.  St.  9,  447,  451 

Commonwealth  v.  Bakeman,  105  Mass. 

53,  1049, 1050 

Commonwealth  v.  Blue  Hill  Turnp.  Co., 

5  Mass.  420,  1508 

Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  297,  1035 

Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Cush.  (Mass.)  25,  1440 

Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

Cush.  512,  1034,  2142 

Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101 

Mass.  201,  1752 

Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121 

Mass.  36,  2126 

Commonwealth  v.  Boiton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126 

Mass.  61,  1035 

Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129 

Mass.  500,  2547,  2550 

Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133 

Mass.  383,  1035, 1042,  1759,  2137 


Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  134 

Mass.  211,  1034,  2137 

Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135 

Mass.  550,  1039 

Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142 

Mass.  146,  128,  133,  141,  439 

Commonwealth  v.  Breed,  4  Pick.  (Mass.) 

460,  84 

Commonwealth  v.  Carey,  12  Cush.  (Mass.) 

246,  1052 

Commonwealth  v.  Carroll,  145  Mass.  403, 

452,  1051 
Commonwealth  v.  Central  Pass.  R.  Co.,  52 

Pa.  St.  506,       25,  58,  79,  85, 133,  859, 1288, 1612 
Commonwealth  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co., 

32  Md.  501,  632,  633,  636,  706 

Commonwealth  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  (Ky.)  29  S.  W.  Rep.  136,  1042, 1708 

Commonwealth  v.  City  of  Frankfort,  92 

Ky.  149,  1637 

Commonwealth  v.  Commercial  Bank,  28 

Pa.  St.  383,  927 

Commonwealth  v.  Commissioners,  8  Pick. 

343,  1511 

Commonwealth  v.  Commissioners,  37  Pa. 

St.  237,  1248 

Commonwealth  v.  Commissioners,  32  Pa. 

St.  218,  1258 

Commonwealth  v.  Connecticut  River  R. 

Co.,  15  Gray  (Mass.)  447,  2624 

Commonwealth  v.  Councils  of  Pittsburgh, 

88  Pa.  St.  66,  1258 

Commonwealth  v.  Councils  of  Pittsburgh, 

41  Pa.  St.  278,  1249 

Commonwealth  v.  Crompton,  137  Pa.  St. 

138,  144 

Commonwealth  v.  Cullen,   (Pa.)  53  Am. 

Dec.  450,  70 

Commonwealth  v.  Cullen,  13  Pa.  St.  133, 

71,  237,  335,  349,  350 
Commonwealth    v.  Davenger,    10  Phila. 

(Pa.)  478,  1028 

Commonwealth  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal 

Co.,  43  Pa.  St.  295,  129 

Commonwealth  v.  Detwiller,  131  Pa.  St. 

614,  233,  338,  370 

Commonwealth  v.  Duane,  98  Mass.  1,  956 

Commonwealth  v.  East  Boston,  etc.,  Co., 

13  Allen  589,  2137 

Commonwealth   v.    Eastern    R.  Co.,  103 

Mass.  254,  920,  921,  975, 1002,  1041, 1381 

Commonwealth  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  5  Gray 

(Mass.)  473,  1034,  2126,  2142 

Commonwealth  v.  East  Term.  Coal  Co., 

(Ky.)  30  S.  W.  R.  608,  34 

Commonwealth  v.  Emigrant,  etc.,  Bank, 

98  Mass.  12,  630 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  M3-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 


Commonwealth  v.  Equitable  Assn.,  137  Pa. 

St.  412,  2156 

Commonwealth  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Pa. 

St.  339,    56,  57,  58,  62,  475, 1038, 1563, 1612, 1670 
Commonwealth  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Transp.  Co., 

107  Pa.  St.  112,  66 

Commonwealth   v.   Essex   Co.,    13  Gray 

(Mass.)  239,  92 

Commonwealth  v.  Fayette,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

55  Pa.  St.  452,  66,  89 

Commonwealth  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  12 

Gray  (Mass.)  180, 

5,  82,  595,  596,  917,  923,  958, 1009, 1289 
Commonwealth  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  8 

Cush.  (Mass.)  240,  1264 

Commonwealth  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  120 

Mass.  372,  1035 

Commonwealth  v.  Fowler,  10  Mass.  290,  87 
Commonwealth  v.  Frankfort,  92  Ky.  149,  1613 
Commonwealth  v.  Franklin  Canal  Co.,  21 

Pa.  St.  117,  78 

Commonwealth  v.  Frost,  5  Mass.  53,  1028 

Commonwealth  v.  Great  Berrington,  6 

Mass.  492,  1528 

Commonwealth  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

14  Gray  (Mass.)  379,  1656, 1670 

Commonwealth  v.  Has,  122  Mass.  40,  2647 
Commonwealth  v.  Hemingway,  131  Pa. 

St.  614,  25,  337 

Commonwealth  v.  Hicks,  7  Allen  (Mass.) 

573,  1050 

Commonwealth  v.  Housatonic,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  143  Mass.  264,  951 

Commonwealth  v.  Howard,  13  Mass.  221,  1027 
Commonwealth  v.  Inhabitants  of  Will- 

iamstown,  156  Mass.  70,  1215, 1250 

Commonwealth  v.  Jeandell,  2  Grant's 

Cas.  (Pa.)  506,  1035 

Commonwealth  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Pa.  St.)  17  Atl.  R.  179,  2655 

Commonwealth  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co., 

165  Pa.  St.  162,  995, 1020 

Commonwealth  v.  Louisville  Bridge  Co., 

42  Fed.  R.  241,  943 

Commonwealth  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

80  Ky.  291,  1035 

Commonwealth  v.  Marshall,  69  Pa.  St. 

328,  1197 

Commonwealth  v.  McCaully,  2  Pa.  Dist. 

R.  63,  1049 

Commonwealth  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  107  Mass.  236,  1035,  2131 

Commonwealth  v.  Milton,  12  B.  Mon.  222,  342 
Commonwealth  v.  Milliamston,  156  Mass. 

70,  1162 

Commonwealth  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Gray  (Mass.)  54,  1036 


Commonwealth  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

93  Ky.  430,  594 

Commonwealth  v.  New  Bedford,  etc.,  Co., 

2  Gray  (Mass.)  339,  1036 

Commonwealth,  ex  rel.,  v.  New  York,  etc., 

Co.,  (Pa.)  7  L.  R.  A.  634,  45 

Commonwealth  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

10  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  129,  66,  81 

Commonwealth  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

114  Pa.  St.  340,  565 

Commonwealth  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

129  Pa.  463,  45 

Commonwealth  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

132  Pa.  St.  591,  565 

Commonwealth  v.  Northeastern  El.  Ry. 

Co.,  161  Pa.  St.  409,  11 

Commonwealth  v.  Northeastern  El.  Ry. 

Co.,  (Pa.  Com.  PI.)  3  Pa.  Dis.  R.  104,          11 
Commonwealth  v.  Ohio.,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  1 

Grant's  Case  (Penn.)  329,  297 

Commonwealth  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  80 

Mass.  (14  Gray)  93,  1274 

Commonwealth  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R 

Co.,  14  Gray  (Mass.)  93,  1563, 1638, 1650 

Commonwealth  v.  Patterson,  158  Pa.  St. 

476,  227 

Commonwealth  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  Co., 

66  Pa.  St.  41,  962 

Commonwealth  v.  Perry,  155  Mass.  117,  963 
Commonwealth  v.  Peters,  2  Mass.  125,  1417 
Commonwealth  v.  Phenix  Bank,  11  Mete. 

(Mass.)  129,  32 

Commonwealth  v.  Phenix,  etc.,  Co.,  105 

Pa.  St.  Ill,  364 

Commonwealth  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  3  Pa.  Dist.  R.  115,  247 

Commonwealth  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co., 

164  Pa.  St.  252,  1063 

Commonwealth  v.  Phoenix  Iron  Co.,  105 

Pa.  St.  Ill,  248 

Commonwealth  v.  Piper,  120  Mass.  185,  2715 
Commonwealth  v.  Pittsburgh,  41  Pa.  St. 

278,  1224 

Commonwealth  v.  Pittsburgh,  34  Pa.  St. 

496,  1212, 1258, 1259 

Commonwealth  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  58  Pa.  St.  26, 

37,  75,  79,  82,  90,  91,  1267, 1418,  1419, 1467 
Commonwealth  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

74  Pa.  St.  83,  '  431,  439,  440 

Commonwealth  v.  Power,  7  Mete.  596, 

282,  285,  286,  288,  411,  2491,  2672 
Commonwealth  v.  Proprietors,  etc.,  2  Gray 

339,  91, 104, 1020, 1618 

Commonwealth  v.  Railroad  Co.,  24  Pa.  St. 

159,  902 


cxl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  VJ-1232,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-n6k,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Commonwealth  v.  Ray,  3  Gray  (Mass.) 

441,  1054 

Commonwealth  v.  Sanford,  12  Gray  174,    2137 
Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  10  Allen  448, 

100, 106,  619,  630,  631,  637,  869 
Commonwealth  v.  South  Pa.  E.  Co.,  1  Co. 

Ct.  (Pa.)  214,  142 

Commonwealth  v.  Stevens,  (Pa.)  32  Atl. 

R.  Ill,  229 

Commonwealth  v.  Susquehanna,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  122  Pa.  St.  306, 

634,  655,  669,  671,  673,  684,  696,  706,  755 
Commonwealth  v.  Swift  Run  Gap  Turn- 
pike, 2  Va.  Cas.  332,  1019 
Commonwealth   v.   Temple,    14    Gray 

(Mass.)  69,  1644 

Commonwealth  v.  Tenth  Mass.  Turnpike 

Co.,  5  Gush.  (Mass.)  509,  1288 

Commonwealth  v.  Tuckerman,  10  Gray, 

(Mass.)  73,  1053 

Commonwealth  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163 

Pa.  St.  22,  1619 

Commonwealth  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

108  Mass.  7,  2148,  2457 

Commonwealth  v.  Vrooman,  (Pa.)  25  L. 

R.  A.  250,  2  I 

Commonwealth  v.  Watmough,  6  Whart. 

(Pa.)  117,  146 

Commonwealth  v.  Weller,  82  Va.  721,         1133 
Commonwealth  v.  West  Chester,  9  Pa.  Co. 

Ct.  R.  542,  1621 

Commonwealth  v.  Wester  Co.,  3  Grant 

Cas.  (Pa.)  200,  22 

Commonwealth  v.  Wickersham,  66  Pa.  St. 

134,  232 

Commonwealth  v.  Williams,  6  Gray  1,         993 
Commonwealth  v.  Wilson,  14  Phila.  384,     957 
Commonwealth  v.  Wilson,  37  Legal  In- 
telligencer (Pa.)  484,  56  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

Cas.  230,  1048 

Commonwealth  v.  Winchester,  3  Pa.  L. 

J.  Rep.  34,  1028 

Commonwealth  v.  Worcester,  3   Pick. 

(Mass.)  462,  277 

Commonwealth,  v.  Woods,  44  Pa.  St.  113, 

1100, 1103 
Commonwealth  v.  Young,  11  Phila.  (Pa.) 

606,  809 

Compton  v.  Jesup,  68  Fed.  R.  263, 

475,  769,  716 

Compton  v.  Shaw,  1  Hun  (N.  Y.)  441,         2444 
Compton  v.  Susquehanna  R.  Co.,  3  Bland 

Ch.  386,  1547 

Compton  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  45  Ohio 

St.  592,  463,  465 

Comstock  v.  Buchanan,  57  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

127,  137 


Comstock  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  Railroad 

Co.,  32  111.  376,  1819, 1836 

Conant  v.  Bellows  Falls,  etc.,  Co.,  29  Vt. 

263,  554 

Conant  v.  Griffin,  48  111.  410,  2126 

Conant  v.  Reed,  1  Ohio  St.  298,  151 

Conant  v.  VanSchaick,  24  Barb.  (N.Y.)  87, 

266,267 
Conard  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Peters 

(U.  S.)  386,  2215 

Concord  v.  Concord  Horse  R.,  65  N.  H.  30, 

1613 
Concord  v.  Portsmouth  Savings  Bank,  92 

U.  S.  625,  356, 1196,  1240 

Concord  v.  Robinson,  121  U.  S.  165, 

1145, 1153, 1168, 1174,  1215,  1216,  1241 
Concord  Bank  v.  Bellis,  10  Cush.  276,  553 

Concord,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Forsaith,  59  N.  H. 

122,  2666 

Concord  R.  Co.  v.  Greely,  23  N.  H.  237, 

1457,  1512, 1515, 1516 
Concord  R.  Co.  v.  Greely,  17  N.  H.  47, 

1335,  1337,  1339, 1340,  1341, 1342,  1344,  1353, 1481 
Condict  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Lans.  (Mich.)  106,  2429 

Condict  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y. 

500,  2225,  2227,  2229,  2242,  2267,  2306,  2307 

Condon  v.  Marquette.etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Mich. 

218,  2194,  2241,  2242,  2248 

Condon  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Mo. 

567,  2088, 2706 

Condran  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Fed. 

R.  522,  2463 

Condy  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Mo. 

App.  588,  2476 

Concordia  Cemetery  Assn.  v.  Minnesota, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  111.  199,  1512 

Cone  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  N.  Y. 

206,  2051 

Cone's  Exrs.  v.  Russell,  48  N.  J.  Eq.  208,      234 
Cone,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Poole,  (S.  C.)  24  L.  R.  A. 

289,  33,  45,  873 

Coney  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  12  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  451,  1263 

Coney  Island,  etc.,    R.   Co.  v.   Brooklyn 

Cable  Co.,  53  Hun  (N.  Y.)  169,  591,  592 

Confiscation  Cases,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  454,     1028 
Congdon  v.  Central  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

56  Vt.  390,  1816 

Congar  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Wis. 

157,  2209,  2309,  2365,  2380 

Congar  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Wis. 

477,  410,  878,  2214,  2221,  2360,  2694 

Conger  v.  "Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

Iowa  419,  1325,  1327,  1540,  1541,  1549,  1559 

Conger  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  111.  366,    1823 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxli 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-V&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Conger  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 

Ont.  160,  2143 

Conger  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

Duer  (N.  Y.)  375,  2304,  2400 

Conger  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Minn. 

207,  2581 

Congregation,  etc.,  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

41  Fed.  R.  564,  1314 

Conkey  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 

Wis.  619,  2194,  2238,  2256 

Conkey  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis. 

541,  2241 

Conklin  v.  Furman,  8  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S. 

(N.  Y.)  161,  258 

Conklin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

N.  Y.  107,  1564, 1676 

Conkling  v.  Butler,  4  Biss.  (U.  S.)  22,  762 

Conkling  v.  Ridgely,  112  111.  36,  778 

Conlan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Hun 

115,  1949 

Conlin  v.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.    Co.,    15 

Rich.  Law  201,  2126 

Conlon  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  135  Mass.  195, 

1587, 1592,  1984 

Conly  v.  Palmer,  2  N.  Y.  182,  1030 

Conn  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Fed.  R. 

1771,  44,936 

Connable  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Iowa 

27,  1486,  1555 

Connecticut,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cushman,  108 

U.  S.  51,  1012 

Connecticut  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cleveland, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  9,     357,  631,  626 
Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bailey,  24  Vt. 

465,  88, 158, 164, 170, 196, 197,  213,  214 

Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  County  Com- 
missioners, 127  Mass.  50,  975 
Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baxter,  32  Vt. 

805,  183, 186 

Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  73  N.  Y.  399,  1914, 1916 

Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holton,  32  Vt. 

43,  1424 

Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clapp,  1  Cush. 

559,  1511, 1530 

Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Conn.  265,  1914 

Connell's  Exr.  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Va.)  24  S.  E.  R.  467,  2585,  2588 

Connell  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Miss.)  7 

So.  R.  344,  2454,  2465 

Connell  v.  Western,  etc.,  Telegraph  Co., 

108  Mo.  459,  2320 

Connelly  v.  Dickson,  76  Ind.  440,  735,  777 

Connelly  v.  Hamilton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163 

Mass.  156,  2034,  2054,  2113 


III,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Conner  v.  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.) 

19  S.  W.  R.  597,  900 

Conner  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Mo. 

W9,  1594 

Conner  v.  Paul,  12  Bush  144,  2146 

Conner  v.  Skagit,  etc.,  Coal  Co.,  45  Fed. 

R.  802,  944 

Conner  v.  Winton,  8  Ind.  315,  2163 

Conners  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Iowa  383,  2019 

Conners  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  71 

Iowa  490,  2131 

Conners  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

Iowa  147,  2037 

Connerton  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  169 

Pa.  St.  339,  1773, 1784 

Connolly  v.  Crescent  City  R.  Co.,  41  La. 

Ann.  57,  2576 

Connolly  v.  City  of  Waltham,  156  Mass. 

368,  2105, 2106 

Connolly  v.  Knickerbocker  Ice  Co.,  114 

N.  Y.  104,  2557 

Connolly  v.  Warren,  106  Mass.  146,  2609,  2610 
Connor  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N.  H.) 

30  Atl.  R.  1121,  2590 

Connor  v.  Giles,  76  Me.  132,  2720 

Connor  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  1  L. 

R.  A.  331,  32 

Connors  v.  Holden,  152  Mass.  598,  2120 

Conover  v.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  40  Mo.  App. 

31,  2326, 2338 

Conover  v.  Ruckman,  33  N.  J.  Eq.  303,  892 
Conrad  v.  Gray,  (Ala.)  19  So.  R.  398,  2064 
Conro  v.  Gray,  4  How.  Pr.  166, 

736,  748,  750,  752,  757 
Conro  v.  Port  Henry,  etc.,  Co.,  12  Barb.  27, 

246,  291,  333, 358,  736 

Conroy  v.  Vulcan  Iron  Works,  62  Mo.  35,  2039 
Conshohocken  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 

Co.,  15  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  445,  1674 

Consolidated  Assn.  v.  Avegno,  28  La. 

Ann.  552,  628, 1221 

Consolidated,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Clay,  (Ohio)  38 

N.  E.  R.  610,  2035 

Consolidated  Channel  Co.  v.  Central  Pac. 

R.  Co.,  51  Cal.  269,  1339,  1344 

Consolidated  Nat.  Bank  v.  Fidelity,  etc., 

Co.,  67  Fed.  R.  874,  329 

Consolidated,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haenni,  146 

111.  614,  2021,  2029 

Consolidated  Tank  Line  Co.  v.  Kansas 

City,  etc.,  Co. ,  45  Fed.  R.  7,  855 

Consolidated  Traction  Co.  v.  Taborn, 

(N.  J.)  32  Atl.  R.  685,  2506 

Constable  v.  National,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U.  S. 

51,  2182,  2307,  2332,  2371 


cxlii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  H4S-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Consumers',  etc.,  Trust  Co.  v.  Harless, 

131  Ind.  446,  1331, 1338,  1551 

Consumers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Huntsinger,  14 

Ind.  App.  156,  1460 

Content  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mass.) 

43  N.  E.  R.  94,  1999 

Continental,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ives,  30  Mich. 

448,  1808 

Continental,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stead,  95  U.  S.  161, 

1644, 1736, 1737, 1738,  1747, 1748, 1749, 1755, 1761, 
1762, 1767,  1771,  2717 
Continental  Nat.  Bank  v.  Eliot,  etc.,  Bk., 

7  Fed.  R.  369,  145, 146 

Continental  Trust  Co.  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  E. 

Co.,  59  Fed.  E.  514,  789,  792 

Contra  Coota  R.  Co.  v.  Moss,  23  Cal.  323, 

50,  61,  1267,  1353,  1362,  1393,  1493,  1494,  2167, 

2279,  2454 
Convers  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  18 

Mich.  459,  1463 

Converse  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  N.  H. 

521,  2376 

Converse  v.  Brainerd,  27  Conn.  607,  2264 

Converse  v.  City  of  Ft.  Scott,  92  U.  S.  503,   1231 
Converse  v.  Dimock,  22  Fed.  R.  573,  757 

Converse  v.  Fort  Scott,  92  U.  S.  503,  1169 

Converse  v.  Hood,  149  Mass.  471,  912 

Converse  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  Co.,  45  Fed.  R. 

18,  675,  678,  680 

Converse  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  Trans.  Co.,  33 

Conn.  166,  413,  2190,  2194,  2226,  2241,  2244 

Conway  v.  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Ir.  R. 

C.  L.  345,  2084 

Conway  v.  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ir.  Rep.  9 

C.  L.  498,  2080 

Conway  v.  City  of  St.  Louis,  9  Mo.  App. 

488,  343 

Conway  v.  John,  14  Colo.  30,  146 

Conway  v.  Lewiston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Me. 

283,  2180 

Conway  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Hun  639,    1767 
Conwell  v.  Lawrence,  46  Kan.  83,  802 

Conwell  v.  Town  of  Connersville,  15  Ind. 

150,  1057 

Conwell  v.  White  Water  Canal  Co.,  4  Biss. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  195,  762 

Conyers  v.  Ennis,  2  Mason  236,  2390 

Cook  v.  Berlin,  etc.,  Mill  Co.,  43  Wis.  433,   377 
Cook  v.  Champlain,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Denio  91, 

1924,  2311,  2312 

Cook  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  81  Iowa  551, 

2284,  2423, 2432,  2433,  2651 

Cook  v.  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,  73  Ind.  256, 

786,  811 

Cook  v.  City  of  Beatrice,  32  Neb.  80,  1383 

Cool  v.  Crommet,  13  Me.  250,  1451 


Cook  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  45  Mich.  453, 

107,  737,  751,  773 
Cook  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  Ey.  Co.,  43  Mich. 

349,  449,  703 

Cook  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  644,  1069 

Cook  v.  Houston,  etc.,  Navigation  Co.,  76 

Tex.  353,  2463 

Cook  v.  Kuhn,  1  Neb.  472,  290 

•Cook  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  36  Wis. 

45,  608,  613,  1822,  1842,  1860,  2519 
Cook  v.  Monroe,  45  Neb.  349,  419,  420,  421 
Cook  v.  North,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  46  Ga.  618,         897 
Cook  v.  Pennsylvania,  97  U.  S.  566,  2643 
Cook  v.  Pridgen,  45  Ga.  331,                 1325, 1327 
Cook  v.'  Sherman,  20  Fed.  E.  167,          374, 1279 
Cook  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  34  Minn. 

46,  1997, 2073 
Cook  v.  State,  33  N.  J.  Eq.  474,  1064 
Cook  v.  Sumner,  etc.,  Manufacturing  Co., 

1  Sneed  698,  1153 

Cook,  County  of,  v.  Great  Western  E.  Co. 

119  111.  218,  1656, 1658, 1659 

Cook  County  v.  McCrea,  93  111.  236,  1104 

Cook  County  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  35  111.  460,    1070 
Cooke  v.  Baltimore  Traction  Co.,  80  Md. 

551,  1645 

Cooke  v.  Boston,  etc.,  133  Mass.  185, 

1642, 1661, 1673, 1984 

Cooke  v.  Gwyn,  3  Atk.  689,  776,  779 

Cooke  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  57  Mo. 

App.  471.  2402,  2408 

Coolbroth  v.  Maine,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  77  Me. 

165,  2032 

Cooley  v.  Board,  12  How.  (U.  S.)  299, 

952,  1076,  2647,  2656 
Cooley  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  Co.,  53  Minn. 

327,  892,  2388,  2444 

Coolman  v.  Fleming,  82  Ind.  117,  1493 

Coombs  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  H.  &  N. 

510,  2695 

Coombs  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  H.  &  N. 

1,  21% 

Coombs  v.  New  Bedford,  etc.,  Co.,  102 

Mass.  577,  1950,  2055 

Coon  v.  Mason  County,  22  111.  666,  1552 

Coon  v.  Plymouth,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Mich.  178,      927 
Cooney  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  9 

Wash.  292,  2048,  2072 

Coontz  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  Mo. 

652,  2013, 2088 

Coope  v.  Bowles,  28  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  10, 

792,  795 
Cooper,  etc.,  Matter  of  Application  of,  93 

N.  Y.  507,  1529 

Cooper,  Ex  parte,  11  Ch.  Div.  68,  2397 

Cooper,  In  re,  22  N.  Y.  67,  146» 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxliii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1-263- 


Cooper  v.  Anniston  &  A.  R.  Co.,  85  Ala.  106, 

898,  1504, 1553 

Cooper  v.  Berry,  21  Ga.  526,  2208,  2321 

Cooper  v.  Board,  108  Eng.  C.  L.  E.  181,       1091 
Cooper  v.  Central  Railway  Co.,  44  Iowa 

134,  2016 

Cooper  v.  Chester  R.  Co.,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  199, 

1548 

Cooper  v.  Corbin,  105  111.  224,    114,  340,  645,  703 
Cooper  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Ala. 

329,  2251,  2380,  2381 

Cooper  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136  Ind. 

366,  2462 

Cooper  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  66 

Mich.  261,  1738, 1764;  2152 

Cooper  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  4 

Exch.  Div.  88,  2488 

Cooper  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

13  N.  Y.  Sup.'Ct.  R.  276,  313 

Cooper  v.  Phillips,  4  C.  &  P.  581,  319 

Cooper  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  W. 

Va.  37,  2086 

Cooper  v.  Reynolds,  10  Wall.  (U.  S.)  308, 

886,  1475 
Cooper  v.  Richmond,  et&,  R.  Co.,  42  Fed. 

R.  697,  941 

Cooper  v.  Roberts,  18  How.  173,  1135 

Cooper  v.  Shropshire,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  13 

Jur.  443,  453 

Cooper  v.  Smith,  25  Iowa  269,  887 

Cooper  v.  State,  64  Md.  40,  930 

Cooper  v.  Sullivan  County,  65  Mo.  542,        1185 
Coopers  v.  Wolf,  15  Ohio  St.  523,  650,  653 

Coosa,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Barclay,  30  Ala.  120, 

2268,2469 
Coosaw  Mining  Co.  v.  State,  144  U.  S.  550, 

56,59 

Cope  v.  Cordova,  1  Rawle  (Pa.)  203,    2197,  2354 
Copeland   v.    Memphis,    etc.,  R.  Co.,    3 

Woods  (U.  S.)  651,  469 

Copeland   v.  New  England,  etc.,  Co.,  2 

Mete.  (Mass.)  432,  .          2333 

Copp  v.  Henniker,  55  N.  H.  176,  1337 

Coppage  v.  Hutton,  124  Ind.  401, 

27, 155, 157, 163 
Copper  Hill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Spencer,  25  Cal. 

11,  830 

Coppock  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  34  N.Y.  S. 

1039,  2543 

Coquard  v.  Prendergast,  35  Mo.  App.  237,    268 
Corbett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Wis. 

82,  2416 

Corbett  v.  Lucas,  4  McCord  323,  2703 

Corbett  v.  Twenty-third  St.  R.  Co.,  42 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  587,  1992 

Corbin  v.  American  Mills,  27  Conn.  274,      1588 


Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Corbin  v.  Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 

Iowa  73,  1510, 1557 

Corbin  v.  Van  Brunt,  105  U.  S.  576,  937 

Corby  v.  Hill,  4  Com.  B.  (N.  S.)  556,    1950, 1952 
Corcoran  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  Mass. 

507,  2718 

Corcoran  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.,  94  U.  S. 

741,  678,  680, 1260 

Corcoran  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  HL 

291,  900 

Corcoran  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R..Co.,  56  Fed. 

R.  1014,  1962 

Corcoran  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126 

N.  Y.  673,  287, 2016 

Corcoran  v.  Doll,  35  Cal.  476,  756 

Corcoran  v.  Holbrook,  59  N.  Y.  517,  2084 

Corcoran  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81 

Wis.  191,  2039 

Corcoran  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Mo. 

399,  1780 

Cordell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  Y. 

119,  1740,  1753, 1800 

Cordell  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  N.  Y.  535, 

1746,  1758 
Cordell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  N.  Y. 

330,  1762,  2064,  2718,  2721 

Corey  v.  Long,  43  How.  Pr.  492,  733 

Corey  v.  Morrill,  61  Vt.  598,  27 

Corey  v.  Probate  Judge,  56  Mich.  524,         1490 
Corey  v.  Wadsworth,  99  Ala.  68,  855 

Corfleld  v.  Coryell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  371,         2637 
Cork  v.  Blossom,  162  Mass.  330,  1592 

Cork  Distilleries  Co.  v.  Great  Southern, 

etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  7  H.  L.  269,  2352 

Cork,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  4  Ch.  App.  748,      514 
Cork,  etc.  R.  Co.  v.  Paterson,  37  Eng.  L. 

&  Eq.  Rep.  398,  449 

Cormack  v.  Digby,  9  I.  R.  C.  L.  557,  303 

Cornell  v.  Skaneateles  R.  Co.,  15  N.  Y. 

Supp.  581,  1729, 1741 

Cornell  v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  61  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  184,  725 

Corning  v.  Head,  33  N.  Y.  S.  360,  1038 

Corning  v.  Lowerre,  6  Johns.  Ch.  439,         1639 
Corning  v.  McCuUough,  1  N.  Y.  47,  270 

Corning  v.  Troy,  etc.,  Factory,  40  N.  Y. 

191,  914 

Cornman  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  H.  &  N. 

781,  2592 

Cornwall  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Ky. 

72,  900,  902, 1370, 1376 

Cornwall  v.  Sullivan,  etc.,  Co.,  28  N.  H. 

161,  1803, 1824, 1825, 1829 

Cornwall,  etc.,  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  125  Pa.  St. 

232,  907,  1683, 1685, 1707,  1710 

Corporate  Directors,  Re,  7  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R. 
178,  338 


cxliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-JU2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216*,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Corporation  v.  Winter,  1  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  91,  933 
Corporation,  etc.,  v.  Eaton,  4  Cranch  C.  C. 

352,  1026 

Corporation  of  Huddersfield,  In  re,  L.  B. 

lOCh.92,  1388 

Corporation  of  Toronto  v.  Toronto,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  15  Ont.  App.  E.  30,  36  Am.  &  Eng. 

Cas.  44.  1623 

Correll  v.  B.,  C.  E.  &  N.  E.  Co.,  38  Iowa 

120,  1025,  1738, 1761 

Corrigal  v.  London,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  5  M.  &  G. 

219,  1482,  W85 

Corrister  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  Co.,  25  Mo. 

App.  619,  307 

€orry  v.  Great  Western  E.  Co.,  L.  E.  7  Q. 

B.  D.  322,  1822 

Corry  v.  Londonderry,  etc.,  E.Co.,  29  Beav. 

263,  434 

Corso  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (La.) 

20  So.  E.  752,  2693,  2701 

Corson  v.  Maryland,  120  U.  S.  502,  996 

Cort  v.  Ambergate,  etc.,  Ey.,  17  Q.  B.  127,  1584 
Cortleyeu  v.  Hathaway,  11  N.  J.  Eq.  42,  s. 

c.  64  Am.  Dec.  478,  755 

Corwin  v.  Cowan,  12  Ohio  St.  629,  1387 

Corwin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  13  N.  Y. 

42,  967, 1810, 1815,  1830, 1841,  1849,  1864,  1867 
Corwith  v.  Hyde  Park,  14  111.  App.  635,  1551 
Cory  v.  Carter,  48  Ind.  327,  2643 

Cory  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  100  Mo.  282, 

1484, 1485, 1486,  1495,  1500, 1527 
Coryell  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  82  Mo. 

441,  1847 

Cosby  v.  Owensboro,  etc.,  Eailway  Co.,  10 

Bush  288,  560,  904, 1037, 1634, 1638 

Cosgrove  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  87  N. 

Y.  88,  1897 

Cosgrove  v.  Tebo,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  54  Mo.  495,  878 
Cosh  Murray  Co.  v.  Adair,  9  Wash.  686,  402 
Coskery  v.  Nagle,  83  Ga.  696,  2614 

Coskery  v.  Northern  Pacific  E.  Co.,  40 

Minn.  144,  2614 

Costello  v.  Seven  Hundred,  etc.,  Laths, 

44  Fod.  E.  105,  2446 

Costello  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  65  Barb. 

92,  2296 

Coster  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  24  N.  J. 

L.  730,  1370,  1523,  1535 

Coster  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  23  N.  J.  L. 

227,  1388,  1481,  1494, 1496,  1532 

Coster  v.  Tide  Water  Co.,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  54, 

1337, 1339, 1340, 1372 
Costikyan  v.  Eome,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  12  N.  Y. 

Supp.  683,  2475 

Cotchett  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  84  Ga. 

687,  2475, 2558 

Cother  v.  Midland  B.  Co.,  2  Phill.  469,         540 


Cott  v.  Lewiston  E.  Co.,  36  N.  Y.  214, 

460, 1402, 1665 

Cottage,  etc.,  Church  v.  Kendall,  121  Mass. 

528,  164 

Cottam  v.  Guest,  L.  E.  6  Q.  B.  Div.  70,  1627 
Gotten  v.  County  Commrs.,  6  Fla.  610,  1335 
Cotter  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  61  Fed. 

E.  747,  '  2721 

Getting  v.  Grant,  etc.,  Ey.  Co.,  65  Fed.  E. 

545,  20 

Cotting  v.  New  York,  etc., E.Co., 54 Conn. 

156,  121 

Cotton  v.  County  Commissioners,  6  Fla. 

610,  1140 

Cotton  v.  Davies,  1  Stra.  53,  361 

Cotton  v.  Leon  County,  6  Fla.  610,  1147 

Cotton  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  Boom  Co.,  22 

Minn.  372,  1346 

Cotton  v.  New  Providence,  47  N.  J.  Law 

401,  487 

Cotton  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  20  N.  Y. 

Supp.  347,  1728, 1734 

Cotton  v.  Wood,  8  Com.  B.  (N.  S.)  568, 

2596,  2704 

Cottrell  v.  Union  Pac.  E.  Co.,  2  Idaho  540,  963 
Cottrill  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  47  Wis. 

634,  2048, 2052 

Couch  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  22  So.  Car. 

557,  2007, 2048 

Couch  v.  Steel,  3  El.  &  Bl.  402,  1023 

Couch  v.  Watson  Coal  Co.,  46  Iowa  17,  2360 
Coudy  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  85  Mo.  79,  2703 
Coughlen  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  36  Kan. 

422,  1525 

Coughlin  v.  Tow  Boat  Co.,  151  Mass.  91,  2103 
Couglin  v.  City  of  Cambridge,  (Mass.)  44 

N.  E.  E.  218,  2106 

Coullard  v.  Tecumseh,  etc.,  151  Mass.  85,  2024 
Coulter  v.  American  Express  Co.,  56  N.  Y. 

585,  1789 

Coulter  v.  Pine  Tp.,  164  Pa.  St.  543,  2151 

Coulthurst  v.  Sweet,  L.  E.  1  C.  P.  649,  2426 
Council  Bluffs  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  E.  Co., 

45  Iowa  338,  994, 1083, 1610,  2656 

Council  Bluffs,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Bentley,  62 

Iowa  446,  1493 

Council  Grove,  etc.,v.  Lawrence,  (Kan.) 

45  Pac.  E.  125,  95 

Counterman  v.  Dublin  Township,  38  Ohio 

St.  515,  1143 

Countryman  v.  Deck,  13  Abb.  (N.  C.)  105,  561 
County  of  Allegheny  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  E. 

Co.,  51  Pa.  St.  228,  32,  38 

County  of  Bates  v.  Winters,  97  U.  S.  83, 

1164, 1224,  1225,  1231,  1234 

County  of  Beaver  v.  Armstrong,  44  Pa.  St. 
63.    '  633 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxlv 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
I  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1161,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165: 

County  of  Blue  Earth  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  28  Minn.  503,  1420, 1441,  1446 

County  of  Callaway  v.  Foster,  93  U.  S.  567, 

1145,  1170 

County  of  Carter  v.  Sinton,  120  U.  S.  517,  1218 
County  of  Cass  v.  GiUett,  100  U.  S.  585, 

1145,  1163,  1200,  1221, 1244,  1245 
County  of  Cass  v.  Johnston,  95  U.  S.  360, 

1179,  1180,  1232,  1238,  1239 

County  of  Cass  v.  Morrison,  28  Minn.  257,  1097 
County  of  Chicot  v.  Lewis,  103  U.  S.  164,  1155 
County  of  Clay  v.  Society,  etc.,  104  U.  S. 

579,  1159,  1200,  1243,  1245 

County  of  Cook  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 

119  111.  218,  1656,  1658,  1659 

County  of  Crawford  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  32  Pa.  St.  141,  198, 1210 

County  of  Daviess  v.  Huidekoper,  98  U.  S. 

93,  1204, 1222, 1236, 1239 

County  of  Erie  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  87  Pa.  St. 

434,  1068 

County  of  Greene  v.  Daniel,  102  U.  S.  ^7, 

635, 1220,  1262 
County  of  Henry  v.  Nicolay,  95  U.  S.  619, 

1145,  1159, 1170, 1224,  1254 
County  of  Jasper  v.  Ballou,  103  U.  S.  745, 

1172, 1188, 1245,  1248 

County  of  Jefferson  v.  Lewis,  20  Fla.  980,  1242 
County  of  Kankakee  v.  Aetna  Life  Ins. 

Co.,  106  U.  S.  668,  1220 

County  of  Leavenworth  v.  Barnes,  94  U.  S. 

70,  1237,  1238 

County  of  Leavenworth  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  25  Fed.  R.  219,  445,  447,  714 

County  of  Livingston  v.  Darlington,  101 

U.  S.  407,  1143,  1148,  1149,  1151 

County  of  Macon  v.  Huidekoper,  99  U.  S. 

769,  1229,  1260 

County  of  Macon  v.  Shores,  97  U.  S.  272, 

1170, 1237, 1239 

County  of  Mercer  v.  Hacket,  1  Wall.  83,  1221 
County  of  Mobile  v.  Kimball,  102  U.  S.  691, 

2637,  2656 
County  of  Morgan  v.  Allen,  103  U.  S.  498, 

254, 1206,  1210, 1262 
County  of  Moultrie  v.  Fairfield,  105  U.  S. 

370,  1159  i 

County  of  Moultrie  v.  Rockingham,  etc., 

Sav.  Bank,  92  U.  S.  631,  1240,  1243,  1244 

County  of  Pike  v.  State,  11  111.  202,  2671 

County  of  Rails  v.  Douglass,  105  U.  S.  728, 

1145, 1148, 1150, 1220, 1255  : 
County  of  Randolph  v.  Post,  93  U.  S.  502, 

1152, 1170. 1231, 1239. 1241,  1245 

CORP. — x 


County  of  Ray  v.  Vansycle,  96  U.  S.  675, 

1170, 1246 
County  of  Richland  v.  People,  3  Brad. 

(111.)  210,  1173, 1182 

County  of  San  Mateo  v.  Southern  Pacific 

R.  Co.,  13  Fed.  R.  722,  1095, 1892 

County  of  San  Mateo  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  8  Savvy.  (U.  S.)  238,  67,  92 

County  of  Santa  Barbara  v.  Southern  Pac. 

R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  R.  385.  1092 

County  of  Santa  Clara  v.  Southern  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  18  Fed.  R.  385,  1091 

County  of  Santa  Clara  v.  Southern  Pacific 

R.  Co.,  118  U.  S.  396,  1092 

County  of  Schuyler  v.  Thomas,  98  U.  S.  169, 

1145,  1170 
County  of  Scotland  v.  Thomas,  94  U.  S. 

682,  868, 1224 

County  of  Tipton  v.  Locomotive  Works, 

103  U.  S.  523,  189, 1150,  1224 

County  of  Wapello  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Co., 

44  Iowa  585,  503,  1210 

County  of  Warren  v.  Marcy,  97  U.  S.  96, 

629,  1221, 1236, 1239, 1243 
County  of  Wilson  v.  National  Bank,  103 

U.  S.  770,  1191 

County  Commissioners  v.  Dayton,  17 

Minn.  260,  1318 

County  Commissioners  v.  Farmers'  Nat. 

Bank,  48  Md.  117,  1068 

County  Commissioners  v.  King,  13  Fla. 

451,  1186,  1212, 1254, 1259 

County  Court  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.,  35 

Fed.  R.  161,  346,  348,  351,  361, 380,  856,  933, 938 
County  Court  v.  Griswold,  58  Mo.  175, 

1332, 1338,  1419, 1467 

County  Judge  v.  Shelby  R.  Co.,  5  Bush 
225,  H",  1218 

County,  etc.,  Loan  Assn.,  In  re,  43  N.  J.  E. 
588,  319 

County,  etc.,  Loan  and  Discount  Co.,  In 
re,  L.  R.  9  Ch.  App.  691,  383 

Coup  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich.  Ill, 

2173,  2280,  2281 

Coupland  v.  Housatonic  R.  Co.,  61  Conn. 

531,  2208,  2295,  2337,  2400,  2403,  2406,  2686 

Courier  v.  Concord  R.  Co.,  48  N.  H.  321,  130s 
Cours  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co., 25  Vt.  476,  1463 
Courtney  v.  Louisville,  12  Bush  (Ky.)  419, 

•     1140 

Courtright  v.  Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

35  Iowa  386,  U85 

Courtright  v.  Deeds,  37  Iowa  503,  178 

Courtright  v.  Strickler,  37  Iowa  382,    187, 1311 


cxlvi 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-1,1,2,  Vol.  II, pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Cousins  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Railway  Co.,  66 

Mo.  572,  301,  303,  305 

Couture  v.  McKay,  6  Manitoba  L.  273,       2391 
Covell  v.  Hey  man,  111  U.  S.  176,  766 

Covell  v.  Hitchcock,  23  Wend.  611,  2215 

Coventry  v.  Great  Eastern  K.  Co.,  L.  R.  11 

Q.  B.  Div.  776,  415 

Covert  v.  Rogers,  38  Mich.  363,        237,  246,  360 
Covey  v.  Hannibal,  .etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Mo. 

App.  2037, 
Covey  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  3 

Phila.  (Pa.)  173,  650 

Covill  v.  Hill,  4  Denio  (N.  Y.)  323,  2197 

Covington  v.  Covington  Bridge  Co.,  10 

Bush  (Ky.)  69,  38,296 

Covington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sargent,  1  Cin. 

Super.  Ct.  354,  119 

Covington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  154  U.  S. 

204,  4, 2652 

Covington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sanford,  (Ky.)  20 

S.  W.  R.  1031,  458 

Covington,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.  v.  Mayer,  31 

Ohio  St.  317,  37,  40,  236,  865 

Covington,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.  v.  South  Cov- 
ington, etc.,  Co.,  93  Ky.  136,  13, 1408 
Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bowler,  9  Bush 

(Ky.)  468,  245,  373,  376,  726 

Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Covington,  9 

Bush  (Ky.)  127,  1614 

Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Covington,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  19  Am.  L.  Reg.  (N.  S.)  765,  1627 

Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ingles,  15  B. 

Mon.  (Ky.)  637,  307 

Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kenton  County 

Court,  12  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  144,  1166 

Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Piel,  87  Ky.  267, 

1422, 1444 
Covington  Draw  Bridge  Co.  v.  Shepherd, 

21  How.  (U.  S.)  112,  750,  751 

Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keith,  139  111. 

128,  2297,  2356,  2409 

Cowan  v.  Bond,  39  Fed.  R.  54,  2284 

Cowan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  80  Wis. 

284,  2062 

Cowan  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  35  Fed.  R. 

43,  1831, 2002 

Coward  v.  East  Tenn.  R.  Co.,  16  Lea 

(Tenn.)  225,  2607,  2608 

Cowden  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  Co.,  94  Cal.  470, 

2423,2655 
Cowdrey  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

U.  S.  352,  789,  812,  813,  818,  828 

Cowdrey  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1  Woods  (U.  S.) 

331,  789,  791,  823,  825,  826,  2673 

Cowdrey  v.  Town  of  Caneadea,  16  Fed.  R. 

532,  1243, 1244 

Cowdrey  v.  Vanderburgh,  101  U.  S.  572,        416 


Co  well  v.  Colorado  Springs  Co.,  100  U.  S. 

55,        .  33, 543, 550, 1130 

Cowell  v.  Colorado  Springs  Co.,  3  Colo.  82, 

30,84 

Cowhill  v.  Roberts,  71  Hun  127,  1957,  2057 

Cox  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  Mo.  362, 

1835,  1873 
Cox  v.  Bruce,  L.  R.  18  Q.  B.  D.  147, 

2204,  2206,  2301 

Cox  v.  Burns,  1  Iowa  64,  2390 

Cox  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Ala.  392, 

2374,  2382 
Cox  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  9 

Q.  B.  D.  106,  2121,  2123 

Cox  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  F.  &  F.  77,  2300 
Cox  v.  Los  Angeles,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  Cal. 

100,  2573 
Cox  v.  LouisviUe,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Ind.  178, 

901, 1545,  1546, 1549,  1560,  1628,  1634, 1651 
Cox  v.  Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Exch.  268, 

313,  317 
Cox  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  18  Law  J.  N.  S. 

Exch.  65,  323 

Cox  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Minn. 

101,  1832 
Cox  v.  Peterson,  30  Ala.  608,       2203,  2299,  2376 
Cox  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  33  Ohio 

L.J.  (April,  1895),  2157 

Cox  v.  Russell,  44  Iowa  556,  890 

Cox  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Ark.  455,  885 
Cox  v.  Stokes,  78  Hun  331,  725 

Cox  v.  United  States,  6  Pet.  172,  2312,  2638 
Cox  v.  Volkert,  86  Mo.  505,  796 

Cox  v.  Western  Pac.  R.  Co.,  44  Cal.  18,  1606 
Cox  v.  Western  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  47  Cal. 

87,  1114,1584 

Coxe  v.  Harden,  4  East  211,  2392 

Coxe  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Interst.  Com. 

R.  460,  2670,  2671,  2681 

Coxon  v.  Great  Western  Ry.  Co.,  5  Hurl. 

&  N.  274,  2238 

Coy  v.  City  Council  of  Lyons  City,  17 

Iowa  1,  1259 

Coyle  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Mo.  App. 

584,  2401 

Coyle  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  W.  Va. 

94,  1867 

Coyne  v.  Railway  Co.,  133  U.  S.  370,  2079 

Coyote  Gold,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ruble,  8  Ore.  284,  21 
Cozart  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  54  Ga. 

379,  620 

Craddocks  v.  Ins.  Co.,  5  Phila.  249,  '  107 

Craft  v.  McConoughy,  79  111.  346,  526,  2663 
Craft  v.  South  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  150  Mass. 

207,  397, 398 

Crafter  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  1 

C.  P.  300,  2467,  2592 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxlvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-642,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1,43-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

of+r\n  -a     TTanniKial     otr>        ft      t~\f\       KR    Mn  f.r<*-cufr\rA  -a    r"laVU     IK  Til     KC1  f 


Crafton  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Mo. 

580,  1868 

Crafts  v.  Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  109  Mass. 

519,  2117 

Cragie  v.  Hadley,  99  N.  Y.  131,  366 

Cragin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  N.  Y. 

61,  2181,  2318,  2400,  2411,  2418 

Craif  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  N.  Y. 

404,  1635 

Craig  v.  Childress,  Peck  (Tenn.)  270,  2267 
Craig  v.  First  Presbyterian  Church,  88  Pa. 

St.  42,  231 

Craig  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  24  U.  C. 

Q.  B.  504,  .  2493,  2496 

Craig  v.  Hesperia,  etc.,  Co.,  (Cal.)  45  Pac. 

R.  10,  115 

Craig  v.  Lewis,  110  Mass.  377,  1460 

Craighead  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  123 

N.  Y.  391,  2558,2572 

Craighead  v.  Dalton,  105  Ind.  72,  678 

Craker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  36  Wis.  657, 

299,  407,  2475,  2582 
Cram  v.  Eangor  House  Proprietary,  12 

Me.  354,  358,  361,  365 

Cramer  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Ohio 

St.  140,  1465 

Cramer  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  Utah  504,  2706 
Cranch  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  255,  2166 

CraudaU  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Hun 

431,  1768 

Crandall  v.  Lincoln,  52  Conn.  73,  140,  141,  234 
CrandaU  v.  Nevada ,  6  WaU.  35,  1076, 1079, 1083 
Crandall  v.  State,  6  Wall.  35,  2643 

Crandell  v.  Taunton,  110  Mass.  421,  1559 

Crane  v.  Camp,  12  Conn.  463,  979 

Crane  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Iowa 

330,  915,  920,  926 

Crane  v.  Elizabeth,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  339,  1488 

Crane  v.  Onderdonk,  67  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  47,  326 
Crane  v.  Reeder,  25  Mich.  303,  1133 

Crane  Elevator  Co.  v.  Lippert,  63  Fed. 

R.  942,  1741 

Cranston  v.  Union  Trust  Co.,  75  Mo.  29, 

1114,  1599, 1606 

Crapo  v.  Kelly,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.)  610,  799 

Crass  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  %  Ala. 

447,  2396, 2445 

Crater  v.  Fritts,  44  N.  J.  Law  374,  1425 

Craver  v.  Christian,  36  Minn.  413,  2030 

Craven  v.  Ryder,  6  Taunt.  433,  2214 

Craven  v.  Smith,  89  Wis.  119,  2021,  2034,  2468 
Cravens  v.  Eagle  Cotton  Mills,  120  Ind.  6, 

252,  876 

Cravens  v.  Rodgers,  101  Mo.  247,  2672 

Craw  v.  Easterly,  54  N.  Y.  679,  339 

Crawford  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 
Ohio  St.  580,  284,  2452,  2488,  2502 


Crawford  v.  Clark,  15  111.  561,  2370 

Crawford  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  18 

U.  C.  C.  P.  510,  2245 

Crawford  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.) 

33  S.  W.  R.  534,  2005* 

Crawford  v.  Longstreet,  43  N.  J.  L.  325,  31,  554 
Crawford  v.  New  York  Central  R.  Co.,  18 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  108,  1837 

Crawford  v.  Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Jur.  (N.  S.)  1093,  124 

Crawford  v.  Powell,  2  Burr.  1013,  339 

Crawford  v.  Rohrer,  59  Md.  599,  212,  261 

Crawford  v.  Ross,  39  Ga.  44,  829 

Crawford  v.  Southern  R.  Assn.,  51  Miss. 

222,  2228, 2229 

Crawford  v.  Valley  R.  Co.,  25  Gratt.  467,  1532 
Crawford  v.  State,  15  Lea  (Tenn.)  343, 

1049, 1050 
Crawford  v.'Williams,  1  Sneed  (Tenn.)  205, 

2427 

Crawford  v.  Williams,  60  Am.  Dec.  146,  2427 
Crawford  v.  Wolf,  29  Iowa  567,  1573 

Crawford  County  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  32  Pa.  St.  141,  1210 

Crawfordsville  v.  Barr,  45  Ind.  258,  1598 

Crawfordsville  v.  Bond,  86  Ind.  236,  1405 

Crawfordsville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fletcher,  104 

Ind.  97,  455 

Crawfordsville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  102  Ind. 

435,  82 

Crawshay  v.  Eades,  1  Barn.  &  C.  181,  2396 
Crawshay  v.  Honfray,  4  B.  &  Aid.  50,  2447 
Crawshay  v.  Soutter,  6  Wall.  (U.  S.)  739,  724 
Cream  City  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

63  Wis.  93,  2328 

Crease  v.  Babcock,  23  Pick.  (Mass.)  334,  90, 91 
Crease  v.  Babcock,  10  Mete.  (Mass.)  525, 

261,262 
Credit  Co.  v.  Arkansas  Cent.  R.  Co.,  15 

Fed.  R.  46,  685,  715,  746,  843 

Credit  Co.  v.  Arkansas  Cent.  R.  Co.,  5  Mc- 

Crary  (U.  S.)  23,  835,  837 

Credit  Co.  v.  Howe,  etc.,  Co.,  54 Conn.  357,  398 
Credit  Foncier,  etc.,v.  Andrew,9  Manitoba 

R.  65,  684 

Creech  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  W. 

L.  Bull.  112,  964 

Creed  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Pa. 

St.  139,  2456 

Creery  v.  Holly,  14  Wend.  26,  2211 

Cregin  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  349,  248 

Cregin  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  N.  Y. 

192,  2699 

Crehore  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131  U.  S.  240, 

937.  945,  948 
Cremen  v.  Hawkes,  2  Jones  &  La.  T.  674,    733 


cxlviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Crenshaw  v.  Ullman,  (Mo.)  20  S.  W.  Rep. 

1077,  1592 

Crerar  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Wis. 
.     67,  889 

Crescent  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simpson,  77 

Cal.  286,  554 

Crescent,  Township  of, v.Anderson,  114  Pa. 

St.  643,  1791 

Cressley  v.  Northern  R.,  59  N.  H.  564,  1865 
Cresson  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

Phila.  (Pa.)  597,  284,  2322,  2488,  2633 

Crew  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Fed.  R. 

87,  2016, 2705 

Crewe  v.  Edleston,  1  DeG.  &  J.  93,  754 

Cridland  v.  DeMauley,  1  De  Gex  &  S.  459,  20 
Crim  v.  Town  of  Philippi,  38  W.  Va.  122,  1069 
Crine  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 

Ga.  651,  2466,  2552,  2553 

Crise  v.  Auditor,  17  Ark.  572,  1498 

Crispin  v.  Babbitt,  81  N.  Y.  516,  2075,  2082 

Crisswell  v.  Montana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mont.) 

42  Pac.  R.  767,  2005 

Crist  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  N.  Y.  638, 

1898,1939 
Criswell  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  W. 

Va.  798,  2010,  2082 

Crocker  v.  McGregor,  76  Me.  282,  1939, 1988 
Crocker  v.  New  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 

Conn.  249,  283,  1990,  2507 

Crocker  Nat.  Bank  v.  Pagenstecher,  44 

Fed.  R.  705,  931 

Croft  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Railroad,  1  Mc- 

Arthur,  492,  2243,  2493 

Croft  v.  London  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  3  B.  &  S. 

436,  1301 

Croft  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Eng.  C. 

L.  (3  B.  &  S.)  435,  1441 

Crofts  v.  Waterhouse,  11  Moore  133,  2466, 2475 
Crogan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Alb. 

L.  J.  70,  2473 

Crolley  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

Minn.  541,  1287, 1290, 1506 

Crommelin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Keyes  (N.  Y.)  90,  2436 

Cromwell  v.  County  of  Sac,  94  U.  S.  351, 

634,  976,  1221 

Cromwell  v.  County  of  Sac,  96  U.  S.  51, 

626,  628,  634,  1242 

Cronin  v.  Foster,  13  R.  1. 196,  888 

Cronk  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  S.  Dak. 

93,  1936 

Cronkite  v.  Wells,  32  N.  Y.  247,  2186, 2188,  2192 
Croom  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Minn. 

296,  2455 

Crosbie  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Iowa 

189,  1306,  1307 


Crosby  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Mich. 

458,  1818 

Crosby  v.  Dracut,  109  Mass.  206,  1542 

Crosby  v.  Fitch,  12  Conn.  410, 

2237,  2266,  2268,  2300,  230;? 

Crosby  v.  Hanover,  36  N.  H.  404,         1372,  1380 
Crosby  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Hun 

196,  1761 

Crosby  v.  New  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 

Conn.  121,  634 

Cross  v.  Allen,  141  U.  S.  528,  1087 

Cross  v.  California,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Cal. 

313,  1649 

Cross  v.  De  Valle,  1  Wall.  1,  542 

Cross  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Mich. 

363,  1675 

Cross  v.  McFaden,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  461,      2282 
Cross  v.  O'Donnell,  44  N.  Y.  661,  2215 

Cross  v.  Peach  Bottom  Ry.  Co.,  90  Pa.  St. 

392,  70,  89,  450 

Cross  v.  Phenix  Bank,  1  R.  I.  39,  148,  150 

Cross  v.  Pickneyville,  etc.,  Co.,  17  111.  54, 

153, 154 

Cross  v.  Sackett,  6  Abb.  Pr.  R.  247,  387 

Cross  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Mo.  312,    1634 
Cross  v.  U.  S.,  1  Gall  (U.  S.)  26,  1030 

Cross  v.  West  Va.,  etc.,  Ry.,  35  W.  Va.  174, 

231,339 
Crossan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  Mass. 

196,  2253,2441,244:! 

Crossley  v.  O'Briea,  24  Ind.  325,  1378, 1380 

Grossman  v.  Penrose  Ferry  Bridge  Co.,  26 

Pa.  St.  69,  192 

Crouch  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

Exch.  742,  2286,  2428,  2693 

Crouch  v.  Great  Western  Railway,  2  Hurl. 

&  N.  491,  2226 

Crouch  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 

L.  J.  Exch.  345,  2278 

Crouch  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 

L.  J.  Exch.  418,  2:^7 

Crouch  v.  London  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  25  Eng. 

L.  &  Eq.  287,  2281 

Crouch  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  L.  J. 

C.  P.  73,  2286 

Crouch  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  C.  &  K. 

789,  2431 

Crouch  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Com.  B. 

255,  2167 

Crouch  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Mo. 

App.  248,  2224,  2232 

Crow  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mo.  App. 

135,  2401 

Crow  v.  Oxford,  119  U.  S.  215,      1235, 1247,  1250 
Crow  v.  Wood,  13  Beav.  271,  783 

Crowder  v.  Moone,  52  Ala.  220,         737,  774,  779 
Crowder  v.  Town  of  Sullivan,  128  Ind.  486,  273 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxlix 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2m,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Crowe!!  v.  Gilmore,  18  Cal.  370,  1603 

Crowell  v.  Jackson,  53  N.  J.  656,  137,  397 

Crowell  v.  Londonderry,  63  N.  H.  42,  1472 

Crowell  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

Miss.  631,  1295,  1441 

Crowley  v.  Cohen,  3  Barn.  &  Adol.  478,       2333 
Crowley  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65 

Iowa  658,  971,  1624 

Crowley  v.  Genesee,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Cal.  273, 

'  290,394 

Crown  v.  Orr,  140  N.  Y.  450,  2023,  2047 

Croy  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Ind. 

126,  1859 

Crazier  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  43  How.  Pr. 

466,  2536 

Cruger  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y. 

190,  1468,  1480, 1535 

Crum  v.  Yundt,  12  Ind.  App.  308,  2234 

Crumlish  v.  Shenandoah  Valley  Railroad 

Co.,  28  W.  Va.  623,  877 

Crumlish  v.  Shenandoah  Valley  R.  Co., 

40  W.  Va.  627,  113,228,825,827 

Crumlish  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5 

Del.  Ch.  270,  1573 

Crump  v.  U.  S.  Mining  Co.,  7  Gratt.  (Va.) 

352,  191, 195,  196,  391 

Crumpley  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill 

Mo.  152,  1766 

CrusseUe  v.  Pugh,  67  Ga.  430,  2076 

Crutcher  v.  Commonwealth,  141  U.  S.  47, 

45,  1078,  1082,  1089,  2650,  2657 
Crutchfield  v.  Richmond  Railway  Co.,  78 

N.  Car.  300,  2043 

Crymble  v.  Mulvaney,  (Colo.)  40  Pac.  R. 

499,  244 

Cuba,  The,  3  Ware  260,  2426 

Cuban,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fitzpatrick,  66  Fed.  R. 

63,  966,  994,  2640 

Cubit  v.  O'Dett,  51  Mich.  347,  1405 

Cuddy  v.  Horn,  46  Mich.  596,  1799,  2570 

Cuff  v.  Newark,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  J.  Law 

17,  1582,  1587, 1588,  1590,  1591,  1592,  1593 

Cuff  v.  Ninety-five  Tons  of  Coal,  46  Fed. 

R.  670,  2426 

Culbertson,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago,  111  Til. 

651,  1523 

Culbreth  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Houst,  (Del.)  392,  2262,  2442 

Culhane  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  N.Y. 

133,  1779, 2721 

Cullen  v.  Norton,  126  N.  Y.  1,  2081 

Gulp  v.  Atehison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Kan.  475, 

1988 
Culver  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ala.)  18 

So.  R.  827,  2118 

Cumberland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Portland, 

37  Mo.  444,  1060,  1062 


Cumberland,  etc.,  Corp.  v.  Hitchings,  57 

Me.  146,  1033 

Cumberland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Portland,  56  Me. 

77'  1019 

Cumberland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sherman,  30 

Barb.  553,  375,  573,  725 

Cumberland  Valley  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  62 

Pa.  St.  218,  508,  2166,  2430 

Cumberland  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Baab,  9 

Watts  (Pa.)  458,  183,  498, 1308 

Cumberland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barren 

County,  etc.,  10  Bush  (Ky.)  604, 

1159, 1196, 1212 
Cumberland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Judge,  10 

Bush  564,  1286,  1199, 1213 

Cumberland  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  McLanahan, 

59  Pa.  St.  23,    539, 557, 1327, 1354, 1356, 1454,1539 
Cumberland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Myers,  55  Pa. 

St.  288,  2481 

Cumberland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Parish,  42  Md. 

598,  375 

Cumberland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 

R.  Co.,  57  Md.  267,  1554 

Cumberland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scally,  27  Md. 

589,  2091 

Cumberland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  44  Md. 

283,  2016,  2030,  2084 

Cumberland  Telegraph,  etc.,  Co.  v.  United 

Electric  Ry.  Co.,  93  Tenn.  492,     13, 1397, 1407 
Cumberland  Telegraph,  etc.,  Co.  v.  United 

Electric  R.  Co.,  42  Fed.  R.  273,  1407 

Cuming  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  104  N.  Y. 

669,  1983 

Cumins  v.  Lawrence  County,  2  So.  Dak. 

452,  1227 

Gumming  v.  Prescott,  2  Younge  &  C. 

Exch.  488,  338 

Gumming  v.  The  Barracouta,  40  Fed.  R. 

498,  2346 

Cummings  v.  Fearey,  44  Mich.  39,  890 

Cummings  v.  National  Bank,  101  U.  S. 

153,  1012, 1059,  1069 

Cummings  v.  National,  etc.,  Co.,  60  Wis. 

603,  2032 

Cummings  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92 

Pa.  St.  82,  2111 

Cummins  v.  Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Lea 

401,  2227 

Cummins  v.  Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Am.  & 

Eug.  R.  Cas.  36,  411,  497 

Cummins  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

Iowa  397,  1388, 1438 

Cummins  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 

Ind.  417,  915,  919,  1039, 1642,  1667 

Cumpston  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  33  S.  W.  R.  737,  2019 

Cunningham's  Appeal,  108  Pa.  St.  546,  127, 441 


cl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.' I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Cunningham  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Ala. 

652,  148,  149,  150. 

Cunningham  v.  Ashley,  14  How.  377,  1135 

Cunningham  v.  Board  of  Railroad  Com- 
missioners, 158  Mass.  104,  1002, 1014 
Cunningham  v.  Campbell,  33  Ga.  625, 

1419, 1470 
Cunningham  v.  Edgefield,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

2  Head  (Tenn.)  23,    190, 193, 194, 196,  198,  200 
Cunningham  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

102  Ind.  478,  1914 

Cunningham  v.  Grand  Trunk  Railroad, 

31  U.  C.  Q.  B.  350,  303, 1965 

Cunningham  v.  International  Railroad 

Co.,  51  Tex.  503,  1588, 1590, 1591 

Cunningham  v.  Macon,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  156 

U.  S.  400,  661 

Cunningham  v.  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109 

U.  S.  446,  994, 1010 

Cunningham  v.  Merrimac,  etc.,  Co.,  163 

Mass.  89,  2030,  2041 

Cunningham  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  61  Mo.  33,  1494 
Cunningham  v.  Seattle,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Wash. 

471,  1992 

Cunningham  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Utah 

206,  2713 

Cunningham  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 

Gray  (Mass.)  411,  435 

Cupp  v.  Commissioners,  19  Ohio  St.  173, 

1478, 1479 

Curien  v.  Santini,  16  La.  Ann.  27,  862 

Curl  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Iowa  417,  2573 
Curley  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Mo.  13,  1975 
Curling  v.  Marquis  Townsend,  19  Ves.  628,  751 
Curnan  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  138  N.Y. 

480,  1586 

Curran  v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  (U.  S.)  304, 

162,  240,  869 

Curran  v.  Shattuck,  24  Cal.  427,  1450 

Current  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  86  Mo.  62, 

2708 

Currie's  Case,  3  De  G.,  J.  &  S.  367,  131 

Currie  v.  Bowman,  25  Ore.  364,  396 

Currie  v.  Mutual,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Hen.  &  M. 

(Va.)  315,  343 

Currie  v.  Natchez,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Miss. 

725,  1327, 1560 

Cunie  v.  Waverly,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  N.  J. 

Law  381,  1512 

Currie  v.  White,  45  N.  Y.  822,  420 

Currier  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  N.  H. 

321,  445,  494,  498,  527 

Currier  v.  Lebanon,  etc.,  Co.,  56  N.  H.  262, 

127, 128, 141 
Currier  v.  Marietta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Ohio 

St.  228,  540, 1271, 1347, 1383, 1388 


Currier  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  355,  239 

Curry  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Wis.  665, 

599,  608,  1825, 1862,  2074 

Curry  v.  Jones,  4  Del.  Ch.  559,  1469 

Curry  v.  Scott,  54  Pa.  St.  270,  127,  441 

Curry  v.  Woodward,  44  Ala.  305, 

251,  260,  419,  426 
Curtin  v,  Nittany  Valley  R.  Co.,  135  Pa. 

St.  20,  1512,  1517 

Curtis  v.  Avon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Barb.  (N.  Y) 

148,  2629 

Curtis  v.  Bradford,  33  Wis.  190,  886 

Curtis  v.  Butler  County,  24  How.  (U.  S.) 

435,  1163 

Curtis  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  McLean 

401,  2476 

Curtis  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  62  Iowa  418,  1727 

Curtis  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis.  158,   2549 
Curtis  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  N.  Y. 

116,  2537, 2607,  2617,  2625,  2630 

Curtis  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  14Allen  (Mass.) 


55, 


1400 
1555 

558 


Curtis  v.  Jackson,  23  Minn.  268, 

Curtis  v.  Leavitt,  15  N.  Y.  9, 

Curtis  v.  Mcllhenny,  5  Jones  Eq.  (N.  C.) 

290,  792 

Curtis  v.  Piedmont,  etc.,  Co.,  109  N.  C. 

401,  553 

Curtis  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  N.  Y. 

534,  2468,  2571,  2598,  2704 

Curtis  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Minn. 

28,  1357,  1508,  1518,  1521 

Curtis  v.  Whipple,  24  Wis.  350,  1140 

Curtner  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.  662,  1131 
Cushman  v.  Amador,  etc.,  Co.,  118  U.  S. 

58,  933 

Cushman  v.  Smith,  34  Me.  247,  1400,  1549, 1560 
Cushman  v.  Thayer,  etc.,  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  365, 

135,  145,  147 
Custar  v.  Titusville,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Pa.  St. 

381,  195, 197 

Cutright  v.  Stanford,  84  111.  240,  257 

Cutting  v.  Damerel,  88  N.  Y.  410, 

144, 145,  264,  795 
Cutting  v.  Florida,  etc.,  Co.,  46  Fed.  R. 

641,  994, 2655 

Cutting  v.  Tavares,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Fed. 

R.  150,  698,  706,  708,  710, 837 

Cuttingham  v.  Weeks,  54  Ga.  275,  2126 

Cutts  v.  Brainerd,  42  Vt.  566,  2229,  2212 

Cuyler  v.  Decker,  20  Hun  (N.Y.)  173,  2593 
Cuyler  v.  Rochester,  12  Wend.  ( N.  Y. )  165,  1383 
Cypress  Shingle  Co.  v.  Lorio,  46  La.  Ann. 

441,  107 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Cli 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[VoL  I,  pp.  1-UZ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


D 

Dabney  v.  Stevens,  10  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  39,  390 
Dacey  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153  Mass. 

US,  2121 

Dacres  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Navigation  Co.,  1 

Wash.  St.  525,  1812, 1813 

Dahlstrom  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 

Mo.  525,  1745 

Daigle  v.  Lawrence  Manufacturing  Co., 

159  Mass.  378,  2114 

Dailey  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  N.  Y.  302,  2044 
Dakin  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  L.  J.  R. 

(Ch.)  462,  1272 

Dakin  v.  Oxley,  15  Com.  B.  (N.  S.)  646,  2420 
Daland  v.  Williams,  101  Mass.  571,  422,  423 
Dale  v.  Blue  Mountain,  etc.,  Co.,  15  Pa. 

Co.  Ct.  513,  883 

Dale  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  N.  Y. 

468,  1796, 2563 

Dale  v.  Evans,  14  Ind.  288,  2313 

Dale  v.  Grant,  34  L.  J.  142,  241 

Dale  v.  Hall,  1  Wils.  281,  2190 

Dale  v.  Hayes,  40  L.  J.  Chan.  244,  424 

Dale  v.  Kent,  58  Ind.  584,  779 

Daley  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  147  Mass.  101, 

1035 
Daley  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Conn. 

591,  1953, 1982 

Daley  v.  St.  Paul,  7  Minn.  390,  1503 

Dalhberg  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Minn.  404,  2563 

Dallas  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  McArthur 

(D.  C.)  146,  882 

Dallas  Co.  v.  Huidekoper,  154  U.  S.  654, 

447, 1237 

Dallas  County  v.  McKenzie,  110  U.  S.  686,  1222 
Dallas,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wasco,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Ore. 

527,  1600 

Dallas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Able,  72  Tex.  150,  1665 
Dallas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chenault,  4  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cases  171,  1516 

Dallas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maddox,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  31  S.  W.  R.  702,  2520 

Dallas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spicker,  61  Tex.  427,  2138 
Dfiton  v.  Midland  Counties  R.  Co.,  13  C. 

B.  474,  427 

Dalton  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  4  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  296,  2146 

Dalton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDaniel,  56  Ga. 

191,  211, 261 

Daly  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.)  63  N. 

W.  R.  73,  1646 

Daly  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Ga.  793, 

1612, 1614 

Daly  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  155  Mass.  1,  2137 
Dameron  v.  Eskridge,  104  N.  Car.  621,  683 


Damp  v.  Town  of  Dane,  29  Wis.  419,  1535 

Damrell  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  40  Cal. 

154,  1528 

Damson's  Appeal,  119  Pa.  St.  287,  1272 

Dan,  The,  40  Fed.  R.  691,  2175 

Dana  v.  Bank  of  U.  S.,  5  Watts  &  S.  223, 

334,  351,  355 
Dana  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Hun 

473,  2089 

Dana  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  428,  2224 

Dana  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  N.  Y. 

639,  2085 

Danbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  22  Conn. 

435,     27,  82,  156, 184,  204,  207,  208,  209,  216,  217 
Dane  v.  Young,  61  Me.  160,  134,  256 

Danforth  v.  Coleman,  23  Wis.  528,  689 

Danforth  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

N.  J.  E.  12,  924 

Daniel  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  3  C.  P. 

216,  2598 

Daniel  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

5  H.  L.  45,  1767 

DanieU's  Case,  22  Beav.  43,  140 

DanieU,  Ex  parte,  1  De  G.  &  J.  372,  166 

Daniels  v.  BaUentine,  23  Ohio  St.  532,         2307 
Daniels  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Iowa 

129,  1316, 1318,  1454, 1559 

Daniels  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Iowa 

52,  1446 

Daniels  v.  Hart,  118  Mass.  543, 

100, 524,  525,  637,  684 
Daniels  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  154  Mass. 

349,  1974 

Daniels  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Ga. 

236,  2135 

Daniels  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Mo.  43, 

449,  455 
Daniels  v.  Staten  Island,  etc.,Co.,  125  N.  Y. 

407,  1760, 1770 

Daniels  v.  Tearney,  102  U.  S.  415,  1460 

Daniels,  etc.,  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Utah 

357,  2088 

D'Anjou  v.  Deagle,  3  Harris  &  J.  206,          2186 
Danner  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  4  Rich. 

L.  329,  1766,  2069 

Dano  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Ark. 

564,  1114,  1605,  1606 

Dantzer  v.  Indianapolis  Union,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  141  Ind.  604,  1417, 1631 

Dautzler  v.  De  Bardeleben,  etc.,  Co.,  101 

Ala."  309,  2120 

Danvers  Sav.  Bank  v.  Thompson,  133 

Mass.  182,  933 

Danville  v.  Montpelier,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Vt. 

144,  1198,  1220 

Danville  v.  Pace,  25  Gratt.  (Va.)  1,  1335 


clii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 


Danville  Bridge  Co.  v.  Pomroy,  15  Pa.  St. 

151,  321 

Danville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  (Va.)  18 

S.  E.  R.  278,  1965 

Danville,  etc.,  H.  Co.  v.  Com.,  73  Pa.  St. 

29,  1037 

Danville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  16  Ind.  456,     87 
Danville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stewart,  2  Mete. 

(Ky.)  119,  1760,  2570 

D'Arc  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  9  C. 

P.  325,  2329 

D'Arcy  v.  Tamar,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Hurls.  <fc 

Colt.  463,  353 

Dardanelle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shinn,  52  Ark. 

93,  497 

Dargan  v.  Pullman  Car  Co.,  2  Tex.  App. 

(Civil  Cases)  607,  2539 

Dargan  v.  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  N.  C. 

596,  1463 

Darling  v.  Blackstone,  etc.,  Co.,  16  Gray 

(Mass.)  187,  1486 

Darling  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  121  Mass.  118, 

1803,1850 
Darling  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Railroad,  11  Allen 

295,  2227,  2243,  2250 

Darling  v.  Gunn,  50  111.  424,  1071 

Darling  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  R.  I. 

708,  2003 

Darling  v.  Westmoreland,  52  N.  H.  401, 

1797, 1988 
Darlington  v.  Atlantic  Trust  Co.,  68  Fed. 

R.  849,  1143,  1169,  1178, 1226 

Darlington  v.  United  States,  82  Pa.  St. 

382,  1334, 1492 

Darnell  v.  Lyon,  85  Tex.  455,  159 

Darnell  v.  State,  48  Ark.  321,  75 

Darracott  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83 

Va.  288,  2019 

Darrigan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

Conn.  285,  2077,  2084 

Dart  v.  Ensign,  47  N.  Y.  619,  2421 

Dart  v.  Huston,  22  Ga.  506,  872 

Dartv.  McKinney,  9  Blatchf.  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

359,  949 

Dartmouth    College     v.    Woodward,     4 

Wheat.  (U.  S.)  518,  23,  66 

Dash  v.  Van  Kleeck,  7  Johns.  477,  965 

Dater  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Hill  (N.  Y.) 

629,  ,  1549 

Dauchy  v.  Brown,  24  Vt.  197,  134,  257 

Daunesburgh  v.  Jenkins,  57  N.  Y.  177,        1172 
Dave  v.  Morgan's  Louisiana,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

46  La.  Ann.  273,  883 

Davenport  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  100 

N.  Y.  632,  1648, 1778 

Davenport  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Iowa 

633,  1058 


Davenport  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Wis. 

399,  1845 

Davenport  v.  Dows,  18  Wall.  (U.  S.)  626, 

240,  1061 

Davenport  v.  Kelly,  42  N.  Y.  193,  784 

Davenport,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Conner,  40 

Iowa  477,  188 

Davenport  v.  Richmond  City,  81  Va.  639,  1331 
Davenport,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers,  39  Iowa 

298,  187 

Davenport  Bank  v.  Homeyer,  45  Mo.  145,  2218 
Davey  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  11  Q. 

B.  Div.  213,  1800,  2069 

Davey  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  12  Q. 

B.  D.  70,  1767 

Davey  v.  Mason,  1  Car.  &  M.  45,  2187 

David  v.  Portland,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Ore.  98,  1166 
David  and  Caroline,  The,  5  Blatch.  266,  2283 
Davidson's  Case,  3  De  G.  &  S.  21,  170 

Davidson  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Cush. 

(Mass.)  91,  1282,  1401, 1459,  1486,  1492 

Davidson  v.  Bridgeport,  8  Conn.  472,  323 

Davidson  v.  Burnard,  L.  R.  4  C.  P.  117,  2333 
Davidson  v.  Central  Iowa  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa 

22,  1865 

Davidson  v.  City  Bank,  57  N.  Y.  81,  2421 

Davidson  v.  County  Commissioners,  18 

Minn.  482,  3 

Davidson  v.  GiUies,  1  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 

Cas.  595,  437 

Davidson  v.  Graham,  2  Ohio  St.  131,  2318 

Davidson  v.  Gwynne,  12  East  381,  2300 

Davidson  v.  Hobson,  1  Mo.  App.  Reporter 

28,  19 

Davidson  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  171 

Pa.  St.  522,  1778 

Davidson  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

Mich.  428,  988, 1815 

Davidson  v.  New  Orleans,  96  U.  S.  97, 

1091,  1336, 1414, 1478 

Davidson  v.  Nicholson,  59  Ind.  411,  905 

Davidson  v.  Rankin,  34  Cal.  503,  269 

Davidson  v.  Southern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  44 

Fed.  R.  476,  2028 

Davidson  v.  State,  4  Tex.  App.  545,  J1045 

Davie  v.  Cochrane,  etc.,  Co.,  164  Mass.  V* 

453,  2109 

Da  vies  v.  Los  Angeles,  86  Cal.  37,  1102 

Davies  v.  Mann,  10  Mees.  &  W.  546,  1792,  1960 
Davies  v.  New  York  Concert  Co.,  41  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  492,  662 

Davies  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Iowa 

192,  559 

Daviess  County  v.  Dickinson,  117  U.  S. 

657,  1153,  1167,  1216,  1227,  1239,  1242 

Daviess  County  v.  Huidekoper,  98  U.  S. 

98,  1204,  1222, 1236, 1239 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cliii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Daviess  County  Court  v.  Howard,  13  Bush 

(Ky.)  101,  1191,  1215,  1229 

Davis  v.  jEtna,  etc.,  Co.,  (N.  H.)  34  Atl.  R. 

464,  2312 

Davis  v.  Alvord,  94  U.  S.  545,  1606 

Davis  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  152  Pa. 

St.  314,  2033,  2044 

Davis  v.  Bangor,  etc.,  60  Me.  303,  1484 

Davis  v.  Bank,  4  McLean  (U.  S.  Cir.)  387,  504 
Davis  v.  Bank  of  England,  2  Bing.  393,  135 
Davis  v.  Belford,  70  Mich.  120,  159 

Davis  v.  Bowsher,  5  Durnf .  &  East  488,  1607 
Davis  v.  Bradley,  24  Vt.  55,  '  2216,2218 

Davis  v.  Bronson,  2  N.  Dak.  300,  159 

Davis  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  26  Iowa 

549,  1847 

Davis  v.  Button,  78  Cal.  247,  2166,  2168,  2449 
Davis  v.  Cayuga,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  10  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)330,  2iVN 

Davis  v.  Central  Cong.  Soc.,129  Mass.  367,  1951 
Davis  v.  Central,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  55  Vt.  84, 

1998,  2030,  2049,  2076,  2079,  2085 

Davis  v.  Central  Vt.  E.  Co.,  66  Vt.  290, 

2209,  2324,  2332 

Davis  v.  Charles  Eiver,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  11 

Gush.  (Mass.)  506,  1490,  1516 

Davis  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  40  Iowa 

292,  1817 

Davis  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  46  Iowa 

389,  1670 

Davis  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  58  Wis. 

646,  1643,  1743,  1958, 1967 

Davis  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  83  Iowa, 

744,  2632 

Davis  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  46  Fed.  E. 

307,  945 

Davis  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (Wis.)  67 

N.  W.  E.  1132,    2468,  2543,  2588,  2599,  2655,  2704 
Davis  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  Ind. 

468,  1730 

Davis  v.  Cobban,  39  Iowa  392,  181 

Davis  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  21  So.  Car. 

93,  1999 

Davis  v.  County  Commissioners,  153  Mass. 

218,  1630,  1666 

Davis  v.  Crookston,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Minn. 

402,  1605 

Davis  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Mich.  105, 

301,  2027,  2035,  2085 
Davis  v.  Duke  of  Marlborough,  2  Swanst. 

*p.  167,  per  Lord  Eldon, 

Davis  v.  Dumont,  37  Iowa  47,  197 

Davis  v.  Duncan,  19  Fed.  E.  477,  817,  819,  831 
Davis  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  Eailway  Co., 

87  Qa.  605,  1380 

Davis  v.  Flagstaff,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Utah  74,        347 


Davis  v.  Garrett,  6  Bing.  716, 

2236,  2268,  2303, 2307,  2355 

Davis  v.  Gemmel,  70  Md.  356,  877 

Davis  v.  Gray,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.)  203, 

2S4,  731,  734,  736,  794, 1133, 1134 
Davis  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Mo.  App. 

425,  1810 

Davis  v.  Houghtelin,  33  Neb.  582,  1989 

Davis  v.  Howell,  47  N.  J.  Law  665,  1467 

Davis  v.  Jackson,  152  Mass.  58,  422 

Davis  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  Line,  126  Mo. 

69,  2225,  2229,  2302,  2304,  2339,  2*54 

Davis  v.  Jones,  2  Fed.  E.  618,  1012 

Davis  v.  Kendallville,  5  Biss.  280,  1241 

David  v.  Kingscote,  6  M.  &  W.  174,  2 

Davis  v.  La  Crosse,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  12  Wis. 

16,  1485 

Davis  v.  Ladoga  Creamery  Co.,  128  Ind.  222, 

731,  792,  795 

Davis  v.  Leominster,  1  Allen  (Mass.)  182,  1642 
Davis  v.  Life  Association,  11  Fed.  B.  305,  797 
Davis  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  69  Miss. 

136,  2558 

Davis  v.  Mayor,  1  Duer  (N.  ¥.)  451,  478 

Davis  v.  Mayor,  14  N.  Y.  506, 

1611,  1614,  1615,  1650,  2449 
Davis  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  22  Fed.  E. 

883,  393, 872 

Davis  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  87  Ala.  633,  545- 
Davis  v.  Meredith,  48  Mo.  263,  889 

Davis  v.  Michigan  Central  E.  Co.,  22  111. 

278,  2607,  2608,  2623,  2626,  2631 

Davis  v.  Montgomery,  etc.,  Co.,  101  Ala. 

127,  133 

Davis  v.  New  Bedford,  133  Mass.  49,  1459 

Davis  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  47  N.  Y. 

400,  1772 

Davis  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  E.,  143  Mass. 

301,  43, 2132 

Davis  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159  Mass. 

532,  2029, 2079,  2122 

Davis  v.  Nuttalisburg,  etc.,  Co.,  34  W.  Va. 

500,  2071 

Davis  v.  Old  Colony  E.  Co.,  131  Mass.  258, 

56,  57,  324,  474,  484,  485,  510,  513,  514,  579,  620 
Davis  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  8  Ore.  172,  1797 
Davis  v.  Pattison,  24  N.  Y.  317,  2422 

Davis  v.  Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121 

Mass.  134,  609 

Davis  v.  Railway  Co.,  53  Ark.  177,  2126 

Davis  v.  Rock  Creek,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Cal.  359,  393 
Davis  v.  Rockingham,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Va.  290,  490 
Davis  v.  Russell,  47  Me.  448,  1423 

Davis  v.  San  Lorenzo,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Cal. 

517,  1273,  1549 

Davis  v.  Shafer,  50  Fed.  R.  764,  159 

Davis  v.  Shearer,  90  Wis.  250,  786 


cliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-2725.] 


Davis  v.  Smith,  15  Mo.  467,  2267 

Davis  v.  Snead,  33  Gratt.  (Va.)  705,  792 

Davis  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Fed.  R. 

786,  949 

Davis  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Ark. 

117,  2148 

Davis  v.  State,  6  Tex.  App.  166,  1045 

Davis  v.  State,  119  Ind.  555,  1026 

Davis  v.  Staten  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

N.  Y.  S.  157,  2019 

Davis  v.  Titusville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  114  Pa. 

St.  308,  1450,  1486, 1487 

Davis  v.  U.  S.,  etc.,  Co.,  77  Md.  a5,  230 

Davis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mo.  340, 

2262,  2267,  2347 

Davis  v.  Wakelee,  156  U.  S.  680,  2288 

Davis  v.  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Houst.  322,  2071 
Davis  v.  Woolnough,  9  Iowa  104,  1176 

Davis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Barber,  51  Fed.  R.  148,  159 
Davis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis,  etc.,  Wagon  Co., 

20  Fed.  R.  699,  335 

Davis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hillsboro,  etc.,  Co.,  10 

Ind.  App.  42,  21 

Davison  v.  New  Orleans,  96  U.  S.  97,  1331 
Dawes  v.  Peck,  8  T.  R.  330,  2215,  2695 

Dawkes  v.  Lord  De  Lorane,  3  Wils.  207,  842 
Dawson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mo. 

296,  2304 

Dawson  v.  Danb.ury  Bank,  15  Mich.  489,  678 
Dawson  v.  Harrington,  12  111.  300,  1581 

Dawson  v.  Iron  Range,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97 

Mich.  33,  894 

Dawson  v.  Lee,  83  Ky.  49,  2643 

Dawson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.) 

11  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Ce.s.  134,  2545 

Dawson  v.  Parsons,  137  N.  Y.  605,  737 

Dawson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Mo. 

514,  2341, 2410 

Day  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  Ind. 

206,  2033 

Day  v.  Croft,  2  Beav.  (Eng.)  488,  825 

Day  v.  Green,  4  Gush.  (Mass.)  433,  1644 

Day  v.  Joiner,  6  Baxter  441,  1068 

Day  v.  Lyon,  11  N.  J.  Eq.  331,  714 

Day  v.  New  York  Central  R.  Co.,  31  Barb. 

548,  562 

Day  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Barb. 

250,  1822 

Day  v.  Ogdensburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  N.  Y. 

129,  575,  622,  623 

Day  v.  Owen,  5  Mich.  520, 

277,  288,  2018,  2453,  2644 

Day  v.  Postal  Telegraph  Co.,  66  Md.  354,  771 
Day  v.  Spiral  Springs  Co.,  57  Mich.  146,  507 
Day  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Mich.  523, 

2043,2054 


Day  v.  Railroad  Co.,  41  Ohio  St.  392, 

547, 1390, 1391 

Day  v.  Ridley,  16  Vt.  48,  2264,  2694 

Day  v.  Wamsley,  33  Ind.  145,  321 

Day  v.  Worcester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  Mass. 

302,  453,  460,  464,  625 

Day  v.  Woodworth,  13  How.  363,  1812 

Dayharsh  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

Me.  570,  2091 

Dayton  v.  Borst,  31  N.  Y.  435,  264,  774 

Dayton  v.  Parke,  67  Hun  137,  2421 

Dayton  Min.  Co.  v.  Seawell,  11  Nev.  394, 

1332,1339 
Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  1  Disney 

(Cin.  Super.  Ct.)  84,    170, 173,  335,  343, 345, 349 
Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lewton,  20  Ohio  St. 

401,  559,  696,  1296,  1300,  1308,  1313,  1357 

Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marshall,  11  Ohio 

St.  497,  1506 

Deaderick  v.  Wilson,  8  Baxt.  (Tenn.)  108, 

247,  353,  397,  454 

Dealey  v.  Mullen,  149  Mass.  432,  1981 

Dealey  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Pa. 

St.)  4  Atl.  R.  170,  2087 

Dealing  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  N.  Y.  St. 

R.  386,  890 

Dean's  Appeal,  98  Pa.  St.  101,  870 

Dean  v.  Applegarth,  65  Cal.  391,  665 

Dean  v.  Biggs,  25  Hun  (N.  Y.)  122,  258,  651 
Dean  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Wis.  305, 

1880, 1882 

Dean  v.  Colt,  99  Mass.  480,  1540 

Dean  v.  Driggs,  137  N.  Y.  274,  415 

Dean  v.  Davis,  51  Cal.  406,  22 

Dean  v.  King,  22  Ohio  St.  118, 

414,  2203,  2206,  2207 
Dean  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  129  Pa.  St. 

514,  1791,  1799 

Dean  v.  Vaccaro,  2  Head  (Tenn.)  488,  2361 
Deane  v.  Todd,  '22  Mo.  90,  1071 

Deansville  Cemetry  Association,  Matter 

of,  66  N.  Y.  569,  1339 

Dearborn  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  H. 

179, 

1037, 1435, 1436,  1449,  1453,  1454, 1456,  1525,  1565 
Deavers  v.  Spencer,  70  Fed.  R.  480,  2049 

DeBemer  v.  Drew,  57  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  438,  774 
DeBetz's Petition, 9  Abb.  N.C.  (N.Y.)246,  669 
DeBolt  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123 

Mo.  496,  1949,  2707 

Debs,  In  re,  158  U.  S.  564,  910,  2640,  2688 

Debs  v.  Dalton,  7  Ind.  App.  84,  889 

DeBuol  v.  Freeport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  111. 

499,  1468, 1514,  1516 

DeCamp  v.  Alward,  52  Ind.  468,       351,  853,  859 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


civ 


[References  are.  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  IU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S7S5.\ 


Decamp  v.  Eveland,  19  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  81,  90 
Decamp  v.  Hibernia  Underground  R.  Co., 

47  N.  J.  Law  43,  1363,  1365,  1370, 1388 

DeCamp  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  12  Iowa  348,  299 
Decan  v.  Shipper,  35  Pa.  St.  239,  2218 

DeCaumont  v.  Bogert,  36  Hun  (N.  Y.)  382, 

143,144 
Decker  v.  Gardner,  124  N.  Y.  334, 

735,  746,  806,  864 

Decker  v.  Gardner,  58  Hun  602,  807 

Decker  v.  Hughes,  68  111.  33,  1145 

Deere  v.  Bagley,  80  Iowa  197,  307 

Deere  v.  Cole,  118  111.  165,  1547 

Deere  v.  Eio  Grande  County,  33  Fed.  E. 

823,  1260 

DeForest  v.  Jewett,  88  N.  Y.  264,  1999,  2007 
DeForth  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Wis. 

320,  1209 

DeGendre  v.  Kent,  L.  R.  4  Eq.  Cas.  283,  418, 420 
Degg  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  1  H.  &  N.  773,  2061 
DeGraff  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y. 

125,  2013, 2024 

DeGraff  v.  Thompson,  24  Minn.  452,  651,  892 
DeGraffenried  v.  Brunswick,  etc.,  Co.,  57 

Ga.  22,  731,  799 

DeGraw  v.  Wilson,  17  Fed.  R.  698,  2370 

DeGroff  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  21  N.  Y. 

124,  324, 503 

DeGroot  v.  Jay,  30  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  483,  803,  804 
DeGroot  v.  United  States,  5  Wall.  419,  979 
DeHarn  v.  Mexican,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Tex. 

68,  21:8 

Dehon  v.  Foster,  4  Allen  <Mass.)  545,  895 

Deikman  v.  Morgan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  La 

Ann.  787,  1784 

Deitrichs  v.  Lincoln,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Neb. 

361, 

598,  1343, 1351, 1369, 1384,  1386,  1485, 1508, 1534 
DeKamp  v.  Hibernia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  N.  J. 

L.  43,  1383 

DeKay  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Minn. 

178,  2458, 2550 

DeKay  v.  Hackensack  Water  Co.,  38  N.  J. 

Eq.  158,  322 

Delamatyr  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 

Wis.  578,  2546 

DeLancey  v.  Ins.  Co.,  52  N.  H.  581,  59 

Deland  v.  Platte  County,  54  Fed.  R.  823,  1177 
Delaney  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Wis. 

67,  1958 

Delano  v.  Case,  121  111.  247,  387 

Delaplaine  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42 

Wis.  214,  1403 

Delaplaine  v.  Cook,  7  Wis.  44,  993 

De  Laurans  v.  First  Division  St.  Paul, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Minn.  49,  2508 


Delaware,  The,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  579, 

2197,  2199,  2202,  2203,  2209,  2211,  2326 
Delaware,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Atkins,  121  N.  Y. 

246,  1070 

Delaware,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

(Pa.)  17  Atl.  R.  175,  996 

Delaware,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davenport  R.  Co., 

46  Iowa  406,  1602 

Delaware,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lacka wanna,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  (Pa.  Com.  PI.)  3  Lack.  Jur.  413,  1693 
Delaware,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nuttall,  119  Pa.  St. 

149,  2009 

Delaware,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc., 

Co.,  21  Pa.  St.  131,  341 

Delaware  City,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Reybold,  8 

Houst.  (Del.)  203,  356 

Delaware  &  R.  C.  Co.  v.  Camden  &  A.  R. 

Co.,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  321,  48,  57 

Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Common- 
wealth, 50  Pa.  St.  399,  22 
Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Lee,  22  N.  J. 

Law  243,  1403,  1404,  1564 

Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Sansom,  1 

Binn.  (Pa.)  70,  214,  215 

Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Village  of 

Whitehall,  90  N.  Y.  21,  8 

Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Webster, 

(Pa.  St.)  6  Atl.  R.  841,  2548 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ashley,  67  Fed. 

R.  209,  2516,  2552,  2553,  2569 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burson,  61  Pa. 

St.  369, 

1296, 1301,  1424,  1436, 1441, 1457,  1459,  1557 
Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central,  etc., 

Co.,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  71,  915,  2161 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Converse,  139 

U.  S.  469,  1750,  1763,  1764, 1800 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dailey,  37  N.  J. 

Law  526,  2471 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  21 

N.  J.  Eq.  298,  749,  811 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hefferan,  (N.  J. 

Law)  30  Atl.  R.  578,  1771, 1784 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irick,  23  N.  J.  L. 

321,  235,  249,  350 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Markley,  45  N.  J. 

Eq.  139,  736 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Napheys,  90  Pa. 

St.  R.  135,  2598 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newton,  etc., 

Co.,  137  Pa.  St.  314,  904 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oxford  Iron  Co., 

33  N.  J.  Eq.  192,  858, 1608 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oxford  Iron  Co., 

36  N.  J.  Eq.  452,  654 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Salmon,  39  N.  J. 

Law  299,  614,  1901, 1909, 1921, 1923, 1929 


clvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1M2,  Vol.  ITT,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scranton,  34  N.  J. 

Eq.  429,  715 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shelton,  (N.  J.) 

26  Atl.  R.  937,  1762 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shelton,  54  N.  J. 

L.  342,  1748 

Delaware  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Tharp,  1  Houst. 

(Del.)  149,  71 

Delaware  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Tharp,  5  Harr. 

(Del.)  454,  66,  89 

Delaware, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Toffey,  38  N.  J.  L. 

525,  1754 

Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trautwein,  52 

N.  J.  L.  169,  2546 

Delaware  Railroad  Tax  Cases,  18  Wall. 

206,  37,  470, 1056,  1065,  1074,  1077,  1089 

Delaware  State  Grange  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  5  Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  161,         2683 
Delaware  State  Grange  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  3  Interstate  Com.  R.  554,  2436 

DeLissa  v.  Missouri  P.  R.  Co.,  36  Mo. 

App.  706,  461 

Dell  v.  Phillips,  etc.,  Co.,  169  Pa.  St.  549,    1968 
De Long  v.  Schimmel,  58  Ind.  64,  55 

Delphi  v.  Bowen,  61  Ind.  29,  1070 

Delphi  v.  Lowery,  74  Ind.  520,  1797 

Delsol  v.  Spokane,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Idaho) 

40  Pac.  R.  59,  1305 

DeLucas  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

La.  Ann.  9:*,  2496,  2505 

Demarest  v.  Flack,  128  N.  Y.  205,      32,  271,  340 
Demarest  v.  New  York,  74  N.  Y.  161,  1166 

Doming  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  Co.,  48 

N.  H.  455,  306,  410,  2187,  2410 

Deming  v.  Houlton,  64  Me.  254,  1163 

Deming  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Co.,  33  Am.  L. 

Reg.  391,  2377 

Deming  v.  Merchants'  C.  P.  &  S.  Co.,  90 

Tenn.  306,  2184,  2273,  2276 

Deming  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  R. 

25,  2244 

DeMott  v.  Lara  way,  14  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

2280, 
Dempfell  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  U.  S. 

209,  877 

Dempsey  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  146 

N.  Y.  290,  2524 

Denavy,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  L.  R.  11  App.  Cas.  97, 

2285,  2666,  2672,  2681 
Denike  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  80  N.  Y. 

599,  87,  235,  74i;  862 

Denison  v.  City  of  Columbus,  62  Fed.  R. 

775,  1164 

Denney  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  28 

Ohio  St.  108,  625 

Denni  v.  Harris,  9  Pick.  (Mass.)  364,          2443 


Dennick  v.  Railroad  Co.,  103  U.  S.  11, 

1023,  2107,  2134,  2141 
Dennis  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,    116 

Ind.  42,  1864, 1969 

Dennis  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  165  Pa. 

St.  624,  2598 

Dennison  v.  Foster,  9  Ohio  126,  1296 

Dennison  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  62  Fed.  R.  775,    1171 
Denniston  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Biss. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)414,  657,708 

Dennistoun  v.  Draper,  5  Blatchf.  (U.  S. 

C.  C.)  336,  931,  2141 

Dennistown  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Hilton  (N.  Y.)  62,  36 

Denny  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Gray 

481,  2268, 2307 

Denny  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  50,  2492 

Denny  Hotel  Co.  v.  Schram,  6  Wash.  134, 

169,348 
Denslow  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

Conn.  98,  1540 

Densmore  Oil  Co.  v.  Densmore,  64  Pa.  St. 

43,  17,  18,  378 

Dent  v.  Chiles,  5  Stew.  &  P.  (Ala.)  383,       2362 
Dent  v.  London,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  16  Ch. 

Div.  344,  122,  437 

Dent  v.  Ross,  52  Miss.  188,  990 

Dent  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83 Mo.  496,    1843 
Denton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Iowa 

161,  2267 

Denton  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  5  El.  & 

Bl.  860,  2452 

Denton  v.  Jackson,  2  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 

320,  22 

Denver  v.  Bayer,  7  Colo.  113,  1397,  1634 

Denver  v.  Knowles,  17  Colo.  204.  1100 

Denver,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Church,  17  Colo.  1,        1074 
Denver,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Landoner,  20  Colo. 

150,  1611 

Denver  City,  etc.,  Co.   v.   Middaugh,  12 

Colo.  434,  1468 

Denver,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Olsen,  4  Colo.  239,         1803 
Denver,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Otis,  7  Colo.  198,  1468 

Denver,  etc.,  Construction  Co.  v.  Stout,  8 

Colo.  61,  1572 

Denver  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  McClelland,  9  Colo. 

11,  5ns 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Conway,  8  Colo.  1,    1934 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Canon  City,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  99  U.  S.  463,  1275,  1276 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  DeGraff,  2  Colo. 

App.  42,  1S93 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

17  Fed.  R.  867,  61, 1267,  1269 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Denver,  etc.,  Co., 


2  Colo.  673,  550,  1546,  1615,  1620 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dewitt,   1  Colo. 

App.  419,  2248 

Denver,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Domke,  11  Colo.  247, 

898,  900,  1612 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Driscoll,  12  Colo. 

520,  2027 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Dwyer,  20 Colo.  132,   1792 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Dwyer,  3  Colo.  App. 

408,  2457,  2571 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frame,  6  Colo.  382,    2696 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gustafson,  (Colo.) 

41  Pac.  R.  505,  1773,  1774, 1783 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  122  U.  S. 

597,  1909,  1960,  1990 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson,  10  Colo. 

1,  1854,  1855,  1872, 1890, 1894 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hill,  13  Colo.  35, 

2254,  2443 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hodgson,  18  Colo. 

117,  2469 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  6  Colo. 

340,  1553 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lamborn,  8  Colo. 

380,  1496, 1506,  1508 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Morton,  3  Colo. 

App.  155,  1922,  1926 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  N7estor,  10  Colo.  403, 

1316, 1611 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Outcalt,  2  Colo. 

App.  395,  962,  1813,  1885, 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pickard,  8  Colo. 

163,  2548 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Riley,  7  Colo.  494,    1574 
Deliver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robbins,  2  Colo. 

App.  313,  1678 

Denver,  etc.,   R.  Co.   v.  Roberts,  6  Colo. 

333,  2623 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   School  Dist.,  14 

Colo.  327,  1328 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simpson,  16  Colo. 

55,  2043 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co., 

34  Fed.  R.  386,  1339,  1453,  1454, 1367 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheatley,  (Colo. 

App.)  43  Pac.  450,  1813 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  Woodward,  4  Colo. 

1,  2127 

Deppe  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Iowa 

52,  2112 

Deputron  v.  Young,  134  U.  S.  241,  933 

Derby  v.  Gage,  60  Mich.  1,  1508 

Derby  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Parks,  10  Conn. 

522,  1335 


///,  pp.  I'M-im,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27J5.] 

Derosia  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Minn. 

133,  2278,  2351,  2355,  2368,  2372 

DeRothschild  v.  Royal, etc.,  Steam  Packet 

Co.,  7  Exch.  734,  2343 

Derr  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158  Pa.  St. 

365,  2046,2133 

Derrickson  v.  Smith,  27  N.  J.  Law  166, 

270, 1022 
DeRuyter  v.  Trustees,  3  Barb.  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 

119,  853 

Derwort  v.  Loomer,  21  Conn.  245,  2473 

Descombes  v.  Wood,  91  Mo.  196,  347,  853 

Desloge  v.  Pearce,  38  Mo.  588,  1324 

Des  Moines,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Des 

Moines,  44  Iowa,  505,  478 

Des  Moines  City  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Des 

Moines,  90  Iowa,  770,  1623, 1624 

Des  Moines,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Des  Moines,  etc., 

Bank,  (Iowa )  66  N.  W.  R.  914,  150 

Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graff ,  27  Iowa, 

99,  177, 183 

Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  L.vml,  (Iowa) 

62  N.  W.  R.  806,  1327 

Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wabash,  St.  L. 

&  P.  R.  Co.,  135  U.  S.  576,  570,  704 

DeSoto  Bank  v.  City  of  Memphis,  6  Baxt. 

415,  1068 

DeSoucey  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  15  N.  Y.  S. 

108,  2564 

Despatch  Line,  etc.,  v.  Bellamy,  etc.,  Co., 

12  N.  H.  205,         290,  338,  340,  351,  354,  358,  641 
DeSteiger  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Mo. 

33,  1882, 1931 

Detmold  v.  Drake,  46  N.  Y.  318,  1460 

Detroit  v.  Dean,  106  U.  S.  537,  877 

Detroit  v.  Detroit  City  R.  Co.,  55  Fed.  R. 

569,  949 

Detroit  v.  Detroit  City  Ry.  Co.,  56  Fed.  R. 

867,  59, 1615 

Detroit  v.  Detroit  City  R.  Co.,  64  Fed.  R. 

628,  1615 

Detroit  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  Co.,  37  Mich.  558, 

99, 1618, 1621, 1622 

Detroit  v  Detroit  Plank  Road  Co.,  43 

Mich.  140,  91,  92,  954, 1087,  1660 

Detroit  v.  Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 

Mich.  646,  1623 

Detroit  v.  Macomb,  etc.,  (Mich.)  67  N. 

W.  R.  531,  95 

Detroit  v.  Mutual  Gas  Light  Co.,  43  Mich. 

594,  697 

Detroit  v.  Osborne,  135  U.  S.  492,        1087,  2107 
Detroit,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Detroit,  88  Mich.  347, 

1068 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  2  Doug. 

(Mich.)  367,  1*72 


clviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  arc  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U?,  Vol.  II,  pp.  643-1362,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-272.5.] 


Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bearss,  39  Ind.  598, 

1194 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  37  Mich.  533, 

1325, 1542 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Detroit,  64 

Fed.  R.  628,  1614, 1615, 1618 

Detroit,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Crane,  50  Mich.  182, 

1473, 1531 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Detroit,  91  Mich. 

444,  896,  907,  1657 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Detroit,  49  Mich.  47, 

1483, 1491,  1657 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Farmers',  etc., 

Bank,  20  Wis.  122, '  2224 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Forbes,  30  Mich. 

165,  1307 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gartner,  95  Mich. 

318,  1500 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graham,  46  Mich. 

642,  1558,  1657 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grand  Rapids, 

(Mich.)  28  L.  R.  A.  793,  1108,  1109, 1114 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grand  Rapids, 

(Mich.)  63  N.  W.  R.  1007,  1114 

Detroit,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  2  Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  199,  2679,  2683 
Detroit  R.  Co.  v.  Guthard,  51  Mich.  180,  1067 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hayt,  47  111.  173,  1845 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Interst.  Com.  Com., 

74  Fed.  R.  803, 

2658,  2667  2668,  2669,  2676,  2678,  2679,  2682,  2683 
Detroit  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Mills,  85  Mich.  634, 

12, 1621, 1636,  1637 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKenzie,  43  Mich. 

609,  2228,  2233,  2428,  2429,  2442 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Probate  Judge,  63 

Mich.  676,  987 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Starnes,  38  Mich. 

698,  189, 527 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Steinberg,  17 

Mich.  99,  '       1768,  1779 

Detweiler  v.  Breckenkamp,  83  Mo.  45,          215 
Detwiller  v.  Commonwealth,  131  Pa.  St. 

614,  25 

DeValle  v.  Steamboat  Richmond,  27  La. 

Ann.  90,  2620 

DeVau  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130 

N.  Y.  632,  2706 

Devendorf  v.  Dickinson,  21  How.  Pr.  (N.Y.) 

275,  731, 812 

Devereux  v.  Barclay,  2  B.  &  Aid.  702,    2214, 2363 
Devine  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159  Mass. 

348,  2121, 2122 

Devine  v.  Edwards,  101  111.  138,  2196 

Devine  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Ga. 

541,  2048, 2073 

Devitt  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Mo.  302,    2004 


Devoe  v.  Ithaca,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Paige  521,  107, 773 
Dewald  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 

Kan.  586,  2550,  272? 

Dewey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Iowa 

373,  1831,  2002 

Dewey  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Mich. 

329,  2032,  2053,  2054 

Dewey  v.  St.  Albans,  etc.,  Co.,  56  Vt.  476,  859 
Dewey  v.  St.  Albans,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Vt.  332,  213 
Dewey  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mich.  351, 

142,446 
DeWinton  v.  Mayor  of  Brecon,  26  Beav. 

533,  744, 747 

Dewire  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  Mass. 

343,  2558 

Dewitt  v.  Duncan,  46  Cal.  342,  1384 

DeWolf  v.  Mallett's  Adm'r,  3  Dana  (Ky.) 

214,  247 

Dews  v.  Greene,  32  Barb.  490,  .          2392 

Dexer  v.  Long,  2  Wash.  435,  481 

Dexter  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  N.  Y. 

326,  2537,  2607,  2608 

Dexter,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Millerd,  3  Mich.  91,  208 
Dexterville,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  In  re,  4  Fed. 

R.  873,  814 

Dey  v.  Anderson,  39  N.  J.  L.  199,  1608 

Dey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Fed.  R.  82, 

942, 1016 

Dey  v.  Jersey  City,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  412,  354 

Deyo  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  N.  Y.  9, 

2467,  A569,  2596 

Deyo  v.  Otoe  County,  37  Fed.  R.  246,  1245 

Dial  v.  Reynolds,  96  U.  S.  340,  678 

Dial  v.  Valley,  etc.,  Assn.,  29  S.  Car.  560,  364 
Diamaon  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  6  Mont. 

580,  971,  1895,  1901,  1902, 1936 

Diamond,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dehority,  (Ind.)  40 

N.  E.  R.  681,  2034 

Diamond,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Powers,  51  Mich. 

145,  543 

Dibble  v.  Brown,  12  Ga.  217, 

2606,  2607,  2608,  2610,  2614,  2631 
Dibble  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Barb. 

183,  2147 

Dice  v.  Williamette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Ore.  60, 

2459 

Dick  v.  Struthers,  25  Fed.  R.  103,  794 

Dickenson  v.  Fitchburg,  13  Gray  (Mass.) 

147,  1518 

Dickerman  v.  St.  Paul  Union  Depot  Co., 

44  Minn.  433,  283,  2583 

Dickerson  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 

Kan.  702,  879 

Dickey  v.  Chicago,  152  111.  468,  1463 

Dickey  v.  Kansas  City  &  I.  R.  T.  Ry.  Co., 

122  Mo.  223,  574, 1308,  1316,  2519,  2520 

Dickey  v.  Tennison,  27  Mo.  373,  1337 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clix 


[References!  are  to  Pages.} 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U5,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Dickie  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131  Mass. 

516,  1984 

Dickins  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  N.  Y. 

158,  2135,  2141,  2142 

Dickinson,  Ex  parle,  29  S.  Car.  453,  849 

Dickinson  v.  Central  Nat.  Bank,  129  Mass. 

279,  136, 145 

Dickinson  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

7  W.  Va.  390,  121 

Dickinson  v.  Gay,  7  Allen  (Mass.)  29,          2359 
Dickinson  v.  Inhabitants  of  Conway,  10 

Allen  528,  1244 

Dickinson  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  2  Hurl. 

&  Colt.  735,  2136 

Dickinson  v.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  64  Fed.  R. 

895,  934 

Dickinson  v.  Van  Wonner,  39  Mich.  141, 

1011,  2131 
Dickson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Mo. 

575,  608, 1402, 1538 

Dickson  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

L.  R.  18  Q.  B.  D.  176,  988 

Dickson  v.  Merchants'  Elevator  Co.,  44 

Mo.  App.  498,  2218 

Dickson  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  104  Mo. 

491,  1755 

Dickson  v.  Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  Mo. 

140,  1830,  1831,  1996,  2002,  2021 

Dickson  v.  Waldron,  135  Ind.  507,  1992 

Diebold  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  50  N.  J.  L. 

478,  1952 

Diedrich  v.  Northwestern  Union  R.  Co.,  47 

Wis.  662,  1457, 1517,  1518,  1519, 1521 

Diedrich  v.  Northwestern  U.  R.  Co.,  42 

Wis.  248,  1403, 1404 

Dietrich  v.  Murdock,  42  Mo.  279, 

1271,  1329, 1361, 1445 
Dietrich  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  Co.,  71  Pa. 

St.  432,  284,  2453,  2483,  2485,  2491,  2492,  2499 
Dietrich  v.  Northampton,  138  Mass.  14,  2131 
Diffendal  v.  Virginia  Midland  R.  Co.,  86 

Va.  459,  906 

Dike  v.  Greene,  4  R.  I.  285,  491 

Dill  v.  Camden  Board,  47  N.  J.  Eq.  421,      1629 
Dill  v.  Inhabitants  of  Wareham,  7  Mete. 

438,  324,503 

Dill  v.  South  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Rich. 

L.  158,  2167,  2623,  2631 

Dill  v.  Wabash  Valley  R.  Co.,  21  111.  91,      192 
Dillard  v.  Louisville  R.  Co.,  2  Lea  (Tenn.) 

288,  2201, 2320 

Dillingham  v.  Anthony,  73  Tex.  47,  2580 

Dillingham  v.  Blake,  32  S.  W.  R.  (Tex.) 

77,  815 

Dillingham  v.  Crank,  87  Tex.  104,  1997 

Dillingham  v.  Fields,  (Tex.)  29  S.  W.  R. 

214,  1795 


III,  pp.  1263-21611,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Dillingham  v.  Hawk,  60  Fed.  R.  494,     806,  807 
Dillingham  v.  Hook,  32  Kan.  185,  1220 

Dillingham  v.  Pierce,  (Tex.)  31  S.  W.  R. 

203,  2458 

Dillingham  v.  Russell,  73  Tex.  47,  805,  813,  2582 
Dillingham  v.  Teeling,  (Tex.)  24  S.  W.  R. 

1094,  1966 

Dillingham  v.  Whitaker,  (Tex.)  25  S.  W. 

R.  723,  1943 

Dillingham  v.  Wood,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  71,   2470 
Dillon  v.  Barnard,  1  Holmes  386,  650,  659 

Dillon  v.  Connecticut  River  R.  Co.,  154 

Mass.  478,  1966, 1985 

Dillon  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Fed. 

R.  109,  898 

Dillon  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  66  Fed.  R. 

622,  769 

Diman  v.  Providence,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  5 

R.  1. 130,  156 

Dimes  v.  Grand  Junction,  etc.,  Co.,  3  H. 

L.  C.  759,  986 

Dimes  v.  Prop,  of  Grand  Junction  Canal,. 

3  H.  of  L.  Cas.  759,  248 

Dimick  y.  Chicago,  etc.,R.  Co.,  80  111.  338,    1762 
Dimmey  v.  Wheeling,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  W. 

Va.  32,  2593 

Dimmick  v.  Council  Bluffs,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62 

Iowa  409,  1439 

Dimmitt  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Mo. 

App.  654,  2567 

Dimmitt  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

Mo.  433,  22*5 

Dimpfel  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Rep.  641,     448 
Dimpfell  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110 U.  S.  209, 

241,  678,  758 

Dingley  v.  City  of  Boston,  100  Mass.  544,    1388 
Dinsmore  v.  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  19  Fed.  R. 

153,  243 

Dinsmore  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Fed. 

R.  465,  2284 

Dinsmore   v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Flippin  (U.  S.)  672,  533 

Dininny  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y. 

546,  2616 

Dinsmore  v.  Racine,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  12  Wis. 

649,  646,  650,  652,  654,  887 

Dinsmore  v.  Tidball,  34  Ohio  St.  411,  328 

Dinwiddie  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Lea 

309,  2475 

Dinwoodie  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Wis. 

160,  1836 

Diphwys  v.  Festiniog  R.  Co.,  2  Nev.  &  Mac. 

73,  2671 

Directors  v.  Kisch,  L.  R.  2  H.  L.  Cas.  99, 

190, 194, 197 
Directors  v.  Railroad  Co.,  7  W.  &  S.  (Pa.) 

236,  1502, 1503 


clx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1,1,3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Directors  v.  Wanless,  L.  R.  7  H.  of  L.  12,    1783 
Directors  of  Binghamton,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re, 

143  N.  Y.  261,  862 

Dirk  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  164  Pa.  St. 

243,  1782 

Dispatch  Line,  etc.,  v.  Bellamy  Mfg.  Co., 

12  N.  H.  205,  291 

District  Attorney  v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

Gray  (Mass.)  242,  902 

Distilling,  etc.,  Co.  v.  People,  156  111.  448,    927 
District  of  Columbia  v.  Armes,  107  U.  S. 

519,  1797 

District  of  Columbia  v.  GaUaher,  124  U.  S. 

505,  59 

District  of  Columbia  v.  Washington,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  4  Mackey  214,  1643 

Ditberner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Wis. 

138,  971 

Ditchett  v.  Spuyten,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  N.  Y. 

425,  604,  605,  608,  609,  1829, 1860 

Ditman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

91  Iowa  416,  2278,  2617,  2618 

Dix  v.  Akers,  30  Ind.  431,  365 

Dix  v.  Shaver,  14  Hun  (N.  Y.)  392,  1280 

Dixon  v.  Baldwen,  5  East  175,  2352 

Dixon  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mackey 

(D.  C.)  78,  1512 

Dixon  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  N.  Y. 

170,  2150 

Dixon  v,  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  Mo. 

413,  2077 

Dixon  County  v.  Field,  111  U.  S.  83, 

1176,  1225,  1227,  1233,  1236,  1242,  1243, 1250 
Dixon  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  X. 

Car.  538,  2249 

Dixon  v.  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co., 

68  Fed.  R.  630.  2109 

Dixon  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  71  Fed. 

R.  143,  2000 

Dixon  v.  Yates,  5  B.  &  Ad.  313,  2394 

Diabola  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

N.  Y.  S.  R.  149,  2449 

Doan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Mo.  App. 

408,  2183, 2403 

Doane  v.  Clinton,  2  Utah  417,  1600 

Dobbin  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich. 

522,  2309,  2376 

Dobbin  v.  Ricnmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  N.  C. 

446  2009,2030 

Dobbins  v.  Higgins,  78  111.  440,  1584 

Dobson  v.  Simonton,  78  N.  C.  63,  748 

Dobson  v.  Simonton,  86  N.  Car.  492,  867 

Dodd  v.  Consolidated  Traction  Co.,  (N. 

J.)  31  Atl.  R.  980,  1620 

Dodd  v.  Hartford,  25  Conn.  232,  1070 

Dodd  v.  Salisbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Qiff.  158, 

s.  c.  Juris.  (N.  S.)  782,  538 


Dodge  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  154  Mass. 

299,  1315,  2519,  2520 

Dodge  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  Mass. 

207,  2481, 2589 

Dodge  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Iowa 

276,  1678 

Dodge  v.  Burns,  6  Wis.  514,  1453 

Dodge  v.  Council  Bluffs,  57  Iowa  560,  33, 1347 
Dodge  v.  County  Comrs.,  3  Met.  (Mass.) 

380,  1564, 1567 

Dodge  v.  County  of  Platte,  82  N.  Y.  218,  1235 
Dodge  v.  County  of  Platte,  16  Hun  (N.Y.) 

285,  1145,  1237 

Dodge  v.  Freedman's,  etc.,  Trust  Co.,  106 

U.  S.  445,  s.  c.  1  Sup.  Ct.  R.  335,  688 

Dodge  v.  Memphis,  51  Fed.  R.  165,  1162 

Dodge  v.  Meyer,  61  Cal.  405,  2214,  2218 

Dodge  v.  Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Neb.  276, 

1452, 1483, 1488 

Dodge  v.  Tulleys,  144  U.  S.  451,  935 

Dodge  v.  Woolsey,  18  How.  (U.  S.)  331, 

375,  877,  911,  1061,  1063 

Dodgson's  Case,  3  De  Gex  &  S.  85,  326 

Dodson  v.  McCauley,  62  Ga.  130,  2127 

Doe  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Ga.  524,  1335,  1336 
Doe  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Iowa  657,  1097 
Doe  v.  North  Staffordshire  R.  Co.,  16 

Q.  B.  526,  1343 

Doe  v.  St.  Helen's,  etc.,  By.  Co.,  2  Eng. 

Ry.  &  Can.  Cas.  756,  649 

Doe  v.  Wilson,  23  How.  457,  1136 

Doggett  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  34  Iowa 

284,  2561 

Doggett  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  N. 

Car.  459,  1872,  1909,  1927 

Doing  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Hun 

270,  2017 

Dolan  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  71  N.  Y.  285, 

1754, 1755 
Dolores,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hartman,  17  Colo. 

138,  1425 

Dolphin  v.  Pedley,  27  Wis.  469,  1528 

Dolsen  v.  Brown,  13  La.  Ann.  551,  2389 

Don  v.  Lippmann,  5  Cl.  &  F.  1,  2312 

Donahoe  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  W.  R. 

772,  2281 

Donahoe  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  153  Mass. 

356,  2122, 2123 

Donahoe  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mo. 

543,  1969 

Donahue  v.  Drexler,  82  Ky.  157,  2147 

Donahue  v.  Lake  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

155  U.  S.  386,  1132 

Donald  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

61  N.  W.  R.  971,  2156,  2161 

Donald  v.  Scott,  67  Fed.  R.  854,  2637 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1M2,  Vol. 

Donald  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  44  Iowa 

157,  1823,  1929 

Donald  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  52  Iowa 

411,  559,  1487, 1538 

Donald  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  N.  Y. 

497,  2256 

Donaldson  v.  Jude,  2  Bibb  (Ky.)  57,  523 

Donaldson  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  18 

Iowa  280,  2152 

Dond  v.  Guthrie,  13  111.  App.  653,  1473 

Donegan  v.  Erhardt,  119  N.  Y.  468, 

1807,  1830,  2002,  2472 
Donisthorpe  v.  Fremont,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  30 

Neb.  142,  1305, 1314 

Donnelly  v.  Boston,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  151  Mass. 

210,  1774 

DonneUy  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  109 

N.  Y.  16,  1736 

DonneUy  v.  Brooklyn,  121  N.  Y.  9,  1459 

DonneUy  v.  People,  11  IU.  552,  926 

DonneUy  v.  West,  17  Hun  (N.  Y.)  564,  107 

Donner  v.  Palmer,  23  Cal.  40,  1473,  1535 

Donohoe  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Week. 

B.  792,  2355 

Donohoe  v.  Mariposa,  etc.,  Co.,  66  Cal. 

317,  875 

Donohue  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  B.Co.,  14  N.Y. 

Supp.  — ,  2043 

Donohue  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  91  Mo. 

357,  1756,  1792 

Donovan  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  89  Mo. 

147,  1806,  1865,  1866 

Donovan  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  65 

Conn.  201,  2463,  2706 

Donovan  v.  Oakland,  etc.,  Co.,  102  Cal. 

245,  1589 

Donovan  v.  Springfield,  125  Ma^s.  371, 

1427, 1428 
Donovan  v.  Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  64  Tex. 

519,  286 

Donworth  v.  Coolbaugh,  5  Iowa  300,  93 

Doolan  v.  Carr,  125  U.  S.  618,  1121, 1127 

Doolittle,  In  re,  23  Fed.  E.  544,  810 

Doolittle  v.  Braford,  59  Conn.  402,  1670 

Doolittle  v.  Selectmen,  59  Conn.  402,     974,  987 
Dooly  Block  v.  Salt  Lake,  etc.,  Co.,  9 

Utah  31,  901,  1626,  1633,  1637 

Dooner  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  164  Pa. 

St.  17,  .          2014 

Dooner  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  171  Pa. 

St.  581,  2072 

Doon  Township  v.  Cummins,  142  U.  S. 

366,  1176 

Doran  v.  Central  Pacific  B.  Co.,  24  Cal. 

245,  1490 

CORP. — xi 


III,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27H5.] 

Doran  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  73  Iowa 

115,  1864 

Dorian  v.  East  Brandywine,  etc.,  B.  Co., 

46  Pa.  St.  520,  1434,  1518 

Dorenbecker  v.  Columbia  C.  L.  Co.,  21 

Ore.  573,  3% 

Dorman  v.  Ames,  12  Minn.  451,  2469 

Dorman  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  7 

Fla.  265,  186 

Dorr  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  11  N.  Y.  485, 

2263,  2322,  2316 

Dorris  v.  French,  4  Hun  (N.  Y.)  292,       18,  376 
Dorris  v.  Sweeney,  60  N.  Y.  463,  156,  250 

Dorsey  v.  PhiUips,  etc.,  Construction  Co., 

42  Wis.  583,  2001 

Dorsey  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  58  111. 

65,  1314 

Dorwin  v.  Westbrook,  86  Hun  363,  1573 

Doss  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  59  Mo.  58,    2545 
Doss  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  59  Mo.  27, 

1964,  2459,  254S 
Doty  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  49  Minn.  499, 

2150 
Doty  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  3  N.  Dak.  9, 

135, 146,  147 
Doty  v.  Michigan  Cent.  E.  Co.,  8  Abb.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  427,  881 

Doty  v.  Strong,  1  Pin.  (Wis.)  313,  2692 

Doud,  The  Eeuben,  46  Fed.  B.  800,  2382 

Doud  v.  Mason  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  76  Iowa 

438,  1513,  1565 

Doud  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  By.  Co.,  65  Wis. 

108,  877 

Dougan  v.  Champlain  Transportation 

Co.,  56  N.  Y.  1,  1796,  2009 

Dougherty  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  81  Mo. 

325,  2466 

Dougherty  v.  Missouri  Pac.  B.  Co.,  9  Mo. 

App.  478,  2598 

Dougherty  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  19  Mo. 

App.  419,  898, 1391 

Doughty  v.  West  Superior,  etc.,  Co.,  88 

Wis.  343,  2023,  2058 

Doughty  v.  SomerviUe,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  21  N. 

J.  Law  442,  1285,  1481,  1494, 1495, 1501 

Douglas  v.  Chatham,  41  Conn.  211,  1140 

Douglas  v.  NianticTetc.,  Bank,  97  111.  228,    1220 
Douglas  v.  People's  Bank,  86  Ky.  176, 

2199,  2217,  2220,  2360 
Douglas  v.  Eichmond,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  106  N. 

Car.  65,  933 

Douglas  v.  Sioux  City  St.  B.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

58  N.  W.  E.  1070,  1798 

Douglas  v.  Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  63  Tex.  564, 

2086 


clxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-Ui,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  ITT,  pp.  im- 


i,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Douglas  Co.  v.  Bolles,  94  TJ.  S.  104,  447 

Douglass  v.  Byrnes,  63  Fed.  R.  16,  1471,  1534 
Douglass  v.  Cline,  12  Bush  (Ky.)  608,  707 

Douglass  v.  County  of  Pike,  101  TJ.  S.  677, 

1087, 1179,  1234,  1239, 1255 

Douglass  v.  HarrisviUe,  9  W.  Va.  162,  '  1071 
Douglass  v.  Ireland,  73  N.  Y.  100,  132,  166 

Douglass  v.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Ala.  638,  2631 

Douglass  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.Co., Clarke's 

Ch.  (N.  Y.)  174,  1308 

Douglass  v.  Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  138  N.  Y.  209,  888 
Douglass  v.  Wells,  57  How.  Pr.  R.  378,  555 
Dousman  v.  Wisconsin,  etc*.,  R.  R.  Co., 

40  Wis.  418,  440,  442 

Douthit  v.  Mohr,  116  Ind.  482,  662 

Douthitt  v.  Stinson,  63  Mo.  268,  552 

Dow  v.  Beidelman,  125  U.  S.  680, 

953,  984,  997,  1095,  2424,  2671 
Dow  v.  Beidelman,  49  Ark.  325, 

703,  717,  973,  984,  997,  1033 
Dow  v.  Gould,  etc.,  Min.  Co.,  31  Cal.  629,  427 
Dow  v.  Iowa  Central  R.  Co.,  70  Hun  186, 

721,724 

Dow  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Fed.  R. 

260,  663,  683,  708,  745,  748,  801,  814 

Dow  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Am.  & 

Eng.  R.  Cas.  324,  742 

Dow  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  124  U.  S. 

652,  707,  709 

Dow  v.  Norris,  4  N.  H.  16,  1226 

Dow  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Me.  490,  2403 
Dowd  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  162  Mass. 

185,  2091 

Dowd  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Wis. 

108,  239 

Dowell  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Iowa 

629,  2147, 2705 

Dowell  v.  Griswold,  5  Sawy.  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

39,  942 

Dowell  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  61 

Miss.  519,  2072 

Downey  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

W.  Va.  732,  2561,  2562 

Downey  v.  Hendrie,  46  Mich.  498,  2558 

Downey  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  161 

Pa.  St.  588,  1709,  1715,  1799 

Dowling  v.  Hudson,  14  Beav.  423,  774 

Dowling  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 N.  Y.  670,  1978 
Downie  v.  Hoover,  12  Wis.  174,  211 

Downie  v.  White.  12  Wis.  176,  190, 198 

Downing  v.  Alexandria,  10  Wall.  173,  2655 
Downing  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Iowa 

96,  I860 

Downing  v.  DesMoines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

Iowa  177,  1548 


Downing  v.  Dunlap,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  93Tenn. 

221,  758 

Downing  v.  Mount  Washington  Road  Co., 

40  N.  H.  230,  476,  513 

Downing  v.  Potts,  23  N.  J.  Law  66,        218,  22H 
Downs  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Conn. 

287,  284,  2487,  2502 

Dows  v.  City  of  Chicago,  11  Wall.  108,       1207 
Dows  v.  Greene,  24  N.  Y.  638,  2218,  2360 

Dows  v.  Naper,  91  111.  44,  414 

Dows  v.  Nat.  Ex.  Bank,  91  U.  S.  618, 

2216,  2217,  2219,  2382 

Dows  v.  Pen-in,  16  N.  Y.  325,       2214,  2218,  2219 
Dows  v.  Town  of  Elmwood,  34  Fed.  R. 

114,  H72 

Doyle  v.  Continental  Ins.  Co.,  94  U.  S. 

535,  44,  1093 

Doyle  v.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  162  Mass. 

66,  2457,  2508,  2509,  2512,  2514,  2517 

Doyle  v.  Kiser,  6  Ind.  242,  2608 

Doyle  v.  Mizner,  42  Mich.  332,  360 

Doyle  v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  44  Cal.  264,  662 

Doyle  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Minn. 

79,  1997 

Doyle  v.  West  End  St.  R.  Co.,  161  Mass. 

533,  1647 

Doyle  v.  White,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  Y.  S. 

760,  2009 

Drady  v.  DesMoines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Iowa 

393,  1409,  1539 

Drain  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Mo. 

574,  1764 

Drake  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Iowa 

302,  1404 

Drake  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  App. 

562,  1776, 1784 

Drake  v.  Gilmore,  52  N.Y.  389,    2135,  2141,  2142 
Drake  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  7  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  508,  274 

Drake  v.  Kiely,  93  Pa.  St.  492,  299 

Drake  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

Mich.  168,  888,  893,  894 

Drake  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Hun 

490,  2027 

Drake  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  137  Pa.  St. 

352,  2452 

Drake  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Pa. 

St.  240,  1803,  1804,  1806 

Drake  v.  Phillips,  40  111.  388,  1103 

Drake  v.  Union  Pacific  B.  Co.,  2  Idaho 

453,  2046 

Draper  v.  Springport,  104  U.  S.  501,  1163 

Drath  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Neb. 

367,  1283,  1506,  1508,  1534 

Dreisbach  v.  Price,  133  Pa.  560,  265 

Dresser  v.  Norwood,  17  C.  B.  N.  S.  466,         322 
Drew,  The,  15  Fed.  R.  826,  2365 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  H43-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S725.] 


Drew  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Cal.  425, 

2481,  2485,  2491 

Drew  v.  Comstock,  57  Mich.  176,  311 

Drew  v.  Hilliker,  56  Vt.  641,  1027 

Drew  v.  Van  Deman,  6  Heisk.  433,  493 

Dreyfus  v.  Mayer,  69  Miss.  282,  2388 

Drhew  v.  Altoona  City,  121  Pa.  St.  401, 

1574, 1575 
Drinkhouse  v.  Spring  Valley,  etc.,  Co.,  80 

Cal.  308,  886 

Drink  water  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

Me.  35,  269 

Driscoll  v.  City  of  Fall  River,  163  Mass. 

105,  2106 

Driscoll  v.  Fiske,  21  Pick.  (Mass.)  503, 

646,2328 
Driscoll  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Conn. 

230,  607 

Driscoll  v.  West  Bradley,  etc.,  Co.,  59  N.Y. 

96,  148, 149 

Driver  v.  Western  Un.  R.  Co.,  32  Wis.  569, 

1420, 1421,  1426,  1429,  1436,  1443 
Drohan  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  162 

Mass.  435,  2150,  2710 

Dronberger  v.  Reed,  11  Ind.  420,  1146 

Dronefleld,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  17  Ch. 

Div.  76,  254 

Drummond's  Case,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  Ap.  772, 

133,165 
Drummond  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  7 

Utah  118,  2484,  2495,  2499,  2500 

Drury  v.  Boston,  101  Mass.  439,  1505 

Drury  v.  Cross,  7  Wall.  299,  377,  713 

Drury  v.  Foster,  2  Wall.  24,  553 

Drury  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  127  Mass.  571, 

975, 1274, 1275, 1403, 1433,  1449, 1451,  1457,  1486, 
1487,  1488, 1515 

Druse  v.  Wheeler,  22  Mich.  439,  562 

Dryden  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  60  Me.  512,    2492 
Dry  Dockt  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  North  &  East 

River  Ry.  Co.,  (Com.  PL  N.  Y.)  22  N.  Y. 

S.  556,  873,  875 

Dryer  v.  Brown,  52  Hun  (N.  Y.)  321,  2714 

Duame  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Wis. 

523,  1738 

Dubach  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mo. 

483,  1619, 1637 

Dubbs  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148 Pa. 

St.  66,  1727 

Dube  v.  Lewiston,  83  Me.  211,  2091 

Dube  v.  The  Queen,  3  Can.  Exch.  147,         2473 
Dublin  Corp.  v.  Attorney-General,  9  Bligh 

N.  S.  395,  475 

Dublin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Black,  8 Ex.  181,    136, 161 
Dublin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Navan.etc.,  R.  Co., 

5  Ir.  Rep.  (Eq.  Ser.)  393,  1374 


Dublin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Slattery,  L.  R.  3 

App.  Gas.  1155,  1758,  1789 

Dubois  v.  Kingston,  102  N.  Y.  219,  1797 

DuBoise  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Hun 

10,  1761 

DuBois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

10  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  401.  1798 

Dubois  Traction  Co.  v.  Buffalo,  C.  &  P. 

Ry.  Co.,  149  Pa.  St.  1,  12,  1798 

DuBreuil  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  130  Ind. 

137,  886 

Dubuque  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Iowa  201, 

1056,1058 
Dubuque  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  Co.,  39  Iowa  56, 

1058,  1060,  1074 

Dubuque  County  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  G.  Greene  (Iowa)  1,  1144 

Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crittenden,  5 

Iowa  514,  1555 

Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Des  Moines,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  54  Iowa  89,  1135 

Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Diehl,  64  Iowa 

635,  1452 

Dubuque,  etc.,  Railroad  Co.  v.  Litehfield, 

23  How.  66,  571,  1127, 1136 

Ducat  v.  Chicago,  10  Wall.  410,          1085, 1093 
Duck  River  Valley,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coch- 

rane,  3  Lea  (Tenn.)  478,     547,  1275, 1304, 1391 
Duckworth  v.  Johnson,  4  Hurl.  &  N.  653, 

2135,  2142 
Dudley  v.  Camden,  etc.,  Co.,  42  N.  J.  L. 

25,  2405 

Dudley  v.  Front  Street,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73 

Fed.  R.  128,  2179,  2547 

Dudley  v.  Mayhew,  3  N.  Y.  9,  1011,  2131 

Dudley  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Iowa 

408,  1518 

Dudley  v.  Price,  10  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  84,  869 

Dudley  v.  Smith,  1  Camp  167,  2381 

Dudley  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Mich. 

655,  1570,  1594, 1597,  1605 

Duff  v.  Alleghany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Pa.  St. 

458,  1959, 1961,  1963,  2449,  2463 

Duff  v.  Budd,  3  B.  &  Bing.  177, 

2187,  2214,  2350,  2359,  2383 

Duff  v.  Carrier,  55  Fed.  R.  433,  690 

Duff  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  4  Ir. 

178,  2515 

Duffee  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  N.  H. 

430,  2283 

Duffleld  v.  Barnum,  etc.,  Works,  64  Mich. 

293,  200, 253 

Duffy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R  Co.,  32  Wis.  269, 1748 
Duffy  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Hilton 

(N.  Y.)  496,  559 

Duffy  v.  Thompson,  4  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.) 

178,  2608 


clxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-UtZ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-87*5.] 


Duffy  v.  Upton,  113  Mass.  544,  2053,  2054 

Dugan  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Tex.  App. 

(Civil  Cases)  607,  2535 

Dugan  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Minn. 

544,  1745 

Duggan  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  195  Pa. 

St.  248,  1992 

Duke  v.  Brown,  96  N.  Car.  127,  630, 1232 

Duke  v.  Cahawba  Nav.  Co.,  10  Ala.  82,  145 
Dukes  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Hun  705, 

2004 

Duke  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  14  TJ.  C.  Q. 

B.  377,  2488 

Duke  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  14  Upper 

Can.  Q.  B.  369,  284 

Duke  v.  Markham,  105  N.  C.  131,  235,  642 

Duke  v.  Rhode  Island,  etc.,Works,  11  R.  I. 

599,  889 

Duke  v.  Taylor,  (Fla.)  19  So.  172,  32,  273 

Duke  of  Buccleuch  v.  Metropolitan  Board 

of  Works,  L.  R.  5  Exch.  221.  1442 

Dukes  v.  Working,  93  Ind.  501,  1463 

Dulin  v.  McCaw,  39  W.  Va.  721,  2132 

Duling  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 

Md.  120,  2483,  2495,  2499 

Dullea  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Wis. 

173,  1769 

Duluth  v.  MaUett,  43  Minn.  204,  326,  1624 

Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  51  Minn.  218,  1402 

Dumas  v.  Stone,  65  Vt.  442,  2028 

Dumesnil  v.  Dupont,  18  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  800,  903 
Dumville  v.  Ashbrooke,  3  Rus.  99,  754 

Dun  v.  Seaboard,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Va.  645,  2563 
Dunbar  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  Mass. 

26,  2365,2383 

Dunbar  v.  McGill,  64  Mich.  676,  2065 

Dunbar  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  S. 

Car.  110,  2229,  2699 

Duncan  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Interst. 

Com.  R.  385,  2663,  2686 

Duncan  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  4 

Hughes  125,  699 

Duncan  v.  Bateman,  23  Ark.  327,  1581 

Duncan  v.  Gegan,  101  U.  S.  810,  949 

Duncan  v.  Hayes,  22  N.  J.  Eq.  25,  903 

Duncan  v.  Jaudon,  15  Wall.  (U.  S.)  165,  139 
Duncan  v.  Mayor,  8  Bush  (Ky.)  98,  1212 

Duncan  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Mo. 

App.  198,  1776 

Duncan  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Woods 

(U.  S.)  597,  687,  698,  724 

Duncan  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Woods 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  542,  656 

Duncan  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.Co.,  4  Interst. 

Com.  R.  385,  2671 


Duncan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mo. 

67,  1825 

Duncan  v.  State,  29  Fla.  439,  1053 

Duncan  v.  United  States,  7  Pet.  435,  2638 

Duncomb  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  88  N.Y.  1, 

377,  378,  379,  380,  489,  514,  521,  629,  706,  713,  855 
Duncomb  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  88  N.  Y. 

1,  347, 394 

Dundas  v.    Desjardins  Canal  Co.,  17 

Grant's  Ch.  (Upper  Can.)  27,  659,  660 

Dundas  v.  Lansing,  75  Mich.  499,  1797 

Dunham  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Me. 

164,  2255 

Dunham  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  1 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  254,       6155,  650,  651,  653,  655,  657 
Dunham  v.  Hyde  Park,  75  111.  371,  1365 

Dunham  v.  Isett,  15  Iowa  284,          639, 648,  892 
Dunham  v.  Williams,  36  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

136,  1387 

Dunkirk  Colliery  Co.  v.  Manchester,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  2  Nev.  &  Mac.  402,  2435,2436 

Dunlap  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  111. 

409,  588 

Dunlap  v.  International,  etc.,  Co.,  98 

Mass.  371,  2607,  2608,  2630 

Dunlap  v.  Mt.  Sterling,  14  111.  251,  1552 

Dunlap  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ga. 

136,  2047 

Dunlap  v.  Steamboat  Reliance,  2  Fed.  R. 

249,  2471 

Dunlap  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Mich. 

190,  148,  1449,  1557,  1558 

Dunlap  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Mich. 

470,  1380, 1543 

Dunlavy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Iowa 

435,  2718 

Dunleith,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Dubuque,32 

Iowa  427,  1062 

Dunlop  v.  Lambert,  6  Cl.  <fe.  Fin.  600, 

2196,  2694,  2695 
Dunn  v.   Charleston,  Harper  (S.  Car.) 

Law  189,  1338 

Dunn  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Iowa 

674,  1818 

Dunn  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Me. 

187,  2471,  2552,  2554,  2560 

Dunn  v.  Great  Falls,  13  Mont.  58,  1176 

Dunn  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Mo. 

268,  2410,  2411,  2412 

Dunn  v.  Kyle,  14  Bush  (Ky.)  134,  384 

Dunn  v.  North,  etc.,  Co.,  24  Mo.  493,  1114 

Dunn  v.  Oregon  University,  9  Ore.  357,          22 
Dunnigan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Wis. 

28,  1841, 1843 

Dunning  v.  Bond,  38  Fed.  R.  813,  1775 

Dunphy  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  N.  Y.  Su- 
per. Ct.  128,  2493,  2504 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  443-1262,  Vol. 

Dunseth  v.  Wade,  3  111.  285,        2237,  2308,  2347 
Dunsmore  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa  182, 

560,  904, 1037 
Dunson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Lans. 

265,  2267,  2268,  2307 

Dunston  v.  Imperial  Gas  Light  Co.,  3 

Barn.  &  Adol.  125,  279,  371 

Duntley  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  N.  H. 

263,  2327,  2338,  2339,  2417 

Dupee  v.  Boston  Water-power   Co.,   114 

Mass.  37,  141,  476,  564 

DuPont  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  18 

Fed.  R.  467,  243 

Dupont  v.  Tilden,  42  Fed.  R.  87,  115, 167 

Dupuis  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  111. 

97,  1437,  1514 

Durach's  Appeal,  62  Pa.  St.  491,  1060 

Durant  v.  Lexington,  etc.,  Mining  Co.,  97 

Mo.  62,  2074 

Durbin  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Ore.  5,    1776 
Durfee  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Allen 

(Mass.)  230,  232,  349,  350,  429 

Durfee  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  111.  435, 

1287,1290 
Durgin  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  66  N.  H. 

277,  2201,  2324,  2336,  2337 

Durgin  v.  Dyer,  68  Me.  143,  523 

Durgy  Cement,  etc.,  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  123 

Mass.  13,  2390 

Durham  v.  Monumental,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Ore. 

41,  2692 

Durham  v.  State,  117  Ind.  477,  1026 

Durham  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82 

N.  Car.  352,  1850 

Durham,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bullock  Church, 

104  N.  Car.  525,  1513, 1519 

Durham,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richmond,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  106  N.  C.  16,  1497 

Durham,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richmond,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  104  N.  C.  673,  982 

Durkee  v.  Central  Pacific,  etc.,  Co.,  69 

Cal.  533,  308 

Durkee  v.  City  of  Janesville,  28  Wis.  464,    974 
Durkee  v.  People,  155  111.  354,  276 

Durkee  v.  President,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Hun  471, 

1774,  1791 

Durkin  v.  Sharp,  88  N.  Y.  225,  813 

Duseubury  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  25  N.  J.  Eq.  295,  1070 
Dutcher  v.  Marine  Nat.  Bank,  12  Blatch. 

(U.  S.)  435,  269 

Dutchess,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis,  14  Johns. 

(N.  Y.)  238,  252 

Dutchess,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hachfield,  73  N.  Y. 

226,  628 

Dutchess,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mabbett,  58  N.  Y. 

397,  27,54,155,157 


III.  pp.  126S-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-9725.] 

Dutenhofer  v.  Adirondack  Ry.  Co.,  14 

N.  Y.  Sup.  558,  725 

Dutton  v.  Solomonson,  3  B.  &  P.  582,  2215 

Duval  v.  Hunt,  34  Fla.  85,  2118,  2137 

Duval  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Fed.  R. 

265,  2534 

Duval  County  Commissioners  v.  Jackson- 
ville, (Fla.)  29  L.  R.  A.  416,  1610 
Duvenick  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mo. 

App.  550,  2412 

Duvergier  v.  Fellows,  5  Bing.  248,  22 

Duykinck  v.  New  York  Electric  R.  Co., 

125  N.  Y.  710,  1441 

Dwight  v.  Brewster,  1  Pick.  50,  2186,  2192 

Dwight  v.  Elmira,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132  N.  Y. 

199,  1929,  1931 

Dwight  v.  Springfield,  6  Gray  (Mass.) 

442,  1530 

Dwight  v.  Springfield,  4  Gray  107,  1192 

Dwinelle  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120 

N.  Y.  117, 

2083,  2458,  2481,  2529,  2530,  2541,  2581,  2587 
Dwyer  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Tex.  707,  2376 
Dwyer  v.  Hackworth,  57  Tex.  245,  1209 

Dyck  v.  McQuade,  86  N.  Y.  38,  384 

Dye  v.  Virginia,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Mackey  63, 

306,2246 
Dyer  v.  Cincinnati,  P.  &  V.  Ry.  Co.,  7  Ohio 

Cir.  Ct.  R.  255,  901 

Dyer  v.  County  of  Placer,  90  Cal.  276,         1048 
Dyer  v.  Erie,  efc.,  R.  Co.,  71  N.  Y.  228, 

1748, 1750 
Dyer  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  42  Vt.  441, 

2420,  2442 
Dyer  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  51  Minn. 

345,  2359, 2694 

Dyer  v.  Jones,  8  Vt.  205,  1580 

Dyer  v.  St.  Paul,  27  Minn.  457,  1406, 1456 

Dyer  v.  Walker,  40  Pa.  St.  157,  75 

Dygert  v.  Scheiick,  23  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  446,    1030 
Dyke  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  113, 

2312,  2330 
Dymock  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mo. 

App.  400,  2219,  2220,  2393 

Dyer  County  v.  Railroad,  87  Tenn.  712, 

1666,  1669, 1674 
Dynen  v.  Leach,  26  L.  J.  (N.  S.)  Exch.  221, 

2005 
Dysinger  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

Mich.  646,  2026 

Dysom  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Conn. 

9,  1739,  1744,  1760 

E 

Eachus  v.  Los  Angeles,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 
Cal.  614,  1141 

Eads  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Mo. 
App.  536,  1990,  2480,  2577,  2580 


clxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  l-263-S16i,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Eagle  v.  Kohn,  84  IU.  292,  356, 1250 

Eagle  v.  White,  6  Whart.  (Pa.)  505, 

2167,  2351,  2354 

Eagle  Chair  Co.  v.  Kelsey,  23  Kan.  632,  94 
Eagle  Ins.  Co.,  Ex  partc,  4  K.  &  J.  549,  357 
Eakins  v.  American  White  Bronze  Co.,  75 

Mich.  568,  347 

Eakright  v.  Logansport,  etc.,  E.  K.  Co., 

13  Ind.  404,  25,  53,  54,  205,  872 

Eames  v.  Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  14  Allen 

(Mass.)  151,  1846, 1865 

Eames  v.  Salem,  etc.,  Co.,  98  Mass.  560, 

1803, 1814 

Eames  v.  Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  63  Tex.  660, 

1830,2001 

Eames  v.  Worcester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Mass. 

193,  1824 

Earl  v.  Tapper,  45  Vt.  275,  2148 

Earl  of  Kildare  v.  Eustace,  1  Vern.  419,  107 
Earl  of  Lindsey  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 

10  Hare  664,  913 

Earl  of  Eipon  v.  Hobart,  1  Cooper  (Temp. 

Brougham)  333,  903 

Earl  of  Sandwich  v.  Great  Northern  E. 

Co.,  L.  E.  10  Ch.  Div.  707,  1402 

Earl  of  Shrewsbury  v.   North  Stafford- 
shire, etc.,  B.  Co.,  L.  E.  1  Eq.  593,       502,  514 
Earl  of  St.  Germans  v.  Crystal  Palace  E. 

Co.,  L.  E.  11  Eq.  Cas.  568,  1537 

Earle  v.  Earle,  91  Ind.  27,  522 

Earle  v.  Seattle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Fed.  E. 

909,  239,  241,  450,  492,  569,  758 

Earlywine  v.  Topeka,  etc.,  E.  E.  Co.,  43 

Kan.  746,  61 

Earnest  v.  Express  Co.,  1  Woods  (U.  S.  C. 

C.)  573,  2309,  2336 

Earp's  Appeal,  28  Pa.  St.  368,  418,  421,  422 

East,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Shaw,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  39 

Ch.  Div.  524,  2671 

East,  etc.,  Docks  R.  Co.  v.  Dawes,  11  Hare 

363,  540 

East, 'etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gattke,  20  L.  J.  Ch. 

(N.  S.)  217,  1411 

East,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Great  Western,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  1  Nev.  &  Mac.  331,  2686 

East,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  64  Tex.  615,  2182 
East  Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Doe,  114  U.  S.  340, 

56,  100,  695,  1115 
East  Anglian  R.  Co.  v.  Eastern  Counties 

R.  Co.,  11  C.  B.  775,    501,  513,  539,  569,  579,  643 
East  Birmingham  Land  Co.  v.  Dennis,  85 

Ala.  565,  116 

East  Boston  Freight  R.  Co.  v.  Eastern  R. 

Co.,  13  Allen  (Mass.)  422,       101,  637,  638, 1351 
East  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hubbard, 

10  Allen  (Mass.)  459,  639 


East  Brandy  wine,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ranck, 

78  Pa.  St.  454,  1436,  1515 

East  end  St.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Doyle,  88  Tenn. 

747,  9, 1636 

Easter  v.  Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

Ohio  St.  48,  561,  1822 

Easterbrook  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  51  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  95,  1439, 1930 

Easterly  v.  Barber,  65  N.  Y.  252,  339 

Eastern  Archipelago  Co.  v.  Regina,2Ellis 

&  B.  856,  76 

Eastern  Archipelago  Co.  v.  Regina,  22 

Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  228,  81 

Eastern,  etc.,  Bank  v.  St.  Johnsbury,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  40  Fed.  R.  423,  575,  621 

Eastern,  etc.,  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Vaughn,  20 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  155,  218 

Eastern  Plank  Road  Co.  v.  Vaughn,  14 

N.  Y.  546,  28 

Eastern  &  Midland  R.  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R. 

45  Ch.  Div.  367,  818 

Eastern  R.  Co.  v.  Boston  &  Maine  R.  E., 

Ill  Mass.  125, 

23,  61, 1333,  1350,  1370,  1371,  1381,  1433 
Eastern  Counties  v.  Broom,  2  Eng.  L.  & 

Eq.  406,  282 

Eastern  Counties  R.  Co.  v.  Broom,  15  Jur. 

297,  304 

Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Broom,  6  Exch. 

314,  2582 

Eastern  Union  R.  Co.  v.  Cochrane,  24 

Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  495,  320 

Eastern  R.  Co.  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47 

N.  Y.  108,  1524,  1526 

Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawkes,  5  H.  L. 

Cas.  331,    476,  485,  486,  507,  536,  579, 1297,  1298 
Eastern  R.  Co.  v.  Loring,  138  Mass.  381, 

329,330 
East  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  King,  91  Ga. 

519,  883 

East  Gloucestershire  R.  Co.  v.  Bartholo- 
mew, L.  R.  3  Ex.  15,  159 
East  Hartford  v.  American,  etc.,  Bank,  49 

Conn.  539,  2686 

East  Hartford  v.  Hartford  Bridge  Co.,  IT 

Conn.  79,  1381 

East  Hartford  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  Co.,  10 

How.  (U.  S.)  536,  1088 

East  India,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pullan,  1 

Strange  690,  2174 

East  Kingston  v.  Towle,  48  N.  H.  57,  963 

East  Lake  Land  Co.  v.  Brown,  155  U.  S. 

488,  943, 1017 

East  Lincoln  v.  Davenport,  94  U.  S.  801, 

456,  1224,  1254 
East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Culberson,  68 

Tex.  664,  2147 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-Z16U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


East  Line,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Culberson,  72 

Tex.  375,  602,  612 

East  Line  H.  Co.  v.  Garrett,  52  Tex.  133,  1305 
East  Line  &  E.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Bushing,  69 

Tex.  306,  56,  57,  445,  446,  693 

East  Line,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Smith,  65  Tex. 

167,  2472 

East  Line  &  E.  B.  E.  Co.  v.  State,  75  Tex. 

434,  84,  444,  692,  694,  734 

Eastman  v.  Wadleigh,  65  Me.  251,  886 

East  New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Elmore,  5  Hun 

214,  382 

East  Oakland  v.  Skinner,  94  U.  S.  255, 

1165, 1175 
East  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Schollenberger, 

54  Pa.  St.  144,  1397 

East  Pennsylvania  E.  Co.  v.  Hiester,  40 

Pa.  St.  53,  1516 

East  Saginaw,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  Saginaw, 

19  Mich.  259,  1087 

East  Saginaw,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  Saginaw, 

13  Wall.  373,  1087 

East  Saginaw,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Benham,  28 

Mich.  459,  1481, 1528, 1535 

East  St.  Louis  v.  Amy,  120  U.  S.  600,  1258 

East  St.  Louis  v.  Maxwell,  99  IU.  439,  1170 
East  St.  Louis  v.  O'Flynn,  119  111.  200,  1631 
East  St.  Louis  v.  Underwood,  105  IU.  308,  1262 
East  St.  Louis  Provision  Co.  v.  Hightower, 

92  111.  139,  2008,  2064 

East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Craven,  52 

111.  App.  415,  2012 

East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Dwyer,  41 

111.  App.  522,  2708 

East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eisentraut, 

134  IU.  96,  1411 

East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  East  St. 

Louis  Union  E.  Co.,  108  IU.  265, 

59, 1376,  1681,  1693 
East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Shannon, 

52  IU.  App.  420,  2029 

East  St.  Louis  C.  By.  Co.  v.  Wabash,  St. 

L.  &  P.  By.  Co.,  24  IU.  App.  279,        451,  2169 
East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wabash, 

etc.,  E.  Co.,  123  IU.  594,  2175 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Atlanta, 

etc.,  B.  Co.,  49  Fed.  B.  608,  766,  767,  785 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Bayliss,  75 

Ala.  466,  1855 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Bayliss,  74 

Ala.  150,  1856, 1870 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Bayliss,  77 

Ala.  429,  1853 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Brumley,  9 

Am.  &  Eng.  B.  Gas.  356,  2227 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Davis,  91 

Ala.  615,  1298 


East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  DeArmond, 

86  Tenn.  73,  2089 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Deaver,  79 

Ala.  216,  1850, 1852,  2476 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Evans,  6 

Heisk.  (Tenn.)  607,  .  167,  468 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Feathers, 

10  Lea  (Tenn.)  103,  1678, 1751, 1757, 1986 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Gammon, 

5  Sneed  (Tenn.)  567,  164, 192,  280 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Green,  95 

Ga.  736,  2564 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Gurley,  12 

Lea  46,  2035,  2472 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hale,  35 

Tenn.  69,  2178 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Harshaw, 

(Ky.)  29  S.  W.  B.  289,  1786 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Head,  92 

Ga.  723,  2046 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hesters,  90 

Ga.  11,  19=36, 1937 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Holmes,  97 

Ala.  332,  2550 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Hunt,  15 

Lea  (Tenn.)  261,  2420,  2440 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  95 

Ga.  497,  2628 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Johnston, 

75  Ala.  596,  2339,  2402 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Kane,  92 

Ga.  187,  2019,  2585 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  KeUy,  91 

Tenn.  699,  2274,  2276 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Kennedy, 

83  Ala.  462,  894 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  King.  81 

Ala.  177,  1756,  1763, 1967 

East  Tennessee,  etc..  E.  Co.  v.  Kornegay, 

92  Ala.  228,  2550 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  89 

Tenn.  235,  2068 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  LiUy,  90 

Tenn.  563,  2126,  2142 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Love,  3 

Head  (Tenn.)  63,  1:531,  1371, 1426, 1490, 1503 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Mahoney, 

89  Tenn.  311,  5 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Markens, 

88  Ga.  60,  1791 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  MiUer,  95 

Ga.  738,  2469 

East  Tennessee,  itc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  1 

Cold.  272,  2167,  2225,  2279,  2306 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Rogers,  6 

Heisk.  143,  2229 


clxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  'Pages. .] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JM-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scales,  2 

Lea  (Tenn.)  688,  1856 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  89 

Tenn.  114,  2071 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  T.  St.  John,  5 

Sneed  (Tenn.)- 524,  1967 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stewart,  13 

Lea  (Tenn.)  432,  2705 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Telford,  89 

Tenn.  293,  1387,  1389,  1409 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson, 

94  Ala.  636,  1999 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turvaville, 

97  Ala.  122,  2043,  2113 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watson,  90 

Ala.  41,  1856, 1880 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watters,  77 

Ga.  69,  1860 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White,  5 

Lea  (Tenn.)  540,  1759 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whittle,  27 

Ga.  535,  2399,  2406 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winters, 

85  Tenn.  240,  2477 

Easton  v.  Dudley,  78  Tex.  236,  410 

Easton  v.  German-American  Bank,  127 

U.  S.  532,  698 

Easton  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Fed. 

R.  893,  2051 

Easton  v.  Houston  &  T.  C.  R.  Co,,  38  Fed. 

R.  784,  822 

Easton  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Fed. 

R.  65,  2028 

Easton  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Fed. 

R.  189,  825 

Easton  v.  Penn.,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  13  Ohio 

79,  1571,  1572 

Easton  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill 

Mass.  125,  1693 

Easton,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Easton,  133  Pa. 

St.  505,  904,  1618,  4636 

Easton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Inhabitants,  etc., 

25  N.  J.  Eq.  565,  1393 

Eastwood  v.  Kennedy,  44  Md.  563,  2143 

Easun  v.  Buckeye,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Fed.  R.  156,    318 
Eaton  v.  Aspinwall,  19  N.  Y.  119,  25,  29 

Eaton  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  N.  H.  504, 

975, 1037, 1300, 1301,  1398,  1400,  1405,  1406,  1560, 

1565, 1566 
Eaton  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Allen  500, 

613,  2569 
Eaton  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  N.  Y. 

382,  284, 1961,  2456,  2555 

Eaton  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  51  N.  Y.  544,  1764 

Eaton  v.  European,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Me. 

520,  1543,  1547,  1563, 1587,  1588, 1591,  1593 

Eaton  v.  Farmer,  46  N.  H.  200,  1054 


Eaton  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  129  Mass.  364, 

1744, 1751,  1753 

Eaton  v.  Mclntire,  (Me.)  34  Atl.  R.  525,      2502 
Eaton  v.  Neumark,  37  Fed.  R.  375,  2356 

Eaton  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Ore.  391, 

1847, 1860, 1872 

Eaton  v.  Robinson,  18  R.  I.  396,  481 

Eaton  v.  Walker,  76  Mich.  579,  271 

Eaton  &  H.  R.  Co.  v.  Hunt,  20  Ind.  457, 

36,  39, 448,  463,  465,  470,  471,  684,  687 
Eau  Claire,  etc.,  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  Interst.  Com.  R.  65,  2675,  2678 

Ebaugh  v.  German,  etc.,  Church,  3  E.  D. 

Smith  60,  340 

Ebbett's  Case,  L.  R.  5  Chan.  App.  C.  302, 

136, 161 
Ebbw  Vale,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  4  Ch. 

Div.  827,  128 

Eby  v.  Guest,  94  Pa.  St.  160,  141 

Eccles  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Utah  335,   2150 
Echols  v.  City  of  Bristol,  90  Va.  165,  1230 

Ecker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Mo.  App. 

223,  298, 402 

Eckerd  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Iowa 

353,  2500 

Eckert  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 

N.  Y.  502,  1789 

Eckles  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Va.)  25 

S.  E.  R.  545,  2707 

Ecliff  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mich. 

196,  1980 

Eclipse,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pontchartrain  R. 

Co.,  24  La.  Ann.  1,  499,  2166,  2663 

Eddings  v.  Seabrook,  12  Rich.  L.  (S.  Car.) 

504,  1444 

Eddy,  The,  5  Wall.  (U.  S.)  481,  2444,  2446 

Eddy  v.  Evans,  58  Fed.  R.  151,    1854,  1857,  1863 
Eddy  v.  Kincaid,  28  Ore.  537,  985 

Eddy  v.  Hinnant,  82  Tex.  354, 

1315,  2519,  2520,  2521 
Eddy  v.  Lafayette,  49  Fed.  R.  807, 

807, 1895,  1902,  1936 

Eddy  v.  Lafayette,  49  Fed.  R.  798,  1871 

Eddy  v.  Ottowa,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Upper  C.  Q. 

B.  569,  1623 

Eddy  v.  People,  127  111.  428,  1232 

Eddy  v.  Powell,  49  Fed.  R.  814,  1782, 1783 

Eddy  v.  Prentice,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  58,         2044 
Eddy  v.  Rider,  79  Tex.  53,  2453 

Eddy  v.  Wallace,  49  Fed.  R.  801,  2475 

Edee  v.  Strunk,  35  Neb.307,  786 

Eden  v.   Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  B. 

Monr.  204,  2125 

Edenton  v.  Wool,  65  N.  Car.  379,  1026 

Edgar  Collegiate  Inst.  v.  Hardy,  142  111. 

363,  75 

Edge  v.  Commonwealth,  7  Pa.  St.  275,        1020 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2m,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Edgerly  v.  Emerson,  23  N.  H.  555, 

354,  358,  360,  365 
Edgerton  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

N.  Y.  227,  2552,  2599,  2704 

Edgington  v.  Fitzmaurice,  L.  R.  29  Ch. 

Div.  459,  193 

Edg^wood  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  79  Pa.  St.  257, 

1270,  1332, 1337,  1353,  1365,  1367 
Edinboro  Academy  v.  Robinson,  37  Pa  St. 

210,  155 

Edinburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hebble  White, 

6  M.  &  W.  707,  208 

Edington  v.  Fitzmaurice,  L.  R.  29  Ch. 

Div.  459,  190 

Edison  v.  Edison,  etc.,  Co.,  (N.  J.  Eq.)  29 

Atl.  R.  195,  738,  740,  742,  748 

Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  New  Haven, 

etc.,  Co.,  35  Fed.  R.  233,  463 

Edison  General  Electric  Co.  v.  Canadian 

Pac.  Nav.  Co.,  8  Wash.  370,  520 

Edmands  v.  Boston,  108  Mass.  535, 

1443, 1512, 1514, 1517 

Edmondson  v.  Crosthwaite,  34  Beav.  30,      424 
Edmunds  v.  Merchants'  Disp.  Transp.  Co., 

135  Mass.  283,  2365,  2383 

Edmundson  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill 

Pa.  St.  316,  1587,  1590 

Edrington  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

La.  Ann.  96,  1889 

Edrington  v.  Pridham,  65  Tex.  612,  786 

Edsall  v.  Camden,  etc.,  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  661,    2328 
Edson  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Iowa  47, 

1850, 1852 

Edwards  v.  Brewer,  2  M.  &  W.  375,  2389 

Edwards  v.  Campbell,  (Tex.  C.  App.)  33 

S.  W.  R.  761,  1935 

Edwards  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

S.  Car.  472,  1566 

Edwards  v.  Derrickson,  28  N.  J.  L.  39,        1596 
Edwards  v.  Grand  Junction  R.  Co.,  1 

Mylne  &  C.  650,  21,  366,  563 

Edwards  v.  Hall,  6  DeGex,  M.  &  Q.  74,         336 
Edwards  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Mo. 

567,  1838 

Edwards  v.  Hill,  11  111.  22,  1028 

Edwards  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Mo.  117,  1844 

Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.  595,  1168 

Edwards  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81 

Mich.  364,  2484,  2496 

Edwards  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5 

C.  P.  445,  1992 
Edwards  v.  Lord,  49  Me.  279,                         2473 
Edwards  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  6  Q.  B. 

D.  287,  1992 
Edwards  v.  People,  88  111.  340,  1254 
Edwards  v.  Sherratt,  1  East  604,  2282 


Edwards  v.  Railroad  Co.,  32  S.  Car.  117,    2353 
Edwards  v.  White  Line  R.  Co.,  104  Mass. 

159,  2385, 2386 

Edwards  v.  Williamson,  70  Ala.  145,    1169, 1170 
Edwin,  The  Bark,  1  Sprague  (U.  S.  Dist.) 

477,  2202 

Edwardsville  R.  Co.  v.  Sawyer,  92  111.  377, 

1542,  1543,  1651 
Eells  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Fed.  R. 

903,  2316, 2337 

Eel  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Field,  67  Cal.  429, 

1282,  1283, 1390 
Efron  v.  Wagner,  etc.,  Co.,  59  Mo.  App. 

641,  2539 

Egan  v.  Cargo  of  Laths,  43  Fed.  R.  480,      2446 
Egbert  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Ind. 

App.  350,  1301, 1564 

Egerer  v.  N.  Y.  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  130 

N.  Y.  108,  12,  1633 

Egerton  v.  Earl  Brownlow,  4  H.  L.  Gas.  1,      52* 
Eggleston  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  162,  1324 

Ehle  v.  Chittenango  Bank,  24  N.  Y.  548,       441 
Ehlers'  Adm.,  v.  Elder,  51  Miss.  495,  1608 

Ehret  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Mo. 

App.  251,  1840 

Eiceman  v.  Finch,  79  Ind.  511,  715- 

Eichelburger  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Ohio)  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  158,  894 

Eichels  v.  EvansviUe,  etc.,  Co.,  78  Ind.  261, 

1611, 1614, 1615,  1635 

Eichengreen  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
(Tenn.)  34  S.  W.  R.  219,  1992 

Eichorn  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  Mo. 
575,  2592 

Eidman  v.  Bowman,  58  111.  444, 

126,  234,  235,  441 

Eidt  v.  Cutter,  127  Mass.  522,  2715 

Eighme  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  N.  Y. 

Supp.  600,  1912 

Eighmy  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  61 

N.  W.  R.  1056,  318,  2162 

Eilertv.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Wis. 

606,  1748, 1762 

Einstein  v.  Rosenfeld,  etc.,  Mills,  38  N.  J. 

Eq.  309,  739 

Ela  v.  American  Merchants'  Un.  Exp.  Co., 

29  Wis.  611,  2361 

Ela  v.  Smith,  5  Gray  121,  1202 

Elderkin  v.  Peterson,  8  Wash.  674,  212 

Eldred  v.  Sexton,  30  Wis.  193,  11 2$ 

Eldridge  v.  Binghamton,   120  N.  Y.309,      1336 
Eldridge  v.  Smith,  34  Vt.  484, 

106,  536,  540,  899, 1345, 1355,  1358, 1384 
Election  of  St.  Lawrence  Steamboat  Co.; 

Matter  of,  44  N.  J.  L.  529,  233 


clxx 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-126S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  TV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


[  Vol.  T,  pp.  1- 

Electric  R.  Co.  v.  Common  Council  of 
Grand  Rapids,  84  Mich.  257,  1618, 1621 

Elevated  R.  R.  Co.,  In  re,  70  N.  Y.  327,         89 

Elevator  Co.  v.  Memphis  &  C.  R.  Co.,  85 
Tenn.  703,  H9,  124,  428,  485 

Elfelt  v.  Stillwater  St.  R.  Co.,  53  Minn.  68, 

1635 

Elgin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Md.  61,   493 

Elgin  v.  Winona  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  36  Minn. 
517,  1233 

Elgin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Raymond,  148  111. 

241,  1795 
Elgin,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Raymond,  47  111.  App. 

242,  1983 
Elizabeth  v.  Force,  29  N.  J.  Eq.  630,  1221 
Elizabethtown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ashland, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Ky.  — ,  26  S.  W.  Rep.  181, 

1713 
Elizabethtown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Combs,  10 

Bush  (Ky.)  382,  1453, 1628 

Elizabethtown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Geoghegan, 

9  Bush  (Ky.)  56,  1571 
Elizabethtown,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Helm,  8 

Bush  (Ky.)  681, 

1425, 1426, 1434, 1437, 1486,  1521,  1522, 1550 
Elizabethtown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pottinger, 

10  Bush  (Ky.)  185,  1585 
Elizabethtown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson, 

79  Ky.  52,  1507, 1634 

Elkhart  Car  Works  Co.  v.  Ellis,  113  Ind. 

215,  802, 803 

Elkhart  County  Lodge  v.  Crary,  98  Ind. 

238,  530 

Elkins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 Mass.  190, 

1678, 1751, 1787, 1792 
Elkins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  N.  H.  275, 

413,  2167,  2188,  2281,  2554 
Elkins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  N.  H.  367, 

Elkins  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  J. 

Eq.  5,  142,  242,  524,  526 

Elkins  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  J. 

Eq.  467,  251,  347 

Elkins  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  J. 

Eq.  241,  346,  347 

Elkins  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  J. 

Eq.  233,  121, 122,  349,  433 

Elkins  v.  Empire  T.  Co.,  2  Weekly  Notes 

Cas.  (Pa.)  403,  2212 

Elkins  v.Empire,  etc.,  Co.,  81Vi  Pa.  St. 

315,  2263, 2337 

Ellv.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  N.  Dak. 

336,  2053,  2077,  2079,  2091 

Elledge  v.  National,  etc.,  Co.,  100  Cal.  282, 

308,2021 
Ellerman  v.  Chicago  Junct.  R.,  etc.,  Co., 

49  N.  J.  Eq.  217,  240,  620,  912 


Ellershaw  v.  Magniac,  6  Ex.  569,  2216 

Ellet  v.  St.   Louis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  76  Mo. 

518,  2468 

Ellicott  Machine  Co.  v.  Speed  &  Co.,  72 

Md.  72,  849 

Ellicottville,  etc.,  Plank  R.  Co.  v.  Buffalo, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  644,  /407 

Ellingv.  Thexton,  7  Mont.  330,  1125 

Ellinger  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153 

Pa.  St.  213,  2586 

Ellington  v.  Beaver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Ga.  53, 

1,2084 
Elliot  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Dak. 

523,  2048 

Elliot  v.  McCormick,  144  Mass.  10,  886 

Elliott  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  U.  S. 

245,  1773, 1800,  2720 

Elliott  v.  Fair  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Conn.  579,  1635 

Elliott  v.  Fitchburgh  R.  Co.,  10  Gush. 

(Mass.)  191,  1402 

Elliott  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Mo. 

683,  1837,  1838 

Elliott  v.  Newport  St.  R.  Co.,  18  R.  1. 707, 

2558,  2571 
Elliott  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  N.  Y. 

S.  R.  861,  2328 

Ellis  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Ired. 

(N.  Car.)  L.  138,  1936 

Elliott  v.  Rossell,  10  Johns.  1,  2305 

Elliott  v.  Sibley,  101  Ala.  344,  149 

Elliott  v.  Van  Voorst,  3  Wall.,  Jr.,  (U.  S. 

C.  C.)  299,  676 

Elliott  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Ga.  454, 

2513,  2573 

Ellis  v.  Barfield,  64  L.  T.  R.  625,  424 

Ellis  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  Mass.  1, 

39,  351,  379,  469,  648,  658,  710,  768,  785,  787 
Ellis  v.  Central  Pacific  R.  Co.,  5  Nev.  255,  318 
Ellis  v.  Elkhart  Car  Works  Company,  97 

Ind.  247,  1311 

Ellis  v.  Hilton,  78  Mich.  150,  1881 

Ellis  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  138  Pa. 

St.  506,  1749,  1750, 1777 

Ellis  v.  Little,  27  Kan.  707,  817 

Ellis  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  H.  &  N. 

424,  1814 

Ellis  v.  Marshall,  2  Mass.  269,  23 

Ellis  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  83  Mo.  372,    1875 
Ellis  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  N.  Y. 

546,  2042 

Ellis  v.  North  Carolina,  etc.,  68  N.  Car. 

423,  342 

Ellis  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  77  Wis.  114, 

3,976 

Ellis  v.  Proprietors,  2  Pick.  (Mass.)  243,     113 
Ellis  v.  Vernon  Ice,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Tex.  109,    784 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
{Vol.  I,  pp.  1-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-1725.] 


Ellis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Mo.  App. 

126,  1653 

Ellis  v.  Willard,  9  N.  Y.  529,  2203,  2205,  2426 
Ellison  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Miss. 

572,  168 

Ells  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Mo.  231, 

1821, 1837, 1838 
Ells  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  200, 

1292, 1494, 1559 
Ellsworth  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

63  N.  W.  R.  584,  2488 

Ellsworth  v.  Dorwart,  (Iowa)  63  N.  W.  R. 

588,  247, 248 

Ellsworth  v.  Grand  Rapids,  27  Mich.  250,  1133 
Ellsworth  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  98 

N.  Y.  553,  486,  628,  631 

Ellsworth  v.  Tartt,  26  Ala.  733,  2244,  2246 

Elmore  v.  Brooks,  6  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  45,  326 
Elmore  v.  Naugatuck  Railroad,  23  Conn. 

457,  2227 

Elmore  v.  Sands,  54  N.  Y.  512,  2497 

Elm  wood  Township  v.  Marcy,  92  U.  S.  289, 

1256,  1171,  1172,  1173,  1174 

Elston  v.  Piggott,  94  Ind.  14,  1093 

Elsworth  v.  Tartt,  26  Ala.  733,  2228 

Elting,  etc.,  Co. v. Williams,  36  Conn.  310,  1276 
Elwell  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  124  Mass.  160,  1536 
Elwell  v.  Fosdick,  134  U.  S.  500,  s.  c.  10 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  598,  668 

Elwell  v.  Grand  St.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  67 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  83,  642,  650 

Elwell  v.  Puget  Sound  &  C.  R.  Co.,  7 

Wash.  487,  .      487 

Elwell  v.  Skiddy,  77  N.  Y.  282,  2422 

Elwood  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Railway  Co.,  4 

Hun  808,  1757,  1986 

Ely  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)207,  2354,2370 

Ely  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Hun  323,  2017 
Ely  v.  Railroad  Co.,  77  Mo.  34,  2707 

Ely  v.  Sprague,  Clarke  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  351,  429 
Ely  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Mo.  34, 

1796,  2117 
Elysville  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Okisko  Co.,  1  Md. 

Ch.  392,  295 

Elyton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  Co., 

92  Ala.  407,  132, 166 

Elyton  Land  Co.  v.  South  &  North  Ala.  R. 

Co.,  95  Ala.  631,  539 

Emanuel  v.  Bridger,  L.  R.  9  Q.  B.  286,  890 
Emanuel  Hospital  v.  Metropolitan  R. 

Co.,  19  L.  T.  Rep.  (N.  S.)  692,  1472 

Embury  v.  Conner,  3  N.  Y.  511,  1339,  1384, 1460 
Emerson  v.  European,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  67 

Me.  387,  648,  651 

Emerson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  U 

R.  I.  555,  120 


Emerson  v.  Peteler,  35  Minn.  481,  1973 

Emerson  v.  Providence,  etc.,  Co.,  12  Mass. 

237,  355 

Emerson  v.  Simpson,  43  N.  H.  475,  1308 

Emerson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  Mo. 

161,  2407 

Emerson  v.  Western  Union  R.  Co.,  75  111. 

176,  1445 

Emert  v.  Missouri,  156  U.  S.  296,  2637 

Emery  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Insurance  Co.,  138 

Mass.  398,  2359 

Emery  v.  Hersey,  4  Me.  407,  2264 

Emery  v.  Irving  Nat.  Bank,  25  Ohio  St. 

360,  2219 

Emery  v.  Parrott,  107  Mass.  95,  17 

Emery  v.  Raleigh,,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  N.  C. 

209,  547, 1321 

Emery  v.  Royal,  117  Ind.  299,  889 

Emery  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  Co.,  28  Cal. 

345,  1100 

Emery  v.  Wason,  107  Mass.  507,  425 

Emigh  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Biss. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  114,  2696 

Emigrant,  etc.,  Bankv.  Goldman,  75  N.  Y. 

127,  679 

Eminence  v.  Grasser,  81  Ky.  52,  1244 

Emlen  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Pa.  St.  76,  635 
Emma  SUver  M.  Co.  v.  Grant,  L.  R.  11  Ch. 

Div.  918,  16, 17 

Emmerson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Mo. 

App.  621,  1833 

Emmons  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Minn. 

215,  1809 

Empire  City  Bank,  Matter  of ,  18  N.  Y.  199,  140 
Empire,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  62  L.  T.  R.  493,  661 
Empire  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Stuart,  46 

Mich.  482,  727,  876 

Empire  T.  Co.  v.  Wallace,  68  Pa.  St.  302, 

2197,  2266,  2303 
Empire,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wamsutta  Co.,  63  Pa. 

St.  14,  2288,  2295,  2306 

Empire  Township  v.  Darlington,  101  U.  S. 

87,  1136,  1154,  1224 

Empress  Co.  v.  Kountz,  8  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

342,  2236 

Empress  Eng.  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  16  Ch.  D. 

125,  21, 488 

Enfield  v.  Jordan,  119  U.  S.  680, 

629,  1162,  1163,  1219 
Enfield  Bridge  Co.  v.  Connecticut  River 

Co.,  7  Conn.  28,  83 

Enfield,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.  v.  Hartford  &  N. 

H.  R.  Co.,  17  Conn.  40, 

48,  57,  1332,  1342,  1353,  1372,  1380,  1382,  1394, 

1546, 1549 
Engel  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160  Mass. 

260,  2106 


clxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  Wl-1262,  Vol. 

Engel  v.  Scheuerman,  40  Ga.  206,  895 

Engel  v.  South,  etc.,  Co.,  66  L.  T.  R.  155,  783 
Engelhardt  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 

Hun  467,  2047 

England  v.  Beatty  Organ,  etc.,  Co.,  41  N.  J. 

Eq.  470,  858 

England  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153  Mass. 

490,  2549,  2550 

England  v.  Dearborn,  141  Mass.  590, 

232,  246,  393 
Englewood,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  117  111.  611,  1489 

English  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  66  N.  Y. 

454,  2488,  2577 

English  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Conn.  240,  1673 

English  v.  Smock,  34  Ind.  115,  1220 

Engrer  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ind.)  42 

X.  E.  R.  217,  1773 

Engrer  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142  Ind.  618,  2718 
Engster  v.  West,  35  La.  Ann.  119,  2300 

Ennis  v.  Wood  River,  etc.,  Railroad,  12 

R.  I.  73,  1516,  1534 

Enos  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Iowa  28,  1634 
Enright  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

33  Cal.  230,  1814,  1824 

Ensign  v.  Harney,  15  Neb.  330,  1472 

Ensley  v.  Mayor,  2  Baxt,  144,  1931 

Ephland  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mo. 

App.  147,  2549 

Eppes  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  35 

Ala.  33,  157,  220 

Eppright  v.  Nickerson,  78  Mo.  482,  853 

Equitable  Endowment  Assn.  v.  Fisher,  71 

Md.  430,  306 

Equitable  Trust  Co.  v.  Fisher,  106  111.  189,  682 
Era,  etc.,  Co..  In  re,  30  L.  J.  Eq.  137,  349 

Erb  v.  Keokuk  P.  Co.,  43  Mo.  53,  2206 

Erd  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Wis.  65, 

1912,  1923 

Erhardt  v  Board,  113  U.  S.  537,  1136 

Erickson  v.   Nesmith,  15  Gray  (Mass.) 

221,  261 

Erickson  v.  Nesmith,  46  N.  H.  371,  262 

Erickson  v.  Nesmith,  4  Allen  233,  35 

Erickson  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

Minn.  500,  2021 

Ericsson  v.  Brown,  38  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  390,  267 
Erie  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  87  Pa.  St.  434,  1068 

Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  25  Pa.  St.  156, 

160, 161 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Casey,  26  Pa.  St.  287, 

90,  91,  92,  570,  869 

Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dater,  91  111.  195,  2324 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Decker,  78  Pa.  St.  293,  1895 
Erie,  R.Co.  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

N.  J.  Eq.  283,  1460,  1547 


III,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dicker,  78  Pa.  St.  293,  1925 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Douthit,  88  Pa.  St.  243, 

2519,  2521 

Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Lockwood,  28  Ohio  St.  358,  2267 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Owen,  32  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  616,  15& 

Erie,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Patrick,  2  Abb. 

App.  Cas.  72,  159 

Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  21  Wall.  492,  1077 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rousseau,  17  Ont.  App. 

483,  547 

Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schuster,  113  Pa.  St. 

412,  1647 

Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  125  Pa.  St.  259, 

2003,2064 

Erie  R.  Co.  v.  State,  31  N.  J.  L.  531,  1083 

Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Stringer,  32  Ohio  St.  468,  3S 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tubbs,  49  N.  Y.  356,  1286- 
Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  84  111.  239, 

411,  2209,  2309,  2323,  2380 
Erkstine  v.  Chino,etc.,Co.,71  Fed.  R.  270, 

2063,  2072 
Erlanger  v.  Phosphate  Co.,  3  App.  Cas. 

1218,  16 

Ernest  v.  Express  Co.,  1  Woods  573,  2263 

Ernest  v.  Nicholls,  6  H.  L.  Cas.  401,  298- 

Ernst  v.  Hudson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  Y.  9, 

1739, 1741,  1749,  1754, 1755,  1771 
Erskine  v.  Mcllrath,  60  Minn.  485,  811 

Erskine  v.  Nelson  County,  4  S.  Dak.  66,  1176 
Ervin  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Co.,  28  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

269,  240 

Ervin  v.  Oregon,  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Fed.  R. 

625,  235,  245 

Ervin  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  R.  R. 

&  Corp.  L.  J.  87,  227 

Ervine's  Appeal,  16  Pa.  St.  256,  965 

Erwin  v.  Davenport,  9  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  44, 

812,  819 

Erwin  v.  Fulk,  94  Ind.  235,  1545,  1546 

Erwin  v.  Lowry,  7  How.  172,  766 

Escanaba,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago,  107  U.  S. 

678,  952 

Esch  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Wis.  229, 

1512,  1513,  1553 

Escopiniche  v.  Stewart,  2  Conn.  391,  2427 

Eskridge  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,89Ky.  ' 

367,  1739 

Eslich  v.  Mason  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa 

443,  1493 

Espin  v.  Pemberton,  3  DeGex  &  J.,  547,  322 
Esrey  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  103  Cal. 

541,  1969 

Essex  v.  Day,  52  Conn.  483,  1211 

Essex  Co.  R.  Co.  v.  Lunenburgh,  49  Vt. 

143,  1213 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxiii 


[References  a 

[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  us-ne?.,  Voi, 

lEssex  Turnpike  Corp.  v.  Collins,  8  Mass. 

292,  .      484 

Estabrook,  Ex  parte,  2  Lowell  547,  486 

Estabrooks  v.  Peterborough,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

12  Gush.  (Mass.)  224,         1400,  1402,  1403,  1404 
Estate  of  Bohlen,  75  Pa.  St.  304,  137,  139 

Estate  of  Oliver,  136  Pa.  St.  43,  421 

Estate  of  Smith,  140  Pa.  St.  344,  422,  425 

Estell  v.  Knightstown,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.,  41 

Ind.  174,  201 

Esterley's  Appeal,  54  Pa.  St.  192,  1595 

Estes  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Me.  308, 

1816,  1845 

Estes  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  72  Iowa  235,  306 
E'stes  v.  Owen,  90  Mo.  113,  1105 

Estes  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  N.Y.  Supp. 

863,  2626 

Estey  v.  Truxel,  25  Mo.  App.  238,  2390,  2391 
Eswin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Mo. 

290,  1981 

Etowah,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wills,  etc.,  Co.,  106 

Ala.  492,  829 

Etson  v.  Ft.  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.) 

68  N.  W.  R.  298,  2598 

Ettlinger  v.  Persian,  etc.,  Co.,  66  Hun  94,  777 
Ettlinger  v.  Persian,  etc.,  Co.,  142  N.  Y. 

189,  671 

Eureka,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGrath,  74  Cal. 

49,  1554 

Eureka,  City  of  ,v.  Merrifield,  53  Kan.  794,  2125 
European,  etc.,  Society,  In  re,  L.  R.  9  Eq. 

122,  852 

European  R.  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  8  Eq.  444,  356 
European,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McLeod,  3 

Pugsley  (16  N.  B.)  3,  210 

European,  etc.,  R.  Co.-  v.  Poor,  59  Me.  277, 

373,  375,  378,  726, 1568 
Evans  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Fed.  R. 

519,  2057 

Evans  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Ga.  498,  2251 
Evans  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Mo.  49, 

1757,  1958,  2087 

Evans  v.  Bailey,  66  Cal.  112,  113 

Evans  v.  Brandon,  53  Tex.  56,  438 

Evans  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Iowa 

374,  1805 

Evans  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Wis. 

597,  1638 

Evans  v.  City  of  Trenton,  24  N.  J.  L.  764,  523 
Evans  v.  Coventry,  25  L.  J.  (Ch.)  489, 

140,  262,  437 

Evans  v.  Chamberlain,  40  S.  Car.  104,  2013 
Evans  v.  DiUingham,  43  Fed.  R.  177,  942,  944 
Evans  v.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  Mass. 

142,  2399,  2400,  2404,  2406 

Evans  v.  Haefner,  29  Mo.  141,  1389 

Evans  v.  Hutton,  5  Scott  N.  R.  670,  2305 


re  to  Pages.] 
Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-277J.] 

Evans  v.  Interstate,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  Mo. 

594,  468 

Evans  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Mich. 

442,  1752, 2721 

Evans  v.  Lee,  11  Nev.  194,  555 

Evans  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Ala.  246,  2»4 
Evans  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mo.  453, 

908,  1423,  1536,  1549 
Evans  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  325,  2683 

Evans  v.  Osgood,  18  Me.  213,  237 

Evans  v.  Smallcombe,  L.  R.  3  H.  of  L. 

249,  221, 253 

Evans  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Mo. 

App.  463,  2497 

Evans  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn. 

489,  1818,  1862, 1865 

Evans  v.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  58  Fed.  R. 

497,  •        478, 758 

Evans,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

17  Mo.  App.  624,  1761 

Evansich  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Tex.  123,    1974 
Evarts  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Minn. 

141,  2062 

Evansville  v.  Woodbury,  60  Fed.  R.  718,     1162 
Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Athon,  6  Ind. 

App.  295,  2458 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barbee,  74  Ind. 

169,  1840,  1841,  1847 

Evansville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Barnes,  137  Ind. 

306,  401,  2461,  2707 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baum,  26  Ind. 

70,  302,  1990,  2582 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carvener,  113 

Ind.  51,  1642,  1795 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gates,   (Ind. 

App.)  41  N.  E.  R.  712,  2488,  2489 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Charlton,  6  Ind. 

App.  56,  1460 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Evans- 
ville, 15  Ind.  395, 

120,  124,  435,  1146,  1203,  1219,  1249 
Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cochran,  10  Ind. 

560,  1517, 1523 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crist,  116  Ind. 

446,  1665,  1670,  1796 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Darting,  6  Ind. 

App.  375,  2585 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dick,  9  Ind.  433, 

1402,  1403,  1404,  1564 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Duel,  134  Ind. 

539,  2034, 2067 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Duncan,  28  Ind. 

441,  2280,  2451,  2586,  2591 

EvansviUe,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  17  Ind. 

603,  173 


clxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  ltf-l?r>2,  Vol 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Erwin,  84  Ind. 

457,  2214, 2391 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitzpatrick,  10 

Ind.  120,  1521 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grady,  6  Bush 

(Ky.)  144,  1332,  1549,  1560 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Griffin,  100  Ind. 

221,  602,  1741,  1742,  1950,  1952 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Guyton,  115  Ind. 

450,  2025 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson,  (Ind.) 

42  N.  E.  R.  216,  1999 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson,  134 

Ind.  636,  2005,  2086 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson,  142 

Ind.  596,  2034 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hiatt,  17  Ind. 

102,  1792 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keith,  8  Ind. 

App.  57,  2182,  2190,  2192,  2194,  2274,  2420 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lowdermilk,  15 

Ind.  120,  2144 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maddux,  134 

Ind.  571,  2030,  2057 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marsh,  57  Ind. 

505,  2254, 2442 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKee,  99  Ind. 

519,  299,  304,  1992 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  30  Ind. 

209,  1465,  1508,  1511 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mosier,  101  Ind. 

597,  1821,  1846,  1873 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mosier,  114  Ind. 

447,  1834 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nye,  113  Ind. 

223,  1327,  1538,  1541 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pritchard,  131 

Ind.  564,  1795 

Evansville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Shearer,  10  Ind. 

244,  527 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tipton,  101  Ind. 

197,  1833 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tohill,  (Ind.)  41 

N.  E.  R.  709,  2027 

Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wolf,  59  Ind.  89,  1983 
Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  28  Ind. 

516,  2321 

Evelyn  v.  Lewis,  3  Hare  472,  803 

Everdell  v.  Sheboygan,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Wis. 

395,  890, 891 

Everett  v.  Belding,  22  L.  J.  Ch.  75,  783 

Everett  v.  Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

Iowa  417,  1559 

Everett  v.  Central  Iowa  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa 

442,  1883 

Everett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Iowa 

15,  2490, 2507 


777,  pp.  1163-216't,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2723.] 

Everett  v.  Los  Angeles,  etc.,  Co.,  (Cal.)  43 

Pac.  R.  207,  1649 

Everett  v.  Marquette,  53  Mich.  450,  1628 

Everett  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Utah  340, 

2465,  2554 

Everett  v.  Southern,  etc.,  Co.,  46  Ga.  303,  2309 
Everett  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  Co.,  59 Iowa 

243,  1437 

Evergreen,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Beecher,  53  Conn. 

551,  1492 

Evergreen  Cemetery  Assn.  v.  New  Haven, 

43  Conn.  234,  1374,  1392,  1395 

Evcrhart  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  Co.,  78 

Ind.  292,  305, 320,  2060 

Everhart  v.  West  Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

Pa.  St.  339,  161 

Eversfield  v.  Mid-Sussex,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Giff.  153,  538,  899, 1359 

Evershed  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  3 

Q.  B.  D.  134,  2283,  2285,  2431,  2669 

Evertson  v.  National  Bank,  66  N.  Y.  14, 

626,  627,  632,  634,  635 
Evison  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Minn. 

370,  974,  975,  1624 

Ewald  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Wis. 

420,  2057 

Ewan  v.  Lippincott,  47  N.  J.  Law  192,  2076 
Eward  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Wis. 

420,  1957 

Eward  v.  Lawrenceburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 

Ind.  711,  1540 

Ewart  v.  Kerr,  Rice  L.  (S.  Car.)  203,  2442 

Ewart  v.  Street,  2  Bailey  L.  (S.  Car.)  157,  2299 
Ewell  v.  Skiddy,  77  N.  Y.  282,  2421 

Ewing  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Miss. 

551,  1355,  1369 

Ewing  v.  Johnson,  34  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 

202,  910 

Ewing  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co..  147  Pa. 

St.  40,  1985 

Ewing  v.  St.  Louis,  5  Wall.  (U.  S.)  413,  1559 
Excelsior  Draining  Co.  v.  Brown,  47  Ind. 

19,  873 

Excelsior,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lacey,  63  N.  Y.  422, 

384,438 

Excelsior,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pierce,  90  Cal.  131,  429 
Exchange  Alley,  Matter  of,  4  La.  Ann.  4,  1510 
Exchange  Banking  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  21 

Chan.  Div.  519,  437 

Exchange  National  Bank  v.  Capps,  32 

Neb.  242,  874 

Exeter  Bank  v.  Rogers,  7  N.  H.  21,         294,  329 

Ex-Mission  Land  Co.  v.  Flash,  97  Cal.  610,    18 

Ex  partc  Alabama,  71  Ala.  363,  929 

Alderson,  1  Madd.  39,  659 

Bacot,  36  S.  Car.  125,  7,  1364 

Bennett,  26  S.  Car.  317,  1500 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U£,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  1S63-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Ex  parte  Benson,  18  S.  Car.  38,    2284,  2433,  2673 
Booker,  18  Ark.  338,  246 

Briggs,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  483,  199 

Brown,  58  Ala.  536,  742 

Brown,  15  S.  Car.  518, 

709,  748,  812,  813,  818 
Chamberlain,  55  Fed.  R.  704, 

790,  914 

Clapper,  3  Hill  (N.  Y.)  458,  1383 
Cooper,  L.  R.  11  Ch.  Div.  68,  23% 
Daniell,  1  De  G.  &  J.  372,  166 

Dickinson,  29  S.  Car.  453,  849 

Dobson,  2  Mont,  &  D.  (Eng.B.R.) 

685,  145 

Eagle  Ins.  Co.,  4  K.  &  J.  549,  357 
Estabrook,  2  Lowell  547,  486 

Farlow,  2  B.  &  Ad.  341,  1489 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  129  U.  S. 

206,  s.  c.  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  265,         690 
Fleming,  4  Hill  581,  1213 

Fleming,  2  Wall.  (U.  S.)  759,  714 
Gans,  17  Fed.  R.  471,  980 

Girard,  3  Wall.  Jr.  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

263,  931 

Holmes,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  426,  229 

Hough,  69  Fed.  R.  330,  2637 

Izard,  L.  R.  23  Ch.  Div.  75,  824 

Jervey,  66  Fed.  R.  957,  2640 

Jordan,  94  U.  S.  248,  690 

Keiffer,  40  Fed.  R.  399,  995 

Koehler,  31  Fed.  R.  315,  2522 

Koehler,  25  Fed.  R.  73,  2676 

Koehler,  23  Fed.  R.  529,  2670 

Koehler,  30  Fed.  R.  867, 

997, 1083,  2655,  2662 
Koehler,  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

44,  2692 

Lennon,  64  Fed.  R.  320,  910,  942 
Loeb,  72  Fed.  R.  657,  2650 

Lynch,  2  Hill  45,  1258 

Martin,  13  Ark.  198,  1413 

Mayor,  etc.,  23  Wend.  277,  1103 

McCardle,  7  Wall.  506,  1552 

McHenry,  9  Abb.  (N.  Y.)  N.  C. 

256,  677 

McNiel,  13  Wall.  236,  952 

Milligan,  4  Wall.  (U.  S.)  2,  930 

Mitchell,  12  S.  Car.  83,  839,  844 

Mohawk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  135,  229 

Newman,  9  Cal.  502,  2647 

O'Leary,  65  Miss.  180,  959 

Pennsylvania  Co.,  137  N.  S.  451, 

940,  941 

Plessy,  45  La.  Ann.  80,  285,  2643 
Randolph,  2  Brock.  447,  983 

Reynolds,  52  Ark.  330,  1551 


Ex  parte  Ricord,  11  Nev.  287,  1053 

Robins,  7  Dowl.  566,  2282 

Robins,  3  Jur.  103,  920,  2691 

Rogers,  7  Cow.  526,  361 

Ruthledge,  1  Harper's  Eq.   (S. 

C.)  65,  425 

Sargent,  L.  R.  17  Eq.  Cas.  273,      144 
Schmidt,  62  Ala.  252,  1596 

SchoUenburger,  96  U.  S.  369,    35,  881 
Scott,  66  Fed.  R.  45,  966 

Selma,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co..  45  Ala. 

696,  162, 1141, 1199, 1212,  1257 

Siebold,  100  U.  S.  371,  967 

South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  2  Rich. 

L.  (S,  Car.)  434,  1282 

Spinney,  10  Nev.  323,  1057 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Ark. 

141,  879 

Stanley,  33  L.  J.  (Ch.)  535,     211,  64» 
Stock,  33  L.  J.  Ch.  731,  338 

Tyler,  149  U.  S.  164,  809 

Walker,  25  Ala.  81,  736 

Walton,  26  L.  J.  Ch.  545,  357 

West.  56  Law  Times  R.  (N.  S.) 

622,  200 

Westerfleld,  55  Cal.  550,  1094 

Wheeler,  2  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.Y.) 

361,  292 

White,  2  So.  Car.  469,  725 

Whitfield,  2  Atk.  315,  760 

Willcocks,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  402, 

227,  278,  334,  361 

WiUiams,  18  S.  C.  299,  74S  • 

Winder,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  Div.  696,      1490 
Winsor,  3  Story  C.  C.  411,       204,  355 
Exposition  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Canal  St.  E.  R. 

Co.,  42  La.  Ann.  370,  169 

Express  Cases,  117  U.  S.  1,  914 

Express  Company  v.  Caldwell,  21  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  264,  2340,  2341 

Express  Company  v.    Jackson,  92  Tenn. 

326,  2268 

Express  Company  v.  Kountze,  8  Wall. 

342,  2308 

Express    Company  v.  Railroad  Co.,  99 

U.  S.  191,  485,  487,  816 

Extension  of  Second  Street,  23  Pa.  St. 

346,  1383 

Eyck  v.  Harris,  47  111.  268,  2365 

Eyerman  v.  Krieckhaus,  7  Mo.  App.  455,      260 
Eyler  v.  County  Comrs.,  49  Md.  257, 

460,  1111,  1643 

F 

Faber  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Minn. 

465,  1025, 1755 

Facey  v.  Hurdom,  3  B.  &  C.  213,  2312 


clxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  III. pp.  1263-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  $165-1715.] 


Fackiner  v.  Grand  Junction  R.  Co.,  4  Ont. 

R.  Ch.  Div.  350,  345 

Factors',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marine,  etc.,  Co.,  31 

La.  Ann.  149,  146 

Fagan  v.  Boyle,  etc.,  Co.,  65  Tex.  324,         1600 
Tagundes  v.  Cent.  Pac.  R.  Co.,  79  Cal.  97, 

1998,  2722 

Failey  v.  Talbee,  55  Fed.  R.  892,  770 

Fairbank  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 

Fed.  R.  420,  887 

Fairbanks  v.  Fitchburg,  110  Mass.  224, 

1434,  1522 
Fairbanks  &  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  66  Fed.  R.  471,  2245,  2343 

Fairbanks,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Macleod,  (Colo.) 

45  Pac.  R.  282,  387 

Fairchild  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

148  Pa.  St.  527,  2330 

Fairchild  v.  Slocum,  19  Wend.  329, 

2243,  2264,  2699 

Fairchild  v.  St.  Paul,  46  Minn.  540,  1387 

Fairfax  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  N.Y. 

167,  2607,  2608,  2610,  2625,  2631 

Fairfield's  Appeal,  Town  of,  57  Conn.  167,  1671 
Fairfleld  v.  County  of  Gallatin,  100  U.  S. 

47,  1145,  1159, 1170 

Fairfleld  v.  Ratcliff,  20  Iowa  396,  1103 

Fairfield  Co.  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Thorp,  13 

Conn.  173,  204,  205,  209,  246,  278,  279,  367 

Fairfield  Savings  Bank  v.  Chase,  72  Me. 

226,  322, 368 

Fair  Haven,  etc.,  Co.  v.  New  Haven,  38 

Conn.  422,  .  1110 

Fairview  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Minn. 

505,  1242 

Fairview  R.  Co.  v.  Spillman,  23  Ore.  587, 

54,  170,  252 
Faison  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Miss. 

569,  2250 

Falconer  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  N.  Y. 

491,  1146,  1152,  1159,  1185,  1198 

Fales  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Fed.  R. 

673,  931, 936 

Falkiner  v.  Grand  Junction  R.  Co.,  4  Ont. 

Rep.  350,  294,  346 

Falkner  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Ind.  369,    2554 
Fall  v.  Sutter  Co.,  21  Cal.  237,  48 

Fallon  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1  Dill.  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

121,  924,  1583 

Fall  River  Iron  Works  Co.  v.  Old  Colony, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Allen  (Mass.)  221, 

61,  1264,  1265,  1346 
Falls  Wire,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Broderick,  2  Mc- 

Crary  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  489,  934 

Falvey  v.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  76  Ga.  597, 

2227,  2236,  2238 


Falvey  v.  Northern  Transp.  Co.,  15  Wis. 

129,  2201 

Falvey  v.  Richmond,  87  Ga.  99,  2196 

Famous  Shoe,    etc.,  Co.  v.  Eagle,  etc., 

Works,  51  Mo.  App.  66,  400,  490 

Fancher  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Hun 

350,  2046 

Fanning  v.  Insurance  Co.,  37  Ohio  St.  339, 

155, 157 

Fanning  v.  Osborne,  34  Hun  (N.  Y.)  121,    1634 
Fanning  v.  Osborne,  102  N.  Y.  441, 

1036,  1614,  1636,  1638 
Farber  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  116  Mo.  81, 

303, 1962 
Farber  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Co.,  32  Mo.  App. 

378,  303 

Farewell  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  15  U.  C. 

C.  P.  2484,  2496 

Fargo  v.  Michigan,  121  U.  S.  230, 

951,  981,  1078, 1083,  1084,  2661 
Fargo  v.  Redfleld,  22  Fed.  R.  373,  2430 

Faris  v.  Hoberg,  134  Ind.  269, 

1741, 1768, 1948, 1952,  1955,  2720 
Faris  v.  Reynolds,  70  Ind.  359,  1194 

Farish  v.  Reigle,  62  Am.  Dec.  666,       2599,  2600 
Farist  Steel  Co.  v.  City  of  Bridgeport,  60 

Conn.  278,  1403 

Farley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Iowa 

234,  1653,  1659 

Farley  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.,  132  Pa. 

St.  58,  2598 

Farlow,  Ex  parte,  2  B.  &  Ad.  341,  1489 

Farlow  v.  Kelly,  108  U.  S.  288, 

812,  2476,  2563,  2571 
Farmer  v.  National,  etc.,  Assn.,  138  N.  Y. 

265,  946 

Farmer  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N. 

Car.  564,  1805, 1865, 1866,  1956 

Farmers'  Bank  of  Maryland's  Case,  2 

Eland's  Ch.  (Md.)  394,  151 

Farmers'  Bank  v.  Commonwealth,  6 

Bush  127,  1063 

Farmers'  Bank  v.  Iglehart,  6  Gill  (Md.) 

50,  150 

Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Champlain,  etc., 

Co.,  16  Vt.  52,  2353,  2358,  2370 

Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Champlain,  etc., 

Co.,  18  Vt.  131,  141 

Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Champlain,  etc., 

Co.,  23  Vt.  186,  2228,  2323,  2358 

Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  17  Wis.  372,  516 

Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Empire  Stone 

Dressing  Co.,  5  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  275,  486 

Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  72 

N.  Y.  188,  2222 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxvii 


[References  are  to  Payex.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Partners',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Haney,  87  Iowa 

101,  148 

Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Harrison,  57  Mo. 

503,  504 

Farmers'  etc.,  Bank  v.  Logan,  74  N.  Y. 

568,  2216, 2382 

Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Payne,  25  Conn. 

444,  366 

Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Sutton,  etc.,  Co., 

52  Fed.  R.  191,  486 

Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Wasson,  48  Iowa 

336,  148, 278 

Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Young,  36  Iowa 

44,  2714 

Farmers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  39  Fed.  R.  143,  1123 

Farmers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gill,  69  Md.  537,        2196 
Fanners',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

67  Fed.  R.  73,  2062,  2151,  2152 

Farmers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  White,  5  Colo.  App. 

1,  523 

Farmers'  Grain,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  St.  Joseph, 

etc.,  Co.,  2  Fed.  R.  117,  600 

Farmers',  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Needles,  52  Mo. 

17,  772,  794,  797 

Farmers'  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Chase,  56  N.  H. 

341,  319 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  Ex  parte,  129  U.  S. 

206,  s.  c.  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  265,  690 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  In  re,  129  U.  S.  206,  840 
Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  Petitioner,  129  U.  S. 

206,  840 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Ansonia,  61  Conn. 

76,  1643 

Farmers'   L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Bankers',  etc., 

Co.,  119  N.  Y.  15,  724 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.   v.  Bankers',  etc., 

Co.,  44  Hun  (N.  Y.)  400,  667,  687 

Farmers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Canada,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

127  Ind.  250, 

1115,   1580,  1581,    1594,  1600,    1603,  1604,  1605, 

1606,  1607 
Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Canada,  etc.i  R. 

Co.,  11  L.  R.  A.  740,  1602 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Candler,  92  Ga.  691,  249 
Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Candler,  87  Ga. 

241,  1599 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Cape  Fear,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  62  Fed.  R.  675,  782 

Farmers'.  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Gary,  13  Wis.  110, 

652,  654 
Farmers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

27  Fed.  R.  146,     229,  658,  685,  699,  736,  741,  782 
Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  (U.  S.)  16  Sup.  Ct.  R.  917,  134 

CORP. — xii 


Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  68  Fed.  R.  412,  677 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  9  Biss.  (U.  S.)  133,  937 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Central  R.,  4  Dill. 

(U.S.)  533,  687,700,701 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  1 

McCrary  (U.  S.)  352,  823 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  7 

Fed.  R.  537,  817,  831 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  8 

Fed.  R.  60,  825 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  17 

Fed.  R.  758,  705 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Commercial  Bank, 

15  Wis.  424,  652 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Commercial  Bank, 

11  Wis.  207,  536,  650,  654 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Grape  Creek,  etc., 

Co.,  65  Fed.  R.  717,  689 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Grape  Creek,  etc., 

Co.,  50  Fed.  R.  481,  836 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Green  Bay,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  45  Fed.  R.  664,  814 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Green  Bay,  etc., 

R.  R.  Co.,  6  Fed.  R.  100,          637,  686,  698,  712 
Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Green  Bay,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  11  Biss.  (U.  S.)  334,  516 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Hendrickson,  25 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  484,  46,  536 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Henning,  17  Am. 

L.  Reg.  (N.  S.)  266,  596,  916 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Kansas  City,  W. 

&  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  53  Fed.  R.  182, 

668,  693,  707,  708,  709,  837 
Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Minneapolis,  etc., 

Works,  35  Minn.  543,  732 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Newman,  127  U.  S. 

649,  700 

Farmers'  L.  <fe  T.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  78  Hun  213,  243,  244,  681 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Northern  Pacific 

R.  Co.,  60  Fed.  R.  803,  909,  2688 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  61  Fed.  R.  546,  781,  782 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 

R.  Co.,  68  Fed.  R.  36,  708,  709,  837 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Nova  Scotia,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  24  N.  S.  542,  667,  685 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  24  Fed.  R.  407,  667,  698 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  73  Fed.  R.  1003,  2377 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Pine  Bluff,  etc., 

By.  Co.,  57  Ark.  334,  709 


clxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-Ui,  Vol.  II,  pp.  J^3-1S61,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-1725.] 


Farmers'  L.  <fe  T.  Co.  v.  Rockaway,  etc., 

K.  Co.,  69  Fed.  B.  9,  711 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  San  Diego,  etc., 

Co.,  40  Fed.  R.  105,  678 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  San , Diego,  etc., 

Ry.  Co.,  45  Fed.  R.  518,  855 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  St.  Jo,  etc.,  Rail- 
road Co.,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.)  412,  46,  536,  645 
Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Stone,  20  Fed.  R. 

270,  1014 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Texas  Western  R. 

Co.,  32  Fed.  R.  359,  679 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  67  Fed.  R.  49, 

243,  363,  446,  447,  466,  511,  642,  643 
Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  54  Fed.  R.  759,  489,  629,  675 

Farmers'  L.  &.  T.  Co.  v.  Vicksburg,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  33  Fed.  R.  778,  657 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  59  Fed.  R.  957,  665,  685,  746 

Farmington  v.  Pillsbury,  114  U.  S.  138,       1256 
Farmingham,  etc.,  Co.  v.  County  Commis- 
sioners, 112  Mass.  206,  1014 
Farmington,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Fall,  71  Me. 

49,  514,  521 

Farnham  v.  Benedict,  107  N.  Y.  159, 

1129, 1211,  1230,  1253 
Farnliam  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Pa. 

St.  53,  2201,  2327,  2347 

Farnsworth  v.  Boston,  126  Mass.  1,  1488 

Farnsworth  v.  Lime  Rock  R.  Co.,  83  Me. 

440,  53,83 

Farnsworth  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92 

U.  S.  49,  639, 1130 

Farnsworth  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92 

U.  S.  299,  1119 

Farnsworth  v.  Robbins.  36  Minn.  369,  254 

Farnsworth  v.  Tetre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

29  Mo.  75,  886 

Farnsworth  v.  Wood,  91  N.  Y.  308,  269 

Farnum  v.  Ballard,  etc.,  Shop,  12  Gush. 

(Mass.)  507,  875 

Farnum  v.  Blackstone  Canal  Corp.,  1 

Sum.  (U.  S.)  46,  42 

Farrand  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Wis. 

435,  1519,  1521 

Farrar  v.  St.  Louis,  80  Mo.  379,  1100, 1105 

Farrar  v.  Stackpole,  6  Greenl.  155,  46,  536 

Farrar  v.  Walker,  13  Nat.  Bankr.  Reg.  82, 

200,  253 
Farrell  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  N. 

Car.  390,  2390,  2444 

Farrell  v.  Union  Trust  Co.,  77  Mo.  475, 

814,  1862 
Farrell  v.  Winchester  Ave.,  etc.,  Co.,  61 

Conn.  127,  1620 


Farrington  v.  South  Boston  R.  Co.,  150 

Mass.  406,  115, 118,  396 

Farrington  v.  Tennessee,  95  U.  S.  679,  111 

Farris  v.  Cass  Ave.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Mo. 

325,  1983 

Farrow  v.  Bivings,  13  Rich.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  25,    263 
Farwell  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Mete. 

(Mass.)  49,  333,  2075 

Farwell  v.  Houghton  Copper  Works,  8 

Fed.  R.  66,  237,  360 

Fash  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  1  Daly  (N.  Y.) 

148,  1641 

Fassett  v.  Ruark,  3  La.  Ann.  694,        2207,  2208 
Fath  v.  Tower  Grove,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Mo. 

537,  1647,  1746 

Fatman  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Disn. 

(Ohio)  248,  2337,  2249 

Faulds  v.  Yates,  57  111.  416,  250 

Faulkner  v.  Hart,  44  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  471, 

2168,  2275,  2368 
Faulkner  v.  Wright,  Rice  L.  (S.  Car.)  107, 

2265 
Faull  v.  Alaska,  etc.,  Min.  Co.,  8  Sawyer 

(U.  S.)  420,  260,  261 

Faunce  v.  Burke,  16  Pa.  St.  4139, 

1571, 1576, 1581 

Faust  v.  South  Car.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  So.  Car. 
.  118,  2272,  2387 

Favor  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  114  Mass. 

350,  1744,  1886,  1985 

Favorite  v.  Deardorf ,  84  Ind.  555,  784 

Favre  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Ky. 

541,  2563 

Fawcett  v.  Laurie,  1  Dr.  &  Sm.  192, 

426,  427,  436,  911 
Fawcett  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Q.  B.  610, 

1825 
Fawcett  v.  Supreme  Sitting,  etc.,  64  Conn. 

170,  771 

Fay  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Mich. 

231,  2009,  2014,  2038,  2088,  2105 

Fay  v.  Salem,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill  Mass.  27,  1402 

Fay  v.  Wheeler,  44  Vt.  292,  133 

Eayssoux  v.  Succession  of  Baronness 

De  Chaurand,  36  La.  Ann.  547,  1104 

Fearon  v.  Bowers,  1  H.  Bl.  364,  2360 

Featherstone  v.  Cooke,  L.  R.  16  Eq.  298, 

740,  748,  757 

Fechheimer  v.  Baum,  37  Fed.  R.  167,  1012 

Feckheimer  v.  Nat.  Bank,  79  Va.  80,  134 

Federal  Street,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gibson,  96 

Pa.  St.  83,  2598 

Fee  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.,  35  La.  Ann. 

413,  453,  463,  860 

Feeney  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116 

N.  Y.  375,  1782, 1784 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Fehr  v.  Schnylkill  Nav.  Co.,  69  Pa.  St.  161, 

1454,  1456,  1539 
Feinberg  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  N.  J. 

Law  451,  2265,  2402,  2411,  2416 

Feise  v.  Wray,  3  East  93,  2391 

Feison  v.  Hardy,  114  N.  Car.  58,  939 

Feital  v.  Middlesex  R.  Co.,  109  Mass.  398, 

412,  608,  612,  2179 

Feiten  v.  Milwaukee,  47  Wis.  494,       1504,  1505 
Felch  v.  Allen,  98  Mass.  572,  2057 

Felch  v.  Oilman,  22  Vt.  38,  1548,  1551 

Felder  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  So. 

Car.  35,  2628 

Feldman  v.  Charleston,  23  S.  C.  57,  1140 

Fell  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  44  Fed.  R. 

248,  2575 

Fellows  v.  Oilman,  4  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  414,       665 
Fellows  v.  Hermans,  13  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S. 

(N.  Y.)  1,  734 

Fellows  v.  Smith,  131  Mass.  363,  894 

Fellows  v.  Steamer  Powell,  16  La.  Ann. 

316,  414,  2203 

Felt  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  161  Mass. 

311,  2124 

Feltham  v.  England,  L.  R.  2  Q.  B.  33,         2030 
Felton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Iowa 

577,  2480,  2585 

Female,  etc.,  Asylum  v.  Johnson,  43  Me. 

180,  355 

Fenderson  v.  Atlantic  City  R.  Co.,  56  N. 

J.  Law  708,  2050,  2064 

Fenderson  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N.  J.) 

31  Atl.  R.  767,  2013 

Fenkhausen  v.  Fellows,  20  Nev.  312,  2390 

Fenn  v.  Holme,  21  How.  481,  2638,  2640 

Fenner  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  N.  Y. 

505,  2275,  2276,  2278,  2368,  2372 

Fent  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  111.  349,        1909 
Fenwick  v.  East  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  20  Eq.  544,  1567 

Fenwick  v.  Schmalz,  L.  R.  3  C.  P.  313,        2264 
Fergason  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Fed. 

R.  177,  938 

Ferguson  v.   Borough  of  Stamford,  60 

Conn.  432,  1226 

Ferguson  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Ga. 

102,  1974, 1982 

Ferguson  v.  Dent,  46  Fed.  R.  88,  824 

Ferguson  v.  Despo,  8  Ind.  App.  523,  1597 

Ferguson  v.  Landram,  1  Bush  548,  1460 

Ferguson  v.  Ross,  38  Fed.  R.  161,  930,  948 

Ferguson  v.  Smith,  36  N.  Y.  S.  415,  2024 

Ferguson  v.  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Nev. 

184,  1659 

Ferguson  v.  Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(D.  C.  App.)  23  Wash.  Law  R.  407,          2137 


Ferguson  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

Wis.  145,  1764,  2450,  2717 

Fergusson  v.  Brent,  12  Md.  9,  2264 

Fernandes  v.  Sacramento,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

Cal.  45,  1767 

Fernon  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  Co.,  22  Iowa  528, 

1807 
Fernow  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa 

526,  1286, 1287 

Fernow  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Iowa 

528,  1823 

Fero  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  N.  Y.  209, 

1749,  1763,  1906, 1926, 1943,  2312 
Ferris  v.  Bramble,  5  Ohio  St.  109,  1549 

Ferris  v.  Cravens,  65  Ind.  262,  1133 

Ferris  v.  Van  Buskirk,  18  Ind.  215,  1814 

Ferry  v.  Bank,  15  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  445,       830 
Fertich  v.  Michener,  111  Ind.  472,  288 

Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  97  U.  S.  659, 

59,  975 

Fey  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  Co.,  32  111.  App.  618,       338 
Ffooks  v.  London,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Eng.  L.  & 

Eq.  7,  515 

Ffooks  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Jur.365, 

243 
Ffooks  v.  Southwestern  Ry.,  1  Sm.  &  G. 

142,  130 

Fick  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Wis.  469, 

1989,  2582,  2583 
Fickle  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mo. 

219,  1873 

Ficklen  v.  Shelby  County  Taxing  Dist., 

145  U.  S.  1,  1078 

Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

54  Fed.  R.  26,  714 

Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Roanoke,  etc.,  Co., 

68  Fed.  R.  623,  836 

Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.  v.  West  Pennsylvania, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  138  Pa.  St.  494,          511,  631,  636 
Fidelity  Insurance,  etc.,  Co.'s  Appeal,  106 

Pa.  St.  144,  720 

Fidelity  Ins.  Co.  v.  Huntington,  117  U.  S. 

280,  938 

Fidelity    Ins.    Co.    v.  Shenandoah,  etc., 

Co.,  42  Fed.  R.  372,  838 

Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Shenandoah,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  86  Va.  1,  637,  707,  818 

Fidelity  Ins.  Co.  v.  Shenandoah  Valley  R. 

R.  Co.,  32  W.  Va.  244,  641,  680 

Fidelity  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mobile  St.  Ry. 

Co.,  53  Fed.  R.  850,  882 

Fidelity  Trust  &  Safety  Vault  Co.v.  Mobile 

St.  R.  Co.,  53  Fed.  R.  687,      48,  809, 1380, 1626 
Fiedler  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  Mo. 

645,  1953 

Field  v.  Barling,  149  111.  556,  901,  903 


clxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  12G3-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Field  v.  Carnarvon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5 

Eq.  Gas.  190,  1545 

Filed  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Fed.  R. 

332,  1749, 1751 

Field  &  Co.  v.  Cooks,  16  La.  Ann.  153,    27,  271 
Field  v.  Field,  9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  394,  232 

Field  v.  Jones,  11  Ga.  413,  830,  892 

Field  v.  Lamson,  etc.,  Co.,  162  Mass.  388, 

120, 122, 125,  429 
Field  v.  Newport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  H.  &  N. 

409,  2445 

Field  v.  N.  Y.  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  29  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  176,  32 

Field  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  N.  Y. 

339,  1939,  1940,  2289 

Field  v.  Pierce,  102  Mass.  253,  112 

Field  v.  Post,  38  N.  J.  L.  346,  652 

Fiery  v.  Emmert,  36  Md.  464,  263 

Fietsam  v.  Hay,  122  111.  293,  100 

Fifth  Avenue  Bank  v.  Forty-Second  St., 

etc.,  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  231,  114,  136,  395 

Fifth  National  Bank  v.  Bayley,  115  Mass. 

228,  2216, 2219 

Fifty-four  First  Mortgage  Bonds,  In  re, 

15  S.  C.  304,  748,  781 

Fike  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  N.  Y.  749,    2077 
Filder  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  H.  &  Mil- 
ler 489,  243 
Filer  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  47, 

2548,2594 
Files  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  Mass.  204, 

2461,  2561 
Filing  Copies,  etc.,  Re,  1  Interst.  Com.  R. 

76,  2686 

FiUebrown  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  55  Me. 

462,  2188,  2201,  2262,  2320,  2332,  2346 

Filon  v.  Miller,  etc.,  Co.,  15  N.  Y.  Supp. 

57,  353 

Finalyson  v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Fed. 

R.  507,  2054 

Finance  Co.  v.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

Fed.  R.  436,  781 

Finance  Co.  v.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48 

Fed.  R.  188,  708 

Finance  Company  v.  Charleston,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  61  Fed.  R.  369,  698,  710 

Finance  Co.  v.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

62  Fed.  R.  205,  708,  710 

Finch  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Iowa 

304,  1881 

Finch  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  47  Minn. 

36,  2488,2506 

Findlay  v.  Russell  Wheel,  etc.,  Co., 

(Mich.)  66  N.  W.  R.  50,  2022,  2079 

Fink  v.  Canyon,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Ore.  301,  555 

Fink  v.  Evans,  95  Tenn.  413,  1827 

Fink  v.  Milwaukee,  17  Wis.  26,  2710 


Fink  v.  O'Neil,  106  U.  S.  272,  1134 

Fink  v.  St.  Louis,  71  Mo.  52,  1642 

Finklestein  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Hun 

34,  1750 

Finlay  v.  King,  3  Pet.  (U.  S.)  346,  13U6 

Finlayson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Dill. 

579,  1736,' 1740,  1948 

Finn  v.  Brown,  142  U.  S.  56,  144 

Finn  v.  Vallejo,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Cal.  253,  2069 

Finn  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  112  Mass.  524, 

2167,  2695 
Finnegan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48 

Minn.  378,  2481 

Finnegan  v.  Gas  Works  Co.,  158  Mass.  311, 

2106 

Finnegan  v.  Noerenberg,  52  Minn.  239,         273 
Finnell  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  N.Y. 

669,  2072 

Finney  v.  Lamb,  54  Ind.  1,  1208 

Finney  v.  Somerville,  80  Pa.  St.  59,  2 

First  Division  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City 

of  St.  Paul,  21  Minn.  526,  1106 

First  Division  of  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Parcher,  14  Minn.  297,  702,  719 

First,  etc..  Society  v.  Goodrich  Transpor- 
tation Co.,  7  Fed.  R.  257,  1915 
Fire  Insurance  Patrol  v.  Boyd,  120  Pa.  St. 

624,  318, 2101 

First  M.  E.  Church  v.  Atlanta,  76  Ga.  181,    505 
First  National  Bank  v.  Almy,  117  Mass. 

476,  273, 877 

First  National  Bank  v.  Anderson,  75  Va. 

250,  654 

First  National  Bank  v.  Arlington,  16 

Blatchf.  57,  1220 

First  National  Bank  v.  Armstrong,  101 

Ind.  244,  890 

First  National  Bank  v.  Asheville,  etc., 

Co.,  (N.  C.)  21  S.  E.  R.  948,  481 

First  National  Bank  v.  Badger,  etc.,  Co., 

54  Mo.  App.  327,  325 

First  National  Bank  v.  Brooks,  22  111. 

App.  238,  509 

First  National  Bank  v.  Burch,  76  Mich. 

608,  887 

First  National  Bank  v.  Colby,  21  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  609,  88 

First  National  Bank  v.  Concord,  50  Vt. 

257,  1161 

First  National  Bank  v.  County  of  Yank- 
ton,  101  U.  S.  129,  1173, 1174 
First  National  Bank  v.  Crocker,  111  Mass. 

163,  2215, 2219 

First  National  Bank  v.  Davenport,  etc., 

Railroad  Co.,  45  Iowa  120,  891 

First  National  Bank  v.  Davies,  43  Iowa 

424,  272 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  MS- 1262,  Vol. 

First  National  Bank  v.  Dearborn,  115 

Mass.  219,  2216,  2218 

First  National  Bank  v.  District.  Town- 
ship, 86  Iowa  330,  .  1176 
First  National  Bank  v.  Dovetail,  etc., 

Co.,  (Ind.)  40  N.  E.  R.  810,  165 

First  National  Bank  v.  Gifford,  47  Iowa 

575,  113, 144,  320,  367 

First  National  Bank  v.  Greene,  64  Iowa 

445,  257 

First  National  Bank  v.  Gustin,  etc.,  Co., 

42  Minn.  327,  130,  132,  252 

First  National  Bank  v.  Hartford,  etc., 

Co.,  45  Conn.  22,  150, 151 

First  National  Bank  v.  Hendre,  49  Iowa 

402,  184,  494,  531 

First  National  Bank  v.  Hurford,  29  Iowa 

579,  196 

First  National  Bank  v.  Marietta,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  20  Ohio  St.  259,  2609,  2621 

First  National  Bank  v.   Meyer,  43  La. 

Ann.  1,  2391,  2393 

First  National  Bank  v.  National,  et«., 

Bank,  92  U.  S.  122,  143 

First  National  Bank  v.  Northern  Railroad 

Co.,  58  N.  H.  203,  2215,  2360,  2363 

First  National  Bank  v.  Ocean  Nat.  Bank, 

60  N.  Y.  278,  382 

First  National  Bank  v.  Ferris,  etc.,  Diet., 

107  Cal.  55,  1597 

First  National  Bank  v.  Price,  33  Md.  487,    1022 
First  National  Bank  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  2  Fed.  R.  831,  892 

First  National  Bank  v.  Reed,  36  Mich.  263, 

323,382 
First  National  Bank  v.  Salem,  etc.,  Co.,  39 

Fed.  R.  89,  141 

First  National  Bank  v.  Scott  County  Com- 
missioners, 14  Minn.  77,  626 
First  National  Bank  v.  Shaw,  61  N.  Y.  283, 

2312 
First  National  Bank,  etc.,  v.  Smith,  6  Fed. 

R.  215,  433 

First  National  Bank  v.  Tisdale,  84  N.  Y. 

655,  365 

First  National  Bank  v.  Tisdale,  18  Hun 

151,  247 

First  National  Bank  v.  Turnbull,  16  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  190,  932 

First  National  Bank  v.  U.  S.  Encaustic 

Tile  Co.,  105  Ind.  227,  778 

First  National  Bank  v.  West  River,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  49  Vt.  167,  1507 

First  National  Bank  v.  Wheeler,  72  N.  Y. 

201,  628 

First  National  Insurance  Co.  v.  Salisbury, 

130  Mass.  303,  671,  683 


III,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

First  Parish  v.  County  of  Middlesex,  7 

Gray  (Mass.)  106,  1428, 1438 

First  Presbyterian  Church  v.  City  of  Ft. 

Wayne,  36  Ind.  338,  1101 

Firth  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  100,    1577 
Fischer  v.  Merchants'  Despatch,  etc.,  Co., 

13  Mo.  App.  133,  307 

Fiser  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  32 

Miss.  359,  160 

Fish  v.  Endlong,  10  R.  1. 525,  397 

Fish  v.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349, 

2173,  2208,  2286,  2692 

Fisher  v.  Geddes,  15  La.  Ann.  14,  2186 

Fish  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  65  N. 

W.  R.  995,  2020 

Fish  v.  New  York  Paper  Co.,  29  N.  J.  Eq. 

16,  634 

Fishback  v.  Citizens'  St.  Ry.  Co.,  Nat. 

Corp.  R.  (Sup.  Ct.  Marion  Co.,  Ind.) 

March  4,  1892,  740,  750 

Fishmongers  Co.  v.  East  India  Co.,  1 

Dickens  163,  515,  617 

Fisher  v.  Budlong,  1^  R.  I.  525,  137 

Fisher  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  111.  323, 

1271,  1358, 1369, 1385,  1386 
Fisher  v.  Concord  R.  Co.,  50  N.  H.  200, 

742,748 

Fisher  v.  Essex  Bank,  5  Gray  (Mass.)  373,      112 
Fisher  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  7 

Ind.  407,  30,  209,  444,  445 

Fisher  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Co.,  21  Wis.  73,    1803 
Fisher  v.  Jones,  82  Ala.  117,  145 

Fisher  v.  New^York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  N.  Y. 

644,  458,  598,  1029,  1031 

Fisher  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  Mass. 

107,  1720 

Fisher  v.  Seligman,  7  Mo.  App.  383,  130 

Fisher  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  89  Cal. 

399,  2553 

Fisher  v.  Warwick  R.  Co.,  12  R.  I.  287,        1537 
Fisher  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(W.  Va.)  24  S.  E.  R.  570,  2592 

Fisher  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  Co.,  39  W. 

Va.  366,  492,  569,  612,  692,  2555 

Fisk  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  513,  129 

Fisk  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Abbott's 

Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  378,  38 

Fisk  v.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158  Mass. 

238,  1999, 2114 

Fisk  v.  Henarie,  32  Fed.  R.  417,  929,  940 

Fisk  v.  Henarie,  142  U.  S.  459,  945 

Fisk  v.  Kenosha,  26  Wis.  23,  1153 

Fisk  v.  Newton,  1  Denio  45,         2276,  2377,  2383 
Fisk  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  6  Blatclif. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  362,  946 


clxxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Referencex  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2m,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-Z725.] 


Fisk  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  8  Blatehf. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  299,  949 

Fisk  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  10  Blatehf. 

(U.  S.)  518,  851 

Fister  v.  LaRue,  15  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  323,          296 
Fitch  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  668,  1849 

Fitch  v.  Creighton,  24  How.  (U.  S.)  159, 

1007, 1012 
Fitch  v.  Lewiston  Steam  Mill  Co.,  80  Me. 

34,  290 

Fitch  v.  Newberry,  1  Doug.  (Mich.)  1, 

2253,  2254,  2283 
Fitch  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Conn. 

414,  1387,  1388, 1564 

Fitch  v.  New  Haven,  N.  L.  &  S.  R.  Co.,  30 

Conn.  38,  48 

Fitch  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Mo.  322. 

1895,  1923,  1936,  1938 

Fitch  v.  Stevens,  2  Mete.  505,  1492 

Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  Ill  Mass.  125,  1267 

Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hanna,  6  Gray 

539,  2189,  2244,  2420,  2615 

Fitchburg,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

3  Gush.  (Mass.)  58,  1472,  1484,  1556,  1557 

Fitchburg  R.  Co.  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  6 

Allen  (Mass.)  98,  1525 

Fitchburg  R.  Co.  v.  Gage,  12  Gray  (Mass.) 

393,  533,  2284,  2423,  2667 

Fitchburg  R.  Co.  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  134  Mass.  547,  1377,  1681 

Fithian  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Pa.  St. 

114,  .  886 

Fitmaurice  v.  Bayley,  9  H.  L.  Cases  78,        587 
Fitterling  v.  Missouri  Pacific  Co.,  79  Mo. 

504,  1819, 1843 

Fitts  v.  Cream  City  R.  Co.,  59  Wis.  323, 

1642,  1646 

Fitzgerald  v.  Adams  Ex.  Co.,  24  Ind.  447,    2208 
Fitzgerald  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  156 

Mass.  293,  2119 

Fitzgerald  v.  Britt,  43  Iowa  498,  1311 

Fitzgerald  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  Paper 

Co.,  155  Mass.  155,  2047 

Fitzgerald  v.  Fitzgerald,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Neb. 

374,  375, 392,  948,  951 

Fitzgerald  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  4  Ont. 

App.  601,  2213 

Fitzgerald  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  63  Vt. 

169,  2434 

Fitzgerald  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  117 

N.  Y.  653,  1752 

Fitzgerald  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  45  Fed. 

R.  812,  471,  936,  942,  948 

Fitzgerald  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

Minn.  336,  1828, 1982, 1983 


Fitzgerald  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  1  Mich.  N.  P. 

243,  1605 

Fitzgerald,  etc.,  Construction  Co.  v.  Fitz- 
gerald, 137  U.  S.  98,  474,  882 
Fitzhugh  v.  Wiman,  9  N.  Y.  559,  2385 
Fitzpatrick  v.  Dispatch,  etc.,  Co.,  83  Ala. 

604,  129 

Fitzpatrick  v.  Eyre,  IHogan  (Irish  Rolls) 

171,  809 

Fitzpatrick  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

N.  Y.  Week.  Dig.  506,  1992 

Fitzpatrick    v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  10 

Phila.  (Pa.)  107,  1528 

Fitzpatrick  v.  Woodruff,  96  N.  Y.  561,  133 

Flack  v.  Hughes,  67  111.  384,  1208 

Flagg  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Mich.  30,  1834 
Flagg  v.  Eames,  40  Vt.  16,  558 

Flagg  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  R.  413, 

125,  345,  347,  427 

Flagg  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  Palmyra,  33  Mo.  440,  1258 
Flagstaff,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cullins,  104  U.  S.  176,  1596 
Flaherty  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

Minn.  328,  874,  2570 

Flaherty  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  39  Minn. 

328,  1799 

Flanagan  v.  Great  Western  Ry.  Co.,  L.  R. 

7  Eq.  Gas.  116,  62,  63,  496,  540, 1297 

Flanagan  v.  Wood,  33  Vt.  332,  891 

Flanders  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Minn. 

193,  2003 

Flannegan  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (W. 

Va.)  21  S.  E.  R.  1028,  2089 

Flannegan  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

W.  Va.  570,  2090 

Flannery  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Mac- 
key  (D.  C.)  Ill,  2585 
Flannigan  v.  Canadian  Pacific  R.  Co.,  17 

Ont,  R.  6,  1901 

Flash  v.  Conn,  16  Fla.  428,  270 

Flash  v.  Wilkerson,  22  Fed.  R.  689,  1012 

Flatbush  Ave.,  Matter  of,  1  Barb.  286,  1379 
Fleckner  v.  Bank  of  U.  S.,  8  Wheat.  338, 

143,355 

Fleming,  Ex  partc,  4  Hill  581,  1213 

Fleming,  Ex  parte,  2  Wall.  (U.  S.)  759,  714 
Fleming  v.  Bailey,  5  East  313,  1027 

Fleming  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Abb. 

New  Cas.  433,  2603 

Fleming  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Iowa 

353,  1429,  1434,  1436,  1455,  1456 

Fleming  v.  Hammond,  19  Ga.  145,  2183 

Fleming  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158 

Pa.  St.  130,  2597 

Fleming  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Minn. 

Ill,  1829,  1831,  2(102 

Fleming  v.  Soutter,  6  Wall.  (U.  S.)  747,       699 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2733.] 


Fleming  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Cal. 

253,  1777, 1781 

Flentham  v.  Steward,  45  Neb.  640,  803 

Fletcher  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mo. 

484,  1753 

Fletcher  v.  Auburn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Wend. 

462,  1658 

Fletcher  v.  Dennison,  101  Cal.  292,  663 

Fletcher  v,  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  149  Mass. 

127,  1777,  1781, 1784 

Fletcher  v.  Hamlet,  116  U.  S.  408,  944 

Fletcher  v.  Holmes,  25  Ind.  458,  688 

Fletcher  v.  McGill,  110  Ind.  395,  714 

Fletcher  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

Fed.  R.  731,  1573 

Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cranch  87,      965,  1133;  1417 
Fletcher  v.  Waring,  137  Ind.  159,  847 

Flike  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  N,  Y.  549, 

2010,2028 

Flinn  v.  Bagley,  7  Fed.  R  785,  130,  260 

Flinn  v.  N.  Y.  Railroad  Co.,  142  N.  Y.  11, 

1897, 1898 
Flinn  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Houst.  (Del.)  469,  2515 

Flint  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  Mass. 

222,  1985 

Flint  v    Norwich,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  34 

Conn.  554,  2584 

Flint  v.  Pierce,  99  Mass.  68,  212,  277 

Flint  v.  Webb,  25  Minn.  263,  753 

Flint,  etc  ,  R.  Co.  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

6/t  Mich,  350,    1530, 1700,  1702, 1703,  1704, 1706, 

2571 
Flint,  etc..  R   Co  v.  Dewey,  14  Mich.  477, 

378, 1568 
Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gordon,  41  Mich.  420, 

1126, 1374 
Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lull,  28  Mich.  510, 

1832.  1835, 1836, 1842, 1865 
Flint,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Weir,  37  Mich.  Ill, 

2525,2630 

Flint,  etc.,  R  Co.  v.  WiUey,  47  Mich.  88,    1675 
Flint,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Woodhull,  25  Mich.  99, 

90,  861 

Flolickstein  v.  Mobile,  40  Ala.  725,  2647 

Flood  v.  North  Eastern,  etc  ,  R.  Co.,  21 

L.  T.  R.  258,  969 

Florence,  etc  ,  Co.v  Hanby,  101  Ala.  15, 

787.  792 

Florida  v.  Anderson,  91  U.  S-  667,  660 

Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  23  Fla.  104,    1634 
Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v  Hirst,  30  Fla.  1, 

285,  1955,  2452,  2560,  2595 

Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co  v.  Loring,  51  Fed.  R. 

932,  1322 

Florida,  etc  ,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pensacola,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  10  Fla  145.  56 


Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schutte,  103  U.  S. 

118,  619 

Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  31  Fla.  482, 

184,  523,  527,  915,  917,  924,  925,  1002,.  1009 
Florida,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Webster,  25  Fla. 

394,  2472,  2553,  2562 

Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v   Williams,  (Fla.) 

20  So.  R  558,  2707 

Florsheim,  etc.,  Co.  v.Wettermark,  (Tex.) 

308.  W  R.  505,  870 

Flournoy  v.  City  of  Jeffersonville,  17  Ind. 

169,  979 

Flower  v.  Downs,  12  Rob.  (La.)  101,  2203 

Flower  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Dr.  & 

Sm.  330.  899 

Flower  v,  Pennsylvania  Co.,  69  Pa.  St.  210, 

305, 1963,  1964, 1991,  2060,  2463, 2603 
Floyd  v.  Pen-in,  30  S.  C.  1,  1142, 1178, 1226 

Fluker  v.  Emporia  City  Ry.  Co.,  48  Kan. 

577,  738 

Flynn  v.  Canton  Co.,  40  Md.  312,  1023 

Flynn  v.  Central  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  81,  2583 

Flynn  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  83  Wis.  238,  1781 

Flynn  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  6  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  308,  '  881 

Flynn  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Mo. 

195,  2717 

Flynn  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

Cal.  14,  1888, 1923 

Flynn  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Mo. 

App.  424:  2250 

Fobes  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  N.  Y.  505, 

1633,1635 

Fogel  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Cal.) 

42  Pac.  R.  565,  2475 

Fogg  v.  Blair,  139  U.  S.  118,  131, 132, 658,  850 
Fogg  v.  Boston,  etc..  R.  Co.,  148  Mass.  513, 

303,874 

Fogg  v.  Nevada,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Nev.  429,  1634 
Fogus  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Mo. 

App.  250,  2059 

Foley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa, 

644,  2121 

Foley  v.  Felrath,  98  Ala.  176,  2196 

Foley  v.  Jersey  City  Electric  Light  Co., 

54  N.  J.  Law  411,  1999 

Foley  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Hun 

248,  1983 

Folger  v.  Chase,  18  Pick.  (Mass.)  63,  863 

Folger  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  99 

Mass.  267,  76,  86,  863,  864 

Follett  v.  Toronto  R.  Co.,  15  Ont.  App. 

346,  IMS 

Follit  v  Eddystone  Granite  Quarries, 

L.  R.  (1892)  3  Ch.  75,  722 


clxxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-W,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1268-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Follman  v.  City  of  Mankato,  35  Minn. 

522,  1790 

Folsom  v.  Evans,  5  Minn.  418,  731,  732 

Folsom  v.  Township  Ninety-six,  159  U.  S. 

611,  1178 

Foltz  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Fed.  R. 

316,  896 

Fonda  v.  Sage,  46  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  109,  1310 

Fones  v.  Phillips,  39  Ark.  17,  2078 

Fong  Yue  Ting  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S. 

698,  2688 

Fonseca  v.  Cunard,  etc.,  Co.,  153  Mass. 

553,  2312,  2493,  2603,  2633 

Font  v.  Gulf,  etc.:  Co.,  47  La.  Ann.  272,  944 
Fontaine  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  54  Cal. 

645,  1861 

Foot  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Conn. 

214,  1323,  1324 

Foote,  Appellant,  22  Pick.  (Mass.)  299,  418 
Foote  v.  County  of  Pike,  101  U.  S.  688,  1239 
Foote  v.  Cunard,  etc.,  Co.,  17  Fed.  R.  46,  877 
Foote  v.  Forbes,  25  Kan.  359,  778 

Foote  v.  Johnson  County,  5  Dillon  (U.  S.) 

281,  1231 

Foote  v.  Linck,  5  McLean  616,  1061 

Foote  v.  Merrill,  54  N.  H.  490,  1931 

Foot  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Vt.  633,  354 
Forbes  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Car. 

454,  1864 

Forbes  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Railroad,  133  Mass. 

154,  2215,  2218,  2361 

Forbes  v.  Delashmutt,  68  Iowa  164,  1558 

Forbes  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  133  Mass.  154, 

2356,  2362 

Forbes  v.  Howard,  4  R.  I.  364,  1473,  1535 

Ford,  Matter  of,  6  Lans.  92,  1091 

Forbes  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Woods 

(U.  S.)  323,  243,  418,  678,  742,  748 

Forbes  v.  Rice,  2  Brev.  (S.  Car.)  363,  2427 

Forbes  v.  San  Rafael  T.  Co.,  50  Cal  340,  652 
Forbes  v.  Willamette,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Ore. 

61,  15% 

Ford  v.  Anderson,  139  Pa.  St.  261,  2022,  2050 
Ford  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Wis.  609, 

899,  1265,  1345,  1384, 1546 
Ford  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  24 

L.  R.  A.  657,  1923 

Ford  v.  East  Hampton  Rubber-Thread 

Co.,  158  Mass.  84,  418,  427 

Ford  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  110  Mass.  240, 

287,  2016,  2021,  2030,  2051,  2078,  2086 
Ford  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  N.  Y. 

493,  2016, 2018 

Ford  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Foster  & 

Fin.  N.  P.  730,  2289,  2295,  2470 

Pord  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

17  Q.  B.  Div.  12,  1439 


Ford  v.  Mitchell,  21  Ind.  54,  2187,  2188,  2190 
Ford  v.  Plankington  Bank,  87  Wis.  363,  107 
Ford  v.  Santa  Cruz  R.  Co.,  59  CaL  290, 

1538, 1635 

Ford  v.  Surget,  46  Miss.  130,  1331 

Fordyce  v.  Briney,  58  Ark.  206,  2088 

Fordyce  v.  Culver,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  569,  2044 
Fordyce  v.  Edwards,  60  Ark.  438,  2046 

Fordyce  v.  Jackson,  56  Ark.  594, 

1829,  2000,  2457,  2476,  2510 

Fordyce  v.  Lowman,  57  Ark.  160,  2031,  2033 
Fordyce  v.  Manuel,  82  Tex.  527,  2507 

Fordyce  v.  McFlynn,  56  Ark.  424,  2406,  2460 
Fordyce  v.  Merrill,  49  Ark.  277,  2479,  2590 

Fordyce  v.  Nix,  58  Ark.  136,  2287 

Fordyce  v.  Yarborough,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

260,  2043 

Forepaugh  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128 

Pa.  St.  217,  2173,  2312,  2330 

Foreman  v.  Bigelow,  4  Cliff.  (U.  S.)  508,  115 
Foreman  v.  Great  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Nev.  &  McN.  202,  2669 

Forman  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

La.  Ann.  446,  1614,  1621 

Forney  v.  Fremont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Neb. 

465,  1371, 1382,  1383, 1390 

Forrest  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

Beav.  40,  545 

Forrest  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  4 

De  G.,  F.  &  J.  126,  243 

Forrester  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Ga. 

699,  2250 

Forsee  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  63 

Miss.  67,  283,  2507 

Forster  v.  Scott,  136  N.  Y.  577,  1399 

Forsyth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Mass. 

510,  1956,  2479,  2546,  2550,  2591 

Forsyth  v.  Brown,  13  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  Rep.  579,  234 
Forsyth  v.  Hooper,  11  Allen  419,  1588 

Forsyth  v.  Wilcox,  143  Ind.  144,  1427 

Ft.  Dodge  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

Iowa  389,  800,  815,  924 

Fort  Edwards,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Payne,  15  N.  Y. 

583,  184,  376,  1280 

Fortier  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Bank,  112 

U.  S.  439,  542 

Fortier  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  18  111.  App. 

260,  2232 

Fort  Leavenworth  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe,  114 

U.  S.  525,  1333,  1334,  1375 

Fort  Madison,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Batavian  Bank, 

71  Iowa  270,  146 

Fort  Scott,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holman,  45  Kan. 

167,  1878 

Fort  Scott,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Karracker,  46 

Kan.  511,  1945 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1S6S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Fort  Scott,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sparks,  55  Kan. 

288,  2513, 2562 

Fort  Scott,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tubbs,  47  Kan. 

630,  1923,  1945 

Fort  Smith  Oil  Co.  v.  Slover,  58  Ark.  168, 

308,2021 
Fort  Street,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Backus,  92 

Mich.  33,  1524 

Fort  Street,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jones,  83  Mich. 

415,  1493, 1496 

Fort  Street  Union  Depot  Co.  v.  Morton, 

83  Mich.  265,  1340,  2260 

Fort  Street  Union  Depot  Co.  v.  State,  R. 

etc.,  Co.,  81  Mich.  248,  925,  987, 1694 

Fort  Wayne  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

132  Ind.  558, 

61,  907, 1103, 1268, 1376, 1380, 1654, 1655, 1663, 

1664 

Fort  Wayne  v.  Shoaff,  106  Ind.  66,  1102 

Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Detroit,  39 

Mich  543,  34  Mich.  78,  1641 

Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gildersleeve, 

33  Mich.  133,  2013,  2039,  2043 

Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herbold,  99 

Ind.  91,  1840 

Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hinebaugh,  43 

Ind.  354,  614,  1820 

Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mellett,  92 

Ind.  535,  763 

Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Musseter,  48 

Ind.  286,  1821 

Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sherry,  126  Ind. 

334,  548, 1304 

Fort  Worth,  City  of,  v.  Allen,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  31  S.  W.  R.  2*5,  1641,  1643 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Daniels,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  29  S.  W.  R.  695,  1439 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Daggett,  87 

Tex.  322,  2247,  2340,  2412,  2414 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dennis,  (Tex.) 

33  S.  WT.  R.  884,  1779 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Floyd,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  21  S.  W.  R.  544,  2138 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  v.  Graves,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  21  S.  W.  R.  606,  1999 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greathouse, 

82  Tex.  104,  2317,  2343,  2403,  2415 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hogsett,  67 

Tex.  685,  1930 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jennings,  76 

Tex.  373,  1409 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  5  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  24,  2244 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Kennedy, 

(Tex.)  35  S.  W.  R.  335,  2469 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lamphear,  1 

3Vx.  Civ.  App.  Cas.  127,  1534 


Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  35  S.  W.  R.  21,  2182,  2192 

Fort  Worth  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Queen  City  R. 

Co.,  71  Tex.  165,  532, 906,  1373 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Riley,  (Tex. 

Ct.  of  App.)  1  S.  W.  R.  446,  2183 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robertson, 

(Tex.)  14  L.  R.  A.  781,  1974 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rosedale,  etc., 

Co.,  68  Tex.  169,          103,  1616, 1622,  1625,  1626 
Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rosenthal,  etc., 

Co.,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  29  S.  W.  R.  196,      2630 
Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott,  2  Tex. 

App.  Civil  Cas.  137,  1405 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,    Co.  v.  Smith  Bridge 

Co.,  151  U.  S.  294,  124ft 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tomlinson, 

(Tex.  App.)  16  S.  W.  R.  866,  1872 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wallace,  74 

Tex.  581,  1930,  1932 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitehead,  6 

Texas  Civil  App.  595,  995 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  77 

Tex.  121,  2229 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams, 

(Tex.)  18  S.  W.  R.  208,  177, 182 

Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Word,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  32  S.  W.  R.  14,  2407 

Forward  v.  Hampshire,  etc.,  Canal  Co., 

22  Pick.  (Mass.)  462,  1536 

Forward  v.  Pittard,  1  T.  R.  27,  2265,  2269 

Foss  v.  Harbottle,  2  Hare  461,  17 

Foss  v.  Hinkell,  78  Cal.  158,  1121, 1122 

Fosdick  v.  Perrysburg,  14  Ohio  St.  472,      1145 
Fosdick  v.  Schall,  99  U.  S.  235, 

644,  653,  659,  690,  707,  708,  785,  787 
Foster  v.  Seymour,  23  Fed.  R.  65,  130 

Fosdick  v.  Sturges,  1  Biss.  (U.  S.)  255,         129 
Fossion  y.  Landry,  123  Ind.  136,  1417 

Foster  v.  Belcher's  Sugar  Refining  Co., 

118  Mo.  238,  246 

Foster  v.  Boston,  133  Mass.  143,  682 

Foster  v.  Browning,  4  R.  I.  47,  1325,  1327 

Foster  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Fed. 

R.  369,  937 

Foster  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  162  U.  S. 

197,  2667 

Foster  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  C6.,  56  Fed.  R. 

434,  306 

Foster  v.  Cumberland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Pa. 

St.  371,  1459 

Foster  v.  Davenport,  22  How.  244,      2656,  2662 
Foster  v.  Essex  Bank,  16  Mass.  245,  867 

Foster  v.  Fowler,  60  Pa.  St.  27, 

105,  107,  1115, 1606 
Foster  v.  Frampton,  6  B.  &  C.  103,  2394 


clxxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[  Vol.  i,  pp.  i-kia,  Vol.  ii,  pp.  iM-ne-2,  Vol.  in,  pp.  nes-sieu,  Vol.  iv,  pp. 


Foster  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  8  Q.  B.  D.  515,  1005 

Foster  v.  Mansfield,  etc  ,  R.  Co  ,  36  Fed. 

R.  627,  239,  677.  681,  711,  712 

Foster  v.  Mullanphy  Planing  Mill  Co.,  92 

Mo.  79,  358,  362 

Foster  v.  Pitch,  36  Conn.  236,  83 

Foster  v.  Pusey,  8  Houst.  (Del.)  168,  2078 

Foster  v.  Seymour,  23  Fad.  R.  65,  167 

Foster  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Mo. 

116,  1860 

Foster  v.  Townsend,  2  Abb.  N.  Gas.  (N.  Y.) 

29,  785 

Foster  v,  Townsend,  68  N.  Y.  203,  107 

Foster  v.  White,  86  Ala.  467,  248 

Fougeray  v.  Cord,  50  N.  J.  Eq.  185,  431 

Foulke  v.  San  Diego,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Cal. 

365,  487,  553,  642 

Foulks  v.  Falls,  91  Ind.  315,  549 

Fountaine  v.  Carmarthen  Ry.  Co.,  L.  R.  5 

Eq.  316,  631,  641 

Fourth  National  Bank  v.  Francklyn,  120 

U.  S.  747,  270 

Fowlds  v.  Evans,  52  Minn.  551,  306 

Fowle  v.  New  Hampshire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 

Mass.  334,  1404 

Fowle  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Mass. 

334,  1453, 1539 

Fowler's  Petition,  9  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  268, 

823 
Fowler  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  W. 

Va.  579,  2594 

Fowler  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Wis. 

159,  2051,  2065 

Fowler  v.  City  of  Superior,  85  Wis.  411,      1229 
Fowler  v.  Davenport,  21  Tex.  626.  2214 

Fowler  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Mich.  79,     878 
Fowler  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Trust  Co.,  21  Wis. 

78,  1*35 

Fowler  v.  Jarvis,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Fed.  R.  888,    782 
Fowler  v.  Lamson,  146  111.  472,  270 

Fowler  v.  Meikleham,  7  Low.  Can.  367,      2218 
Fowler  v.  New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.,  74  Hun 

141,  1775 

Fowler  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Pa. 

St.  22,  891 

Fowles  v.  Great  Western,  etc.  R.  Co.,  7 

Exch.  699,  2350 

Fowlkes  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Bax- 
ter 663,  2131 
Fowlkes  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 

Heisk.  829,  2145 

Fox  v.  Allensville,  etc.,  R.  Co  ,  46  Ind.  31, 

203.209 

Fox  v.  Boston,  etc,,  R.  Co.,  148  Mass.  220,  2225 
Fox  v.  Catharine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12/Pa.  Co. 

Ct.  R.  180,  1620 


Fox  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Iowa  368, 

2059,2061 
Fox  v.  Hempfield  R.  Co.,  2  Abb.  (U.  S.) 

151,  1570, 1573 

Fox  v.  Holt,  36  Conn.  558 :  2446 

Fox  v.  Mackay,  60  Fed  R.  4,  933,938 

Fox  v.  McGregor,  11  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  41,  2445 
Fox  v.  RaUroad.  3  Wall.  Jr.  243,  1577 

Fox  v.  Seal,  22  Wall.  (U.  S.)  424,  1603 

Fox  v.  Spring  Lake,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Mich. 

387,  2081 

Fox  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  N.  Y. 

Supp.  88,  v    2624 

Fox  v.  Western  Pacific  R.  Co.,  31  Cal.  538, 

1549 
Foy  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  225,  2546 

Foy  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Md. 

76,  2027 

Frace  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  N.  Y. 

182,  1896, 1897>  1898,  1910 

Fractor's,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marine,  etc.,  Co.,  31 

La.  Ann.  149,  134 

Frailey  v.  Winchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.) 

29  S.  W.  R.  446,  1605 

Fraker  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Minn. 

54,  2705 

France-v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Hun  318,  2046 
Francis  v.  Atchison,  etc,,  Co.,  19  Kan.  303, 1060 
Francis  v.  Cockrell,,L.  R.  5  Q.  B.  184,  2474 
Francis  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Iowa 

60,  2278,  2279,  2351,  2355 

Francis  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N.Y. 

93,  200 

Francklyn  v.  Colhoun,  3  Swanst.  276,  107 

Francisco  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Hnn  13, 

2555,  2558 
Francoeur  v.  Newhouse,  (C.  C.  N.  D.  Cal.) 

40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  439,  1124, 1125 

Franco-Texan  Land  Co.  v.  Laigle,  59  Tex. 

339,  236 

Franco,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McCormick,  85  Tex. 

416,  507 

Frank  v.  Denver,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  23  Fed.  R. 

123,  644,  655,  659 

Frank  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Fed.  R. 

757,  911 

Frank  v.  Ingalls,  41  Ohio  St.  560,  2484 

Frank  v.  Morrison,  58  Md.  423,  264,  276,  794 
Frank  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  122  N.  Y. 

197,  574 

Frank  v.  Wessels.  64  N.  Y,  155,  635 

Frankel  v.  Hudson,  82  Ala.  158,  322 

Frankford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Philadel- 
phia. 58  Pa  St.  119,  1623 
Frankford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 

etc.,  Co.,  54  Pa.  St.  345,  1888, 1898, 1905 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


clxxxvii 


{References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  1165-2725.] 


Frankfort,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Churchill,  6  T.  B. 

Mon.  (Ky.)  427,  21 

Frankfort,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Windsor,  51  Ind. 

238,  1517 

Franklin  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Cal. 

63,  2470, 2551 

Franklin  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  3  Hurl. 

&  N.  211,  2146 

"Franklin  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Minn. 

409,  2006 

TTranklin  v.  Menown,  10  Mo.  App.  570,          264 
Franklin  Bank  v.  Commercial  Bank,  36 

Ohio  St.  350,  143,  162 

Franklin  Bank  v.  Cooper,  36  Me.  179,  328 

Franklin  Bank  v.  Stevens,  39  Me.  532,  328 

Franklin  Branch  Bank  v.  State,  1  Black 

(U.  S.)  474,  1063 

Franklin  Bridge  Co.  v.  Wood,  14  Ga.  80,       22 
Franklin  County  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  Co.,  12 

Lea  521,  1057,  1077 

Franklin,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lewiston,  etc.,  68 

Me.  43,  143,  348,  503,  513 

Franklin,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mackey,  83  Hun  511,   294 
Fraser  v.  Charleston,  11  S.  Car.  486,  113 

Fraser  v.  Ritchie,  8  111.  App.  554,  141 

Frasher  v.  O'Connor,  115  U.  S.  102,  1136 

Franzen  v.  Hutchinson,  (Iowa)   62  N.  W. 

R.  698,  849 

Frazer  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ala.  185,    1968 
Frazier  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 

Tenn.  138,  100,  452,  704,  814 

Frazier  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Ga.  785, 

2126,  2142 

Frazier  v.  Frederick,  24  N.  J.  L.  162,  652 

Frazier  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co..  48  Iowa 

571,  2183,  2185,  2411 

Frazier  v.  Myers,  132  Ind.  71,  59 

Frazier  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Pa.  St.  104,  2083 

Frederick  v.  Campbell,  13  Sergt.  &  R.  136,    562 
Frederick  v.  Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Mich.  342,  284,  2461,  2487,  2488,  2489,  2490 

Fredenheim  v.  Rohr,  87  Va.  764,  774 

Fredericks  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  46  La. 

Ann.  1180,  1973 

Fredericks  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  157 

Pa.  St.  103,  2473,  2567,  2569 

Freedle  v.  North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  4  Jones 

(N.  Car.)  Law  89,  1332 

Freedom,  The,  L.  R.  3  P.  C.  594,  2205 

Freeholders  v.  Red  Bank,  etc.,  Co.,  18  N.  J. 

Eq.  91,  1536 

Freeholders  v.  State  Bank,  28  N.  J.  Eq.  166,    246 
Freehold  Mut.  Loan  Assn.  v.  Brown,  29 

N.  J.  Eq.  121,  93 

Freeland  v.  McCullough,  1  Denio  (N.  Y.) 

414,  257 


Freeland  v.  McCullough,  43  Am.  Dec.  694,  277 
Freeland  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  Co.,  94  Pa. 

St.  504,  550 

Freeman  v.  Birch,  3  Q.  B.  492,  2391,  2696 

Freeman  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Mich. 

86,  1763, 1771 

Freeman  v.  Harwood,  49  Me.  195,  218 

Freeman  v.  Kraemer,  (Minn.)  65  N.  W.  R. 

455,  2197 

Freeman  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Fla. 

420,  2699 

Freeman  v.  Machias,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Me.  343, 

24,236,363 

Freeman  v.  Matlock,  67  Ind.  99,  176,  777, 178 
Freeman  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

Minn.  443,  525,  612 

Freeman  v.  Newton,  3E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.) 

246,  2620 

Freeman  v.  Ogden,  40  N.  Y.  105,  1557 

Freeman  v.  Weeks,  45  Mich.  335,  1300 

Freeman  v.  Winchester,  10  S.  &  M. 

(Miss.)  577,  214,  261 

Freemont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mattheis,  35 

Neb.  48,  1500 

Freer  v.  Cameron,  55  Am.  Dec.  663,  2592 

Freer  v.  Cameron,  4  Rich.  L.  228,  1979,  2089 
Freiday  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  Co.,  (Iowa) 

26  L.  R.  A.  246,  12 

Frelinghuysen  v.  Golden,  4  Paige  Ch. 

(N.  Y.)  204,  746 

Frelson  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  42  La. 

Ann.  673,  2567 

Fremont  v.  Coupland,  2  Bing.  170,  2243 

Fremont  v.  United  States,  17  How.  542,  1123 
Fremont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crum,  36  Neb.  70,  1929 
Fremont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lamb,  11  Neb. 

592,  1435,  1727,  1729 

Fremont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marley,  25  Neb. 

138,  1930 

Fremont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whalen,  11  Neb. 

585,  1424,  1426,  1455 

French  Bank  Case,  53  Cal.  495,  760 

French  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Keyes 

(N.  Y.)  108,  2318,2347 

French  v.  Dauchy,  134  N.  Y.  543,  823 

French  v.  Donohue,  29  Minn.  Ill,  876 

French  v.  Fuller,  23  Pick.  (Mass.)  108,  427 
French  v.  Gifford,  30  Iowa  148,  760,  774,  775 
French  v.  Gifford,  31  Iowa  428,  824 

French  v.  Hay,  22  Wall.  (U.  S.)  238,  948 

French  v.  Maconia,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Atl.  363,  1034 
French  v.  Row,  77  Hun  (N.  Y.)  380,  663 

French  v.  Smith,  24  Am.  Dec.  622,  2722 

French  v.  Star,  etc.,  Co.,  134  Mass.  288,  2385 
French  v.  Taunton  Branch  Railroad,  116 

Mass.  537,  1763 

French  v.  Teschemaker,  24  Cal.  518,  1175 


clxxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U.3-1162,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2166-2725.} 


French  v.  Vix,  143  N.  Y.  90,  1564, 1567 

French  v.  Wilkinson,  93  Mich.  322,  2713 

Frenkel  v.  Hudson,  82  Ala.  158,  166,  366 

Freon  v.  Carriage  Co.,  42  Ohio  St.  30,  147 

Frere  v.  Von  Schoeler,  47  La.  Ann.  324,  2640 
Frese  v.  State,  23  Fla.  267,  2725 

Fresno,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kowell,  80  Cal.  114,  561 
Frevert  v.  Finfrock,  31  Ohio  St.  621,  1540 

Frey  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Wis.  309,  1450 
Frick  v.  Mercer  County,  138  Pa.  St.  523,  1187 
Frick  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Mo.  595, 

1644,  1749,  1750,  1759, 1762 
Friedenrich  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

Md.  201,  2500 

Friedlander  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  U.  S. 

416,  414,  2199,  2200,  2204,  2217,  2220 

Friedman  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110 

N.  Y.  676,  1767 

Friend,  Appellant,  53  Me.  387,  1473  i 

Friend  v.  Pittsburgh,  131  Pa.  St.  305,  1219 
Friend  v.  Woods,  6  Qratt.  189,  2264,  2266 

Frier  v.  President,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Hun  464,  1890 
Fries  v.  Southern  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  85 

Pa.  St.  73,  1537 

Friess  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Hun 

205,  1785 

Frink  v.  Coe,  4  G.  Greene  (Iowa)  555,  2473 
Prink  v.  Potter,  17  111.  406,  2473,  2697,  2699 
Fripp  v.  Chard  Ry.  Co.,  11  Hare  241, 

745,  749,  829 
Frisbie   v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Fed.  R.  1,  948 

Frische  v.  Kramer,  16  Ohio  125,  679 

Frish  v.  Reigle,  11  Gratt.  (597,  2473 

Frith  v.  Dubuque,  45  Iowa  406,  1629 

Frith  v.  Justices,  30  Ga.  723,  1475 

Fritts  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Conn. 

503,  1881 

Fritts  v.  Palmer,  132  U.  S.  282,  542,  550 

Fritz  v.  Hobson,  10  Am.  L.  Reg.  (N.  S.) 

615,  1631 

Fritz  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Iowa 

323,  1817 

Fritz  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  30  S.  W.  R.  85,  2048,  2070 

Frizell  v.  Rogers,  82  111.  109,  1545 

Frohock  v.  Pattee,  38  Me.  103,  1032 

Fronky  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  (Pa.  St.) 

2  Atl.  R.  536,  2720 

Front  St.  Cable  R.  Co.v.  Johnson,  2  Wash. 

112,  10,  5:55,  1596 

Frost  v.  Eastern  Railway  Co.,  64  N.  H. 

220,  1959,  1973, 1974 

Frost  v.  Frostburg  Coal  Co.,  24  How.  278,  29 
Frost  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  10  Allen 

(Mass.)  387,  2549,  2550 


Frost  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Mich. 

470,  1782 

Frost  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  R. 

936,  201& 

Frothingham  v.  Barney,  6  Hun  (N.Y.)  366, 

867 

Fruin  v.  Crystal  R.  Co.,  89  Mo.  397,  1578- 

Fry  v.  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  2  Mete. 

(Ky.)  314,  70,  71,  157,  214,  235,  348, 1224 

Fry  v.  State,  63  Ind.  552,  957,  1043,  2500 

Frye  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  111.  399,    2651 
Frye  v.  Tucker,  24  111.  180,  47& 

Fulgam  v.  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Ga.  597,    113 
Fulghum  v.  Cotton,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  296,  679 

Fulks  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  Mo. 

335,  2548 

Fuller  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Assn.,  67  Md. 

433,  2160 

Fuller  v.  Bradley,  25  Pa.  St.  120,  2446 

Fuller  v.  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,  15  Fed.  R. 

875,  158& 

Fuller  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Iowa  187, 

958,  1043,  2432,  2651 
Fuller  v.  Dame,  18  Pick.  472, 

377,  528,  529,  530,  1279 

Fuller  v.  Jewett,  80  N.  Y.  56,       2010,  2012,  2050 
Fuller  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.) 

66  N.  W.  R.  593,  1842 

Fuller  v.  Naugatuck  R.  Co.,  21  Conn.  556, 

2167,  2466,  2470 

Fuller  v.  Rowe,  57  N.  Y.  23,  271,  273 

Fullerton  v.  Fordyce,  121  Mo.  1,      259,  806,  81* 
Fulmer  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Miss. 

355,  2144 

Fulton  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  17  U.  C. 

Q.  B.  428,  2508 

Fulton  v.  Lydecker,  17  N.  Y.  Supp.  451,      2363 
Fulton  v.  Short  Route,  etc.,  Co.,  85  Ky. 

.640,  11,  12,  1633 

Fulton  Bank  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Canal  Co., 

4  Paige  (N.  Y.)  127,  366,  368,  392,  873 

Fulton,  etc.,  Mills  Co.  v.  Wilson,  89  Ga. 

318,  2148 

Fulton,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.  v.  McConnell,  87 

Ga.  756,  1588,  1592 

Funk  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn.)  63 

N.  W.  R.  1099,  8,  9 

Funston  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Iowa 

452,  1748, 1762 

Furgusson  v.  Brent,  12  Md.  9,  2300 

Furley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Iowa 

146,  2401 

Furman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Iowa 

42,  2385 

Furman  v.  Union  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 

N.  Y.  579,  2215,  2216,  2360 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxxix 


[References  are  to  fat/ex.] 
1.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  VoL  If  I,  pp.  12R3-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Pnrnam  St.,  In  re,  17  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  551, 

1433,  1437 
furness  v.  Caterham  R.  Co.,  25  B»av.  614, 

750,  751 
Furnish  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Mo. 

438,  2471 

Furniss  v.  Hudson  Elver  R.  Co.,  5  Sandf. 

551,  1453, 1454 

Furniss  ?.  Midland  E.  Co.,  L.  E.  6  Eq. 

473,  1339 

Fusz  v.  Spaunhorst,  67  Mo.  256,  326 


G 


Gabay  v.  Lloyd,  3  B.  &  C.  793,  2400 

Gabrielson  v.  Waydell,  135  N.  Y.  1,  1990 

Gadberry  v.  Sheppard,  27  Miss.  203,  561 

Gaddis  v.  Richland  County,  92  IU.  119, 

1153, 1173, 1237 
Gadsden  v.  Lance,  1  McMull.  Eq.(S.  Car.) 

87,  133 

Gadsden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Causler,  97  Ala. 

235,  2549 

Gaff  v.  Flesher,  33  Ohio  St.  107,  134 

Gaffney  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  E.  I. 

456,  2001,  2068,  2087 

Gafford  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  77  Iowa 

736,  398 

Gage  v.  Caraher,  125  111.  447,  993 

Gage  v.  Chicago,  141  IU.  642,  1536 

Gage  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  E.  E.  Co.,  70 

N.  Y.  220,  37 

Gage  v.  Maryland  Coal  Co.,  124  Mass.  442, 

2420 
Gage  v.  New  Market  R.  Co.,  18  Q.  B.  457, 

514,  552,  1292 

Gage  v.  Tirrell,  9  Allen  299,  2266,  2268 

Gagg  v.  Vetter,  41  Ind.  228,  1763 

Gahagan  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Allen 

(Mass.)  187,  1613 

Gaines  v.  Coates,  51  Miss.  335,  59 

Gaines  v.  Union  T.  Co.,  28  Ohio  St.  418, 

2201,  2234,  2:r21,  2325,  2346,  2347 
Gainesville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  78  Tex. 

169,  1410,  1411,  1441,  1442, 16132 

Gainesville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Waples,  3  Tex. 

App.  (Civil  Cases)  482,  1511 

Gaither  v.  Ballew,  4  Jones  L.  (N.  Car.) 

488,  892 

Galbraith  v.  Littiech,  73  111.  209,  1468 

Gale  v.  Delaware,  etc..  R.  Co.,   7  Hun 

(N.  Y.)670,  2497,2498 

Gale  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y. 

594,  1665 

Gale  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

470,  466,  467,  468 


Galena  v.  Amy,  5  Wall.  705,  1168 

Galena  v.  Corwith,  48  111.  423,  1248 

Galena,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Crawford,  25  IU.  529,  1807 
Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Appleby,  28 IU.  283,  1041 
Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  DiU,  22  IU.  265,  1737 
Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fay,  16  111.  558, 

1766,  2069,  2473,  2552 

Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Griffin,  31  IU.  303,  1834 
Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haslam,  73  IU.  494, 

1524, 1525 
Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Loomis,  13  I1L  548, 

1041, 1661 
Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Menzies,  26  IU.  121, 

648,891 
Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rae,  18  IU.  488, 

2274,  2280,  2282,  2286,  2302,  2306,  2409,  2693 
Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stahl,  103  IU.  67,  893 
Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yarwood,  17  IU.  509, 

2596 

Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yarwood,  15  IU.  468,  2451 
Gallaghar  v.  Ashby,  26  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  143,  1593 
Gallagher  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  57 

Conn.  442,  1832, 1833 

Gallaher  v.  Crescent  City  R.  Co.,  37  La. 

Ann.  288,  1647 

GaUena  v.  Hot  Springs,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 Fed. 

R.  116,  2575 

Gallery  v.  National,  etc.,  Bank,  41  Mich. 

169,  375 

GaUiher  v.  CadweU,  145  U.  S.  368,  1131 

GaUin  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Q.  B. 

212,  2511,  2512,  2601 

GaUoway  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Iowa 

458,  2458,  2551,  2595 

GaUoway  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

Minn.  346,  1965 

Galpin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Wis. 

604,          •  1872 

Gait  v.  Adams  Ex.  Co.,  McArth.  &  M. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  124,  2260,  2337 

Gait  v.  Archer,  7  Gratt.  (Va.)  307,  2445 

Gait  v.  Swain,  9  Gratt.  (Va.)  633,  159 

Galveston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bibb,  3  Tex.  App. 

(Civil  Cases)  330,  1565 

Galvestou,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

72  Tex.  454,  1468 

Galveston  City,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Galveston 

City  St.  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  529,  99 

Galveston  City  Co.  v.  Sibley,  56  Tex.  269,  117 
Galveston  Hotel  Co.  v.  Bolton,  46  Tex. 

633,  158, 163 

Galveston  Oil  Co.  v.  Morton,  70  Tex.  400,  1948 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allison,  59  Tex. 

193,  2237,  2249,  2308 

Galveston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Arispe,  5  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  611,  492,  2085 


cxc 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  J-JH2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  UM-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216i,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  3165-2725.] 


Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ball,  80  Tex.  602, 

2319,  2337,  2344,  2421 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cowdrey,  11 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  459, 

316,  357,  362,  476,  485,  627,  639,  640,  648,  650,  653, 

655,  657,  707,  755,  823,  892, 1351, 1603  ! 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Croskell,  6  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  160,  1998  ; 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Daniels,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  28  S.  W.  R.  711,  2003 

Galveston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis,  4  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  468,  492,  2014 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dolores,  etc., 

Co.,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  26  S.  W.  R.  79,        1936 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Donahoe,  56 

Tex.  162,  5,  304,  1293, 1992 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Duelm,  (Tex.) 

23  S.  W.  R.  596,  1761  j 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eckols,  7  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  429,  2041,  2047 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Evansich,  63 

Tex.  54,  1796  j 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Farmer,  73  Tex. 

85,  2087  j 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Garterser,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  29  S.  W.  R.  939,  611  | 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gonzales,  151 

U.  S.  496,  885  j 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goodwin,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  26  S.  W.  R.  1007,      1997,  2007,  2047  j 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gormley,  (Tex.) 

27  S.  W.  R.  1051,  2007 

Galveston  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gulf  City, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  529,  1617 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  65  Tex. 

685,  1573,  1574,  1575 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herring,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  36  S.  W.  R.  129, 

2065,  2320,  2340,  2402,  2707 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herring,  (Tex.) 

24  S.  W.  R.  939,  2247 
Galveston  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hewitt,  67 

Tex.  473,  1646,  1969,  2449 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Home,  69  Tex. 

643,  1929,  1930,  1932,  1936 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.*Kunt,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  32  S.  W.  R.  549,  2439 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  74  Tex. 

256,  1570,  1575  j 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kutac,  76  Tex. 

473,  1799 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  LaGierse,  51  Tex. 

189,  969, 1045,  2147 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Long,  (Tex.)  36 

S.  W.  R.  485,  2468,  2585,  2704 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Matula,  79  Tex. 

577,  1675, 2151 


Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  59  Tex. 

64,  1982 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mud  Creek,  etc., 

Co.,  1  Tex.  App.  (Civil  Cases)  169,    1336, 1463 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parsley,  6  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  150,  2456 

Galveston,  ;tc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pfeufer,  56  Tex. 

66,  1314,  1328,  1329, 1487,  1560 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Polk,  (Tex.)  28 

S.  W.  R.  353,  1903 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rheiner,  (Tex.) 

25  S.  W.  R.  971,  1945 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rheiner,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  25  S.  W.  Rep.  441,  1929 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ryon,  80 Tex.  59, 

1787 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Short,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  25  S.  W.  R.  142,  2431 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  76  Tex. 

611,  2081 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  81  Tex. 

479,  2617 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  28  S.  W.  R.  110,  2274 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  24  S.  W.  R.  668,  '  2618 

Galveston,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  State,  81  Tex. 

572,  861 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tait,  63  Tex.  223, 

1405 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Templeton,  38 

Tex.  42,  2044 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tuckett,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  25  S.  W.  R.  150,  2415 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner,  1  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Gas.  344,  1879 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warnken,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  35  S.  W.  R.  72,  2414 

Galveston  Wharf  Co.  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

81  Tex.  494,  902, 1619 

Galway  v.  Metropolitan  Ei.  R.  Co.,  128 

N.  Y.  132,  1325 

Galwey  v.  Baker,  5  Cl.  &  Fin.  157,  587 

Gatling  Gun,  etc.,  Re,  62  L.  T.  R.  312,          127 
Gamacho  v.  Hamilton,  etc.,  Co.,  37  N.Y.S. 

725,  401 

Gamble  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  3  Up. 

Can.  Error  &  App.  163,  2621 

Gamble  v.  McCrady,  75  N.  Car.  509, 

1476, 1478, 1524 
Gamble  v.  Queens  County,  etc.,  Co.,  123 

N.  Y.  91,  911 

Gamble  v.  Queens,  etc.,  Co.,  9  L.  If.  A. 

527,  628 

Gambler  v.  Queens,  etc.,  Co.,  123  N.  Y.  91,      132 
Gammage  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Ga. 

614,  897,  1536 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXC1 


[References  are  to  Pttgex.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S185-2725.] 


Gana  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Wis.  12,  485 
Gandy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Iowa 

420,  1942, 1943 

Gangawer  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

168  Pa.  St.  265,  1782 

Gann  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  57  Fed.  R. 

417,  940 

Gans,  Ex  parte,  17  Fed.  R.  471,  980 

Ganther  v.  Jenks  &  Co.,  76  Mich.  510,  365 

Garbracht  v.  Commonwealth,  96  Pa.  St. 

449,  2195 

Gard  v.  Callard,  6  M.  &  S.  69,  •  2424 

Garden  Grove  Bank  v.  Humeston,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  67  Iowa  526,  2202 

Garden  Gully,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McLister,  L.  R. 

1  App.  Gas.  39,  218,  219,  221,  356 
Gardiner  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Mich. 

240,  1773 

Gardner  v.  Brookline,  127  Mass.  358, 

1433,  1434,  1522 
Gardner  v.  Detroit  St.  R.  Co.,  99  Mich. 

182,  2711 

Gardner  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Mich. 

240,  1784, 1800 

Gardner  v.  Hamilton,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  33 

N.  Y.  421,  453 

Gardner  v.  Haney,  86  Ind.  17,  1172 

Gardner  v.  James,  5  R.  I.  235,  471 

Gardner  v.  London,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  Law  R. 

2  Ch.  App.  201,    643,  647,  649,  734,  735,  737,  738 
Gardner  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150 

U.  S.  349,  2006,  2007,  2010,  2721 

Gardner  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  102  Ala. 

635,  696 

Gardner  v.  Newburgh,  2  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 

162,  908, 1341, 1413 

Gardner  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51 

Conn.  143,  2516,  2553,  2601 

Gardner  v.  Smith,  7  Mich.  410,  1861 

Gardner  v.  State,  21  N.  J.  L.  557,  1063 

Gardner  v.  Walsh,  95  Mich.  505,  179 

Gardner  v.  Watson,  13  111.  347,  664 

Garland  v.  Wynn,  20  How.  6,  1135 

Garmoe  v.  Sturgeon,  65  Iowa  147,  .1483, 1491 
Garner  v.  Second  Nat.  Bank,  66  Fed.  R. 

369,  946 

Garnett  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Fla.  889,  1632, 1634 

Garnett  v.  Richardson,  35  Ark.  144,  27,  271 
Garraher  v.  San  Francis^),  etc.,  R.  Co., 

81  C'al.  98,  1767 

Garrahy  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

Fed.  R.  258,  2080 

Garrard  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  29 

Pa.  St.  629, 
Garrett  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Co.,  70  Iowa 

697,  855 


Garrett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Iowa 

121,  1937 

Garrett  v.  City  of  Memphis,  6  Fed.  R.  860,  1261 
Garrett  v.  Dillsburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  78  Pa. 

St.  465,  155,  160,  161,  253 

Garrett  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  Co.,  113  Mo.  330,  132 
Garrett  v.  Lake  Roland  El.  R.  R.  Co., 

(Md.)  24  L.  R.  A.  396,  12 

Garrett  v.  Lake  Roland,  etc.,  Co.,  79  Md. 

277,  1400,  1629,  1640 

Garrett  v.  St.  Louis,  25  Mo.  505,  1331 

Garretzen  v.  Duenckel,  50  Mo.  104,  302,  303 
Garrison  v.  New  York,  21  Wall.  196,  1554 

Garrison  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  S.  W.  R. 

725,  819 

Garside  v.  Trent,  etc.,  Navigation,  4  T.  R. 

581,  2277 

Garteiser  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  230,  1745 

Garth  v.  Caldwell,  72  Mo.  622,  2725 

Garton  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 B.  &  S.  112, 

2168,  2284,  2423 
Garton  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  5  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  669,  2668 

Gartside  Coal  Co.  v.  Maxwell,  22  Fed.  R. 

197,  272 

Garver  v.  Kent,  70  Ind.  428,  732,  792,  793,  795. 
Garvin  v.  Daussman,  114  Ind.  429,  1091,  1176 
Garwood  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Hun 

(N.  Y.)356,  1546 

Garwood  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  83 

N.  Y.  400,  1357,  1402 

Gashwiler  v.  Willis,  33  Cal.  11,  246, 291, 353, 484 
Gaskell  v.  Viquesney,  122  Ind.  244,  676 

Gaslight,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Terrell,  L.  R.  10  Eq. 

168,  855 

Gasquet  v.  Crescent  City,  etc.,  Co.,  49 

Fed.  R.  496,  129 

Gass  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mo. 

App.  574,  1793 

Gass  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Mass. 

220,  2242,  2243,  2244 

Gasser  v.  Sun  Fire  Office,  42  Minn.  315,  673 
Gaston  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Best  & 

S.  112,  2670 

Gasway  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co..  58  Ga. 

216,  1989,  2475,  2582 

Gates  v.  Barrett,  79  Ky.  295,  1071 

Gates  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Conn.  333, 

570,  672,  718,  719,  723,  724 
Gates  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Iowa 

45,  1678,  1857 

Gates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Neb.  379, 

2302,2354 
Gates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  S.  Dak. 

433,  1998 

Gates  v.  Ryan,  37  Fed.  R.  154,  2421 


CXC11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-H7S5.] 


Gates  v.  Salmon,  35  Cal.  576,  1296 

Gateward's  Case,  6  Coke  60,  1318 

Gatliffe  v.  Bourne,  4  Bing.  (N.  C.)  314, 

2370,2377 
Gatton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

63  N.  W.  R.  589,  2432,  2651,  2653 

Gaus,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

113  Mo.  308,  1633 

Gause  v.  Bullard,  16  La.  Ann.  197,  1112 

Gause  v.  Clarksville,  1  Fed.  R.  353,  1231 

Gause  v.  Clarksville,  5  Dillon  (U.  S.)  165, 

1248, 1252 

Gause  v.  Clarksville,  1  McCrary  78,  1245 

Gavett  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Gray 

(Mass.)  501,  2547 

Gavin  v.  City  of  Chicago,  97  111.  311,  1973 

Gavin  v.  Vance,  33  Fed.  R.  84,  944 

Gay  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141  Mass.  407, 

1720, 1721 

Gay  v.  Bradstreet,  49  Me.  580,  1192 

Gay  v.  Essex,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159  Mass.  238, 

1975,  1980 

Gay  v.  New  Orleans  Pacific  R.  Co.,  32  La. 

Ann.  277,  1545 

Gaylord  v.  Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

Biss.  (U.  S.)  286,  75,  762,  763 

Gay  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Gittings,  53  Fed.  R.  45,       870 
Gaynor  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100 

Mass.  208, 

17:36, 1739,  1740,  1741,  2479,  2480,  2546 
Gear  v.  Chicago,  C.  &  D.  R.  Co.,  43  Iowa 

83,  1456 

Gear  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Iowa  523, 

1495,  1503, 1507, 1549 
Gee  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  8  Q.  B. 

161,  2564 

Geiger  v.  Hussey,  63  Ala.  338,  1601 

Geiger  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Md.  4, 

1032,  1571, 1585 
Geiser  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App. 

R.  672,  1859 

Geismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

N.  Y.  563,  2270,  2304,  2355 

Geisse  v.  BeaU,  5  Wis.  224,  787 

Geist  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mich.  446, 

1767 
Geitz  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Wis. 

307,  2572 

Geloneck  v.  Dean,  etc.,  Co.,  (Mass.)  43 

N.  E.  R.  85,  2115 

Gelpcke  v.  Dubnque,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.)  175, 

3,  787, 1087, 1234, 1241, 1256 
Gemmell  v.  Davis,  75  Md.  546, 

148, 149, 150, 151,  420,  428 
General  Ins.  Co.  v.  United  States  Ins.  Co., 

10  Md.  517,  368 


General  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Sherwood,  14 

How.  (U.  S.)  351,  2333 

General  South  American  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R. 

2  Ch.  Div.  337,  650,  661 

Genesee  Tp.  v.  McDonald,  98  Pa.  St.  444,     342 
Geneva,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sage,  35  Hun  (N.Y.) 

95,  2446 

Genet  v.  Brooklyn,  99  N.  Y.  296,  1341 

Gent  v.  Manufacturer's,  etc.,  Ins.  Co., 

107  111.  652,  21 

Gentry  v.  Griffith,  27  Tex.  461,  1335 

Geoghegan  v.  Atlas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  146  N.  Y. 

369,  2027,  2054 

George  v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  101  Ala. 

607,  234,  239,  250,  492 

George  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mo. 

App.  358,  2346 

George  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Ark. 

613,  2470, 2596 

George  F.  Ditman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Keokuk, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Iowa,  416,  2617,  2618 

George's  Creek  Coal  Co.  v.  New  Central 

Coal  Co.,  40  Md.  425,  1533, 1554 

Georgetown  v.  Alexandria  Canal  Co.,  12 

Pet.  (U.S.)  91,  903 

Georgetown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doyle,  9  Colo. 

549,  1567 

Georgetown,.etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eagles,  9 Colo. 

544,  1563, 1565,  1567 

Georgia,  etc.,  Banking  Co.  v.  Smith,  128 

U.  S.  174,  981, 1096 

Georgia  Ice  Co.  v.  Porter,  70  Ga.  637,  876 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Asmore,  88  Ga. 

342,  2574 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beatie,  66  Ga.  438, 

2324,  2339,  2399 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bigelow,  68  Ga. 

219,  2497 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brooks,  84  Ala. 

138,  2105 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  86  Ga. 

320,  2118 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryant,  73  Ga. 

722,  2412 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  51  Wis.  603,  2143 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke,  (Ga.)  25  S. 

E.  R.  368,  2485 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  C».  v.  Cole,  68  Ga.  623, 

2248,2249 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Columbus,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  89  Ga.  205,       908,  1686,  1700,  1701,  1714 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cosby,  (Ga.)  22 

S.  E.  R.  912,  2118 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crawley,  87  Ga. 

191,  1880 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


CXC111 


[References  arc  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  663-1262,  Vol..  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  92  Ala.  300, 

2021,  2706 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dougherty,  86  Ga. 

744,  300, 2489 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Evans,  87  Ga.  673, 

1738, 1739 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Forrester,  96  Ga. 

428,  2250 

Georgia,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Fullerton,  79  Ala. 

298,  1880, 1882 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gaines,  88  Ala. 

377,  446, 447 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gann,  68  Ga.  350,  2321 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goldwire,  56  Ga. 

196,  2110 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hallman,  (Ga.)  23 

S.  E.  R.  73,  2072 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Harris,  83  Ga.  393,  1853 
Georgia  Railroad  v.  Hart,  60  Ga.  550,  248, 1473 
Georgia  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hughart,  30  Ala. 

36,  2234,  2251,  2336,  2338 

Georgia  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes,  87  Ala.  610, 

1799, 1870 

Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Ivey,  73  Ga.  499,  968,  2110 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keener,  93  Ga.  808,  2346 
Georgia  Pacific  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  92  Ala.  262,  1792 
Georgia  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Love,  91  Ala.  432, 

2569,  2596 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCurdy,  45  Ga. 

288,  2548, 2595 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  90  Ga.  571, 

968, 2707 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Monroe,  49  Ga. 

373,  1870 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murden,  86  Ga. 

434,  2453 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murrah,  85  Ga. 

343,  2253,  2443,  2444 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neely,  56  Ga. 

540,  1806, 1867 

Georgia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nelms,  71  Ga.  301,  1133 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nelms,  83  Ga.  70, 

1997,  2009,  2064 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parks,  93  Ga.  228,  1795 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  93  Ga. 

801,  2618 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Propst,  85  Ala. 


203, 


2110 


Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Propst,  83  Ala.  518, 

5,  408,  2009,  2014,  2025,  2061,  2110,  2474 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ray,  84  Ga.  376, 

900,  901,  1050 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reeves,  64  Ga.  492, 

1305, 1314 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reid,  91  Ga.  377,    2412 

CORP. — xiii 


Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ross,  (Ala.)  14  So. 

R.  282,  1967 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  85  Ga.  530,   1880 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  70  Ga.  694, 

59,  981,  982,  983,  989 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  128  U.  S. 

174,  4,  66,  975,  994,  995, 1660,  2488 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spears,  66  Ga.  485, 

2339 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  86  Ga. 

327,  2614, 2617 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Underwood,  90  Ala. 

49,  1791, 2563 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wall,  80  Ga.  202,    1853 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watkins,  (Ga.)  24 

S.  E.  R.  34,  2593 

Georgia  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkes,  86  Ala. 

478,  447,  1384 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  93  Ga. 

253,  1761 

Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  94  Ga.  124,    1989 
Gerard  v.  Mc'Cormick,  130  N.  Y.  261,  139 

Gere  v.  New  York  Cent,  &  H.  R.  R.  Co.,  19 

Abb.  N.  C.  193,  572,  575,  593 

Gerhard  v.  Bates,  2  El.  &  Bl.  476,  20 

Gerhard  v.  Seekonk,  etc.,  Commissioners, 

15  R.  I.  334,  1631 

Gerke,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5  Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  596,  2670 

Gerke,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  4 

Interst.  Com.  R.  267,  2677 

Germain  v.  Montreal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Low. 

Can.  172,  2472 

German  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Iowa 

127,  2402 

German,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Scholler,  10  Minn. 

331,  552 

German,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Jefferson,  10  Bush 

(Ky.)  326,  148 

German  Savings  Bank  v.  Franklin  County, 

128  U.  S.  526,  1232,  1241, 1250,  1255 

German  Sav.  Bank  v.  Wulfekuhler,  19 

Kan.  60,  140 

German  Reformed  Church  v.Von  Puechel- 

stein,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  30,  873 

Germania,  etc.,  Asso.  v.  Wagner,  61  Cal. 

349,  1608 

Germania,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Memphis  &  C% 

R.  Co.,  72  N.  Y.  90,  2201,  2209,  2324 

Germania  Ins.  Co.  v.  Wisconsin,  119  U.  S. 

473,  941 

German  Mining  Co.,  In  re,  4  DeG.,  M.  & 

G.  19,  366 

German  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Fitler,  60  Pa.  St. 

124,  211 


cxciv 


TABLE    OP    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-Ui.  Vol.  II,  pp.  l.JtS-1262,  Vol. 

German  town  Avenue,  In  re,  99  Pa.  St. 

479,  1559 

Germantown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brophy,  105 

Pa.  St.  38,  2563 

Germantown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fitler,  60  Pa. 

St.  124,  107, 184,  218,  222,  261,  264,  853 

Germantown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walling,  97 

Pa.  St.  55,  2557 

Gerrard  v.  Omaha,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  14  Neb. 

270,  1452,  1489, 1490 

Gerren  v.  Hannibal,  etc..  R.  Co.,  60  Mo. 

405,  1837 

Gerrish  v.  New  Haven  Ice  Co. ,  63  Conn.  9,   2084 
Gest  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  La. 

Ann.  28,  742,  748 

GetcheU  v.  Chase,  124  Mass.  366,  890 

Getty  v.  Devlin,  54  N.  Y.  403,        17,  20,  375,  377 
Getz's  Appeal,  10  W.  N.  G:  (Pa.)  453,  1270 

Getz's  Appeal,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  186,    1355 
Getz's  Appeal,  65  Pa.  St.  1,  7 

Getz  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Pa. 

547,  1488,  1492 

Geyer  v.  Western  Ins.  Co.,  3  Pittsb.  (Pa.) 

41,  150 

Geyette  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  162  Mass.  549, 

2124 
Ghonnley  v.  Dinsmore,  51  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 

196,  2341 

Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  Oregon  Pac.  R.  Co., 

42  Fed.  R.  470,  1595, 1597,  1602, 1603 

Gibbes  v.  Greenville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  S. 

Car.  304,  782.  8131 

Gibbes  v.  Greenville  &  C.  R.  R.  Co.,  13  S. 

Car.  228,  660,  669 

Gibbon  v.  Paynton,  4  Burr.  2298,         2208,  2314 
Gibbon  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Wis. 

161,  1901, 1927 

Gibbons  v.  Bente,  51  Minn.  499,  159 

Gibbons  v.  Farwell,  63  Mich.  344, 

2363,  2385,  2386 

Gibbons  v.  Grinsel,  79  Wis.  365,  158 

Gibbons  v.  Mahon,  132  U.  S.  549,  113 

Gibbons  v.  Mahon,  4  Mackey  130,  422,  423 

Gibbons  v.  Mahon,  136  U.  S.  549,  424,  440 

Gibbons  v.  Mainwaring,  9  Sim.  77,  774 

Gibbons  v.  McDougall,  26  Grant's  Ch. 

(Ont.)  214,  682 

Gibbons  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Mo. 

App.  146,  1507 

Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  189,  1084 

Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  1, 

995,  2636,  2647,  2661 
Gibbons  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Wis. 

335,  1906 

Gibbs  v.  Consolidated  Gas  Co.,  130  U.  S. 

396,  500,  524,  526,  533,  2663,  2664 


III,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-Z7S6.} 

Gibbs  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

12  Q.  B.  D.  208,  2103,  2122,  2123 

Gibert  v.  Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33 

Gratt.  (Va.)  586,  700,  836 

Giblin  v.  National,  etc.,  Co.,  28  N.  Y.  Supp. 

69,  2402 

Gibson  v.  American,  etc.,  Ex.  Co.,  1  Hun 

387,  2213, 2375 

Gibson  v.  Brown,  44  Fed.  R.  98,  2420 

Gibson  v.  Carruthers,  3  Mees.  &  W.  321,     2389 
Gibson  v.  Cranage,  39  Mich.  49,  1574 

Gibson  v.  Culver,  17  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  305, 

2358,2370 
Gibson  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  63  N.  Y.  449, 

1999,  2007,  2068 

Gibson  v.  Goldthwaite,  7  Ala.  281,         394,  555 
Gibson  v.  Gwinn,  107  Mass.  126,  244* 

Gibson  v.  Leonard,  143  111.  182,  1948,  1952 

Gibson  v.  Manufacturer's,  etc.,  Co.,  144 

Mass.  81,  880 

Gibson  v.  Martin,  8  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  481,   774 
Gibson  v.  Mason,  5  Nev.  283,  50,  2449 

Gibson  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  2  Ont.  R.  658,    2136 
Gibson  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

Minn.  177,  2013 

Gibson  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Hun 

289,  2012 

Gibson  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  46  Mo.  163, 

1997,  2043,  2073,  2076 
Gibson  v.  South  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  F. 

&  F.  23,  1936 

Gibson  v.  Stevens,  8  How.  384,  2218 

Gibson  v.  Sturge,  10  Exch.  622,    2420,  2425,  2426 
Gibson  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  164  Pa. 

St.  142,  2149 

Gibson  v.  Wisconsin  Valley  R.  Co.,  58 

Wis.  335,  1943 

Gier  v.  Los  Angeles,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  Cal. 

129,  2118 

Giesy  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Ohio 

St.  308,        539, 1332, 1338, 1354, 1425, 1437,  1513 
Gifford  v.  New  Jersey  R.  Co.,  10  N.  J.  Eq. 

171,  70,  232,  375,  516, 1546 

Gifford  v.  Republican  Valley,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

20  Neb.  538,  1555 

Gifford  v.  Thompson,  115  Mass.  478,  422 

Gilbart  v.  Dale,  5  Ad.  &  El.  543,  2246 

Gilbert's  Case,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  App.  C.  559, 

137,  397 

Gilbert  v.  Gould,  144  Mass.  601,  2011,  2055 

Gilbert  v.  North  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Cababe  &  E.  31,  2473 

Gilbert  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Ga. 

396,  1301, 1563 

Gilbert  v.  Showerman,  23  Mich.  448,  904 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXCV 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Gilbert  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  22  J.  &  S. 

(N.  Y.)  270,  2715 

Gilbert  v.  Washington  City,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  33  Gratt,  (Va.)  586,  635,  637 

Gilbrough  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  1 

Hughes  (U.  S.)  410,  626 

Gilcrest  v.  Gottschalk,  39  Iowa  311,  1608 

Gildart  v.  Gladstone,  11  East  675,  62 

Gile  v.  Stevens,  13  Gray  146,  536 

Giles  v.  Austin,  62  N.  Y.  486,  1313 

Giles  v.  Caines,  3  Caines  (N.  Y.)  107,          1472 
Giles  v.  East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  26  S.  W.  R.  1111,  88 

Giles  v.  Fauntleroy,  13  Md.  126,  2609 

Giles  v.  Hutt,  3  Ex.  18,  217 

Giles  v.  Stanton,  86  Tex.  620,  88,  867 

Giles  v.  Taff  Vale  R.  Co.,  2  El.  &  Bl.  822, 

290,  403,  2186 

Gilflllan  v.  Union  Canal  Co.,  109  U.  S.401,  722 
Gilkey  v.  Paine,  80  Me.  319,  422 

GiU  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Ohio  St. 

240,  1820,  1822 

Gill  v.  Balis,  72  Mo.  424,     126, 128,  253,  254,  578 
Gillv.  Great  Eastern  R.  Co.,  26  L.  T.  N.  S. 

945,  2546 

Gill  v.  Kentucky,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Bush  (Ky.) 

635,  29 

Gill  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  8 

Q.  B.  186,  2403 

Gill  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Wis. 

293,  1510 

GUI  v.  New  York  Cab  Co.,  48  Hun  524,         371 
Gillemater  v.  Madison,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Ind. 

339,  299 

Gillenwater  v.  Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5 

Ind.  339,  300,  2474 

Gillespie  v.  Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

Ind.  243,  205 

Gillespie  v.  Gaston,  67  Tex.  599,  1061 

Gillespie  v.  McGowan,  100  Pa.  St.  144,       1973 
Gillespie  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Mo. 

App.  554,  2468,  2567,  2597 

Gillett  v.  Balcom,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  370,          663 
Gillett  v.  Bowen,  23  Fed.  R.  625,  336 

Gillett  v.  Western  R.  R.,  8  Allen  (Mass.) 

560,  1881 

Gillette  v.  Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Pa.  Dist. 

R.  450,  1620 

Gillham  v.  Madison  County  R.  Co.,  49  111. 

484,  1404 

Gilliam  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Ala.  268, 

1989, 1991 

Gilligan  v.  Providence,  11  R.  I.  258,    1451, 1483 
Gillingham  v.  Ohio  River   R.  Co.,  35 

W.  Va.  588,  1992,  2454,  2474,  2580 

Gillis  v.  Bailey,  21  N.  H.  149,  320,  355 


III,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  1165-2725.] 

Gillis  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  59  Pa.  St. 

129,  1741,  1950,  1952, 1966 

Gillison  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  So. 

Car.  173,  705,  1537 

Gilman  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Allen  233, 

300, 1822,  2027,  2051,  2063,  2457 
Gilman  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Allen,  433,  300 
Gilman  v.  Hall,  11  Vt.  510,  1580 

Gilman  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  Co.,  23  L. 

R.  A.  52,  771 

Gilman  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  91  U.  S. 

603,  648, 892 

Gilman  v.  Ketcham,  84  Wis.  60,  770,  772 

Gilman  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  72 

Ala.  566,  628,  630 

Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  713, 

952,  2637,  2647 

Gilman  v.  Railroad  Co.,  20  Ore.  285,  2080 

Gilman  v.  Sheboygan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Wis. 

653,  705, 1460, 1536, 1537,  1560 

Gilman  v.  Sheboygan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Wis. 

317,  703,  705, 1538, 1542 

Gilman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Spencer,  76  111.  192,      1808 
Gilman,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  77  111.  426, 

129,  323,  324,  1568 

Gilmer  v.  Lime  Point,  19  Cal.  47,  1495 

Gilmer  v.  Lime  Point,  18  Cal.  229, 

1334, 1340, 1341, 1342 

Gilmer  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Ala.  569,  1314 
Gilmore  v.  Federal  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153 

Pa.  St.  31,  1645 

Gilmore  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Mo. 

323,  2651 

Gilmore  v.  Northern  Pac.  Railroad,  18 

Fed.  R.  866,  2058,  2079 

Gilmore  v.  Oxford,  etc.,  Co.,  55  N.  J. 

Law  39,  2081 

Gilmore  v.  Union  Pac.  Railway  Co.,  18 

Fed.  R.  866,  2059 

Gilroy,  In  re,  85  Hun  424,  1475 

Gilshannon  v.   Storybrook,  etc.,  Co.,  10 

Gush.  228,  305, 1957,  1996,  2057,  2457 

Gilson  v.  Board,  128  Ind.  65,  1151 

Gilson  v.  Chouteau,  13  Wall.  92,         1134, 1136 
Gilson  v.  Dayton,  123  U.  S.  59,  1235, 1247 

Gilson  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Vt.  213, 

1955,  1986 
Gilson  v.  Jackson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Mo.  282, 

2179,  2466,  2471 

Gilson  v.  Town  of  Dayton,  123  U.  S.  59, 

1157, 1222 

Gimbel  v.  Stolte,  59  Ind.  446,  1488 

Girard  College,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thirteenth, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Phila.  (Pa.)  620,  1286 

Girard,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cooper,  51  Fed.  R.  332, 

791,  1570 


CXCV1 


TABT.E  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-M2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2W!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S725.] 


Girardot  v.  Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  R. 

Canal  Traf.  Cas.  291,  2669 

Girardot  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  5  R.  &  Canal 

Traf.  Cas.  60,  2671 

Girtman  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Ga.  173,      1807 
Gissell    v.    Housatonic,  etc.,    R.  Co.,  54 

Conn.  447,  1894 

Given  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  24  Fed. 

R.  119,  2453 

Givens  v.  Kentucky  Cent.  R.  Co.,  (Ky.)  15 

S.  W.  R.  1057,  1967,  1976 

Glaessner  v.  Anheuser-Bush,  etc.,  Assn., 

100  Mo.  508,  1614 

Glaize  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  1  Strobh. 

(S.  Car.)  L.  70,  35,  878 

Glasco  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  557,  2624 

Glascock  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Cal. 

137,  1766,1775,2720 

Glasgow  v.  City  of  St.  Louis,  107  Mo.  198,  1631 
Glasgow  v.  Rowse,  43  Mo.  479,  1102 

Glasgow  U.  R.  Co.  v.  Hunter,  L.  R.  2  H. 

L.  Sc.  78,  1441 

Glasier  v.  Rolls,  60  L.  T.  N.  S.  59,  20 

Glass  v.  Hope,  16  Grant  (Upper  Can.)  Ch. 

420,  221 

Glass  v.  Goldsmith,  22  Wis.  488,  2206 

Glass  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ala.  581, 

1738,  1948,  1968 
Glassey  v.  Hestonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Pa. 

St.  172,  1983 

Glavin  v.  Rhode  Island  Hospital,  12  R.  I. 

411,  2162 

Gleadell  v.  Thomson,  56  N.  Y.  194, 

2368,  2377,  2420 
Gleason  v.  Goodrich  Trans.  Co.,  32  Wis.  85, 

2190,  2322,'  2605,  2607,2608,  2621 
Gleason  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159 

Mass.  68,  2113 

Gleaves  v.  Brick  Church  Turn.  Co.,  1 

Sneed  (Term.)  491,  23,  155 

Gleeson  v.  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  U.  S. 

435,  2265,  2307,  2469,  2597 

Gleeson  v.  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Mackey 

(D.  C.)  356,  2264,  2265 

Glencoe  v.  People,  78  111.  382,  925 

Gleui.ster  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

L.  T.  N.  S.  423,  2543 

Glenn  v.  Busey,  5  Mackey  (D.  C.)  233,  792 

Glenn  v.  Clabaugh,  65  Md.  65,  849 

Glenn  v.  Howard,  81  Ga.  383,  211 

Glenn  v.  Hunt,  120  Mo.  330,  256 

Glenn  v.  Liggett,  135  U.  S.  533,  258 

Glenn  v.  Sample,  80  Ala.  159,  212 

Glenn  v.  Saxton,  68  CaL  353,  212 

Glenn  v.  Southern  Express  Co.,  86  Tenn. 

594,  2341, 2344 


Glenn  v.  Williams,  60  Md.  93,  262 

Glens  Falls,  etc.,  Co.  v.  White,  18  Hun 

214,  362 

Glick  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  D.  C. 

363,  1613 

Glidden  v.  Lucas,  7  Cal.  26,  2218 

Glines  v.  Supreme  S.  O.  of  I.  H.,  20  N.  Y. 

Supp.  275,  46 

Globe  Pub.  Co.  v.  State  Bank,  (Neb.)  10 

Lewis  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  Rep.  589,  269 

Globe  Pub.  Co.  v.  State  Bank,  41  Neb.  175,  273 
Globe  Works  v.  Wright,  106  Mass.  207,  393 
Gloninger  v.  Pittsburgh  R.  Co.,  139  Pa.  St, 

13,  474,  476,  619,  639 

Gloucester  Ferry  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  114 

U.  S.  196,  46,  994,  1074,  1078,  1084,  2661 

Glover,  The,  4  Brown  Adm.  166,  2358 

Glovinsky  v.  Cunard,  etc.,  Co.,  24  N.  Y. 

Supp.  136,  2609 

Glyn,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  &  West,  etc.,  Co., 

L.  R.  7  App.  Cas.  591,  2222 

Goble  v.  Gale,  7  Blackf.  (Ind.)  218,  1608 

Gobson  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  N.  Y.  449,  2003 
Godbold  v.  Branch  Bank,  etc.,  11  Ala.  191,  3M 
Godcharles  v.  Wigeman,  113  Pa.  St.  431,  963 
Goddard  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Wis. 

548,  1S46 

Goddard  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Me.  202,  2475,  2580,  2584 

Goddard  v.  Mclntosh,  161  Mass.  253,  2114 

Goddard  v.  Merchants'  Exchange,  9  Mo. 

App.  290,  '    276 

Goddard  v.  Stockman,  74  Ind.  400,  1175,  1194 
Godfrey  v.  City  of  Alton,  12  111/29,  1320 

Godfrey  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  Ind.  30, 

819,  831 

Godwin  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  N. 

Car.  146,  1880 

Goff  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  L. 

J.  Q.  B.  148,  304,  414 

Goff  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  3  El.  & 

El.  672,  290,  2582 

Goff  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Fed.  R. 

299,  2029, 2141 

Goff  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  Sixth  Dist.  Ct. 

of  Rhode  Island,  Jan'y  19,  1893,  2438 

Goff  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  Co.,  28  111.  App.  529, 

298,407 
Goff  v.  Winchester  College,  6  Bush  (Ky.) 

443,  155 

Goforth  v.  Rutherford  Ry.  Const.  Co.,  96 

N.  C.  535,  1201 

Gogebic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Iron  Chief,  etc.,  Co., 

78  Wis.  427,  132,  167 

Goggin  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  12  Kan.  416, 

2342 
Goins  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  68  Ga.  190,  2490 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXCV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  J-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  445-7262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Gold  v.  Clyne,  58  Hun  (N.  Y.)  419,  867 

Gold  v.  Housatonic  R.  Co.,  1  Gray  (Mass.) 

424,  888 

Gold  v.  Philadelphia,  115  Pa.  St.  184,  903 
Gold  v.  Vermont  Cent.  R.  Co.,  19  Vt.  478, 

1465,  1556 

Gold  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  11  Ch.  Div.  701,  130 
Gold,  etc.,  Water  Co.  v.  Keyes,  96  U.  S.  199,  942 
Golden  v.  Newbrand,  52  Iowa  59,  300, 1989 
Golden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haggart,  9  Colo. 

346,  1499 

Goldey  v.  Morning  News,  156  U.  S.  518, 

882,  946,  2141 

Goldey  v.  Morning  News,  42  Fed.  R.  112,  882 
Gold  Mining  Co.  v.  Nat,  Bank,  96  U.  S. 

640,  514, 521 

Goldsmith  v.  Swift,  25  Hun  201,  422,  425 

Goldthorpe  v.  Hardman,  13  Mees.  W.  2, 

377,  1984 
Goldthwait  v.  Haverhill,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160 

Mass.  554,  2113 

Goldworthy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Fed.  R.  769,  941 

Goltz  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  76  Wis. 

136,  2043 

Gonthier  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

La.  Ann.  67,  2622 

Gonzales  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

How.  Pr.  407,  2466,  2472 

Gonzales  v.  Sullivan,  16  Fla.  791,  702 

Good  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  60 

N.  W.  R.  631,  2371 

Good  v.  Coombs,  28  Tex.  34,  1296 

Good  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.)  11 

S.  W.  R.  854,  2342 

Goodhar  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Mo. 

App.  434,  2278,  2615 

Goodall  v.  Crofton,  33  Ohio  St.  271,  904 

Goodall  v.  New  Eng.  Mut.  Fire  Ins.  Co., 

25  N.  H.  169,  321 

Gooday  v.  Colchester  &  S.  W.  R.  Co.,  15 

Bug.  L.  &  Eq.  596,  488 

Gooday  v.  Colchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

Beav.  132,  563 

Goodes  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  162  Mass. 

287,  1971,  1999,  2042 

Goodin  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.,  18  Ohio 

St.  169,  374,  1433, 1536 

Goodin  v.  Evans,  18  Ohio  St.  150,  349 

Goodlander,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Standard  Oil  Co., 

63  Fed.  R.  400,  2307 

Goodlet  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  122 

U.  S.  391,  36,  43,  44,  1768,  2720 

Goodman  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  167 

Pa.  St.  332,  2087 

Goodman  v.  Oregon  R.  &  N.  Co.,  22  Ore. 

14,  2205,  2251,  2252,  2310 


Goodman  v.  Whitcomb,  U.  &  W.  569,  777 
Goodrich  v.  Brown,  30  Iowa  291,  2710 

Goodrich  v.  Hunton,  29  La.  Ann.  372,  932 

Goodrich  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116 

N.  Y.  398,  2014 

Goodrich  v.  Norris,  Abbott  Admr.  196,  2206 
Goodrich  v.  Reynolds,  31  111.  490,  165,  476 

Goodrich  v.  Thompson,  44  N.  Y.  324,  2237,  2345 
Goodridge  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  35  Fed. 

R.  35,  1883 

Goodridge  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  37  Fed.  R. 

182,  2433 

Goodridge  v.  Washington,  etc.,  Co.,  160 

Mass.  234,  2041 

Goodtitle  v.  Alker,  1  Burr.  133,  1628 

Goodwin  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Me. 

203,  2556 

Goodwin  v.  Gibbs,  70  Me.  243,  1492 

Goodwin  v.  Hardy,  57  Me.  143,  251,  417,  419 
Goodwin  v.  McGehee,  15  Ala.  232,  254 

Goodwin  v.  Ottawa,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  13 Upper 

Canada  (C.  P.)  254,  147 

Goodwin  v.  Sims,  86  Ala.  102,  1202 

Goodwin  v.  Union  Screw  Co.,  34  N.  H.  378, 

295,484 

Goodwin  v.  Wethersfleld,  43  Conn.  437,  1511 
Goodyear  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear  Rubber 

Man.  Co.,  8  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cases,  317,    54 
Googins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  Mass. 

505,  1372 

Goold  v.  Chapin,  20  N.  Y.  259,  2241,  2248 

Gordan  v.  Buchanan,  5  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  79,  2300 
Gorder  v.  Plattsmouth  Canning  Co.,  36 

Neb.  548,  641 

Gordon  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  N.  H.396, 

1797 

Gordon  v.  Comes,  47  N.  Y.  608,  1149 

Gordon   v.  Grand    Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Mich.)  61  N.  W.  R.  549,  1904,  1928 

Gordon  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  25  U.  C. 

C. P.  488,  2245 

Gordon  v.  Hutchinson,  1  W.  &  S.  285,  2280 
Gordon  v.  Jennings,  L.  R.  9  Q.  B.  Div.  45,  267 
Gordon  v.  Longest,  16  Pet.  (U.  S.)  97,  934,  945 
Gordon  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

N.  H.  596,  2019,  2452,  2482 

Gordon  v.  Preston,  1  Watts  385,  290,  360 

Gordon  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  78 

Va.  501,  119,  122, 123,  428,  431,  432,  440 

Gordon  v.  Swan,  43  Cal.  564,  336 

Gordon  v.  United  States,  117  U.  S.  697,  979 
Gordon  v.  Winchester,  12  Bush  110,  974 

Gordon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  San  Francisco,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  86  Cal.  620,  1597 

Gore  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  2  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  254,  2621 

Gores  v.  Graff,  77  Wis.  174,  2065,  2721 


CXCV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-MZ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1^3-1262,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  1263-2M,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-3725.] 


Gorgas  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144 

Pa.  St.  1.  1401, 1525 

Gorham  v.  Gross,  125  Mass.  2:32,  1592 

Gorham  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113 

Mo.  408,  1996 

Gorman  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  78  Iowa 

509,  308,  1997,  2152 

Gorman  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Mo.  441, 

967, 1804, 1806, 1807, 1810, 1863 
Gorman  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  97  CaL  1, 

2490 
Gorham  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fargo,  45  How.  (N.Y.) 

Pr.  90,  2207 

Gormley  v.  Clark,  134  U.  S.  338,  617 

Gormley  v.  Sandford,  52  111.  158,  1406 

Gorris  v.  Scott,  L.  R.  9  Exch.  125,  1757 

Gorton  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  660, 

1746,  1757, 1781 

Goshen  v.  Stonington,  4  Conn.  209,  965 

Goshen  Township  v.  Shoemaker,  12  Ohio 

St.  624,  1246 

Goshorn  v.  Ohio  County,  1  W.  Va.  308,  36 

Gosling  v.  Birnie,  7  Bing.  339,  2387 

Gosling  v.  Higgins,  1  Camp.  451,         2264,  2364 
Gosling  v.  Veley,  12  Q.  B.  328,  277 

Gosman  v.  State,  106  Ind.  203,  985 

Gossler  v.  Schepeler,  5  Daly  (N.  Y.)  476,    2392 
Goszler  v.  Corporation  of  Georgetown,  6 

Wheat.  593,  1105 

Gott  v.  Dinsmore,  111  Mass.  45,  2325 

Gott  v.  Gandy,  23  L.  J.  Q.  B.  1,  2312 

Gottlieb  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100 

N.  Y.  462,  2014,  2086 

Gottschalk  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

Neb.  550,  1409,  1410 

Gottschalk  v.   Lincoln,  etc.,  R.    Co.,  14 

Neb.  389,  598, 1436 

Gould  v.  Bangor,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Me.  122,    1860 
Gould  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  R. 

155,  2575 

Gould  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  (Minn.) 

65  N.  W.  R.  125,  1809 

Gould  v.  Head,  (C.  C.  D.  Colo.)  7  R.  R.  & 

Corp.  L.  J.  402,  135 

Gould  v.  Head,  41  Fed.  R.  240,  133,  147 

Gould  v.  Hill,  2  Hill  (X.  Y.)  623,  2316 

Gould  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  52  Fed. 

R.  680,  854,  &55,  856 

Gould  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  6  N.  Y.  522, 

1400, 1401,  1403 
Gould  v.  Newburyport  R.  Co.,  14  Gray 

(Mass.)  472,  893 

Goundie  v.  Northampton  Water  Co.,  7  Pa. 

St.  233,  538,  543 

Gould  v.  Oneonta,  71  N.  Y.  298,  211 

Gould  v.  Paris,  68  Tex.  511,  1227 

Gould  v.  Sterling,  23  N.  Y.  456,  1237 


Cover's  Case,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  Div.  182,  18 

Governeur  v.  Robertson,  11  Wheat.  332,  542 
Government  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Hanlon,  53  Ala. 

70,  1646 

Governor,  etc.,  v.  Meredith,  4  Term  R. 

794,  1891 

Governor  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3Ired. 

Eq.  (N.  Car.)  471,  881 

Governors,  etc.,  v.  Charing  Cross,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  30  L.  J.  R.  (Ch.)  395,  1272 

Gowan  v.  Harley,  56  Fed.  R.  973,  2039 

Gowdy  v.  Lyon,  9  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  112,  2205 

Gowen's  Appeal,  10  Week.  N.  Cas.  85,  232 
Gowen  v.  Penobscot  R.  Co.,  44  Me.  140,  1540 
Gowen  Marble  Co.  v.  Tarrant,  73  111.  608,  484 
Gower's  Case,  L.  R.  6  Eq.  77,  218 

Grace  v.  Adams,  100  Mass.  505, 

2201,  2319,  2320,  2322,  2324 

Gracie  v.  Palmer,  8  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  605,  2445 
Grady's  Case,  1  DeG.,  J.  &  S.  488,  140 

Graeff  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  161 

Pa.  St.  230,  2586 

Graf  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Mich. 

579,  1779 

Graff  v.  Bloomer,  9  Pa.  St.  114,  2264 

Graff  v.  Callahan,  158  Pa.  St.  389,  325 

Graff  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  Baltimore,  10  Md. 

544,  1503 

Graff  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  31 

Pa.  St.  489,  198,  199,  247 

Graffam  v,  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Me.  234,  2624 
Graffam  v.  Burgess,  117  U.  S.  180,  714 

Graft  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8Atl.  R. 

206,  2158 

Grafton,  The,  1  Blatchf,  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  173,  2354 
Grafton  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed. 

R.  309,  1538, 1628 

Grafton  v.  Moir,  130  N.  Y.  465,  1304 

Grafton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Foreman,  24  W. 

Va.  662,  1427,  1475 

Graham  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  156  Mass. 

4,  2115 

Graham  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  118  U.  S. 

161,      37,  40,  236,  243,  471,  515,  711,  712,  714,  865 
Graham  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Fed.  R. 

753,  40,  470,  875 

Graham  v.  Chapman,  58  Hun  602,  813 

Graham  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Wis. 

473,  2431 

Graham  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Fed. 

R.  8%,  2057 

Graham  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Ind. 

260,  1548,  1560 

Graham  v.  Commercial,  etc.,  Co.,  11  Johns. 

352,  2303 

Graham  v.  Connersville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Ind.  463,  539,  1355, 1446, 1447 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXC1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 


[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  US-1262,  Vol. 


Graham  v.  Davis,  4  Ohio  St.  362, 

2267,  2308,  2317,  2347 
Graham  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  46 

Hun  386,  1831 

Graham  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  41  U.  C. 

Q.  B.  324,  1798,  2569 

Graham  v.  LaCrosse.etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 U.S. 

148,  849 

Graham  v.  Mt.  Sterling  Coal  Co.,  14  Bush 

425,  1057,  1595,  1606 

Graham  v.  Pacific  Railroad  Co.,  66  Mo. 

536,  2083,  2515,  2573 

Graham  v.  Railroad  Co.,  102  U.  S.  148, 

31, 165,  245 
Graham  v.  Toronto,  etc.,  Co.,  23  U.  Can. 

(C.  P.)  541,  312,  2561 

Graham   v.  Van  Dieman's  Land  Co.,  1 

Hurlst.&N.  541,  220 

Graham  Button  Co.  v.  Spielman,  50  N.  J. 

Eq.  120,  264,  732 

Gram  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  1  N. 

Dak.  252,  1392,  1901, 1910, 1925 

Granby  Mining  Co.  v.  Richards,  95  Mo. 

106,  27, 272 

Grand  v.  Livingston,  38  N.  Y.  S.  490,  2312 

Grand  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mich. 

564,  2071, 2074 

Grandin  v.  LeBar,  3  N.  Dak.  447,          778, 1128 
Grand  Chute  v.  Winegar,  15  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

355,  1239 

Grand  County  Commissioners  v.  King,  67 

Fed.  R.  202,  1258 

Grand  Gulf  Bank  v.  Archer,  16  Miss.  151,      32 
Grand  Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Buck,  53  Miss.  246, 

1064 
Grand  Junction  Ry.  Co.   v.  Bickford,  23 

Grant's  Ch.  (Ont.)  302,  638 

Grand  Junction  R.  Co.  v.  County  Comrs., 

14  Gray  (Mass.)  553,          1274,  1493,  1500, 1501 
Grand  Jury,  In  re,  Charge  to,  66  Fed.  Rep. 

146,  2523 

Grand  Jury,  In  re,  62  Fed.  R.  834,       1047,  2688 
Grand  Rapids  v.  Grand  Rapids  Hydraulic 

Co.,  66  Mich.  606,  93 

Grand  Rapids  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  58  Mich.  641,  1657 

Grand  Rapids  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  66  Mich.  42,  1662 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Warren,  52 

Mich.  557,  222,  259 

Grand  Rapids  Bridge  Co.  v.  Prange,  35 

Mich.  400,  103, 106,  869, 1616 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jarvis,  30  Mich. 

308,  1404 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alley,  34 

Mich.  16,  1485, 1489,  1492 


III,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-1725.] 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boyd,  65 

Ind.  526,  2470 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chesebro,  74 

Mich.  466,  1462, 1524 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Diether,  10 

Ind.  App.  206,  2255,  2420 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ellison,  117 

Ind.  234,  1709,  2476,  2568,  2571 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grand  Rap- 
ids, etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Mich.  265, 

1376,  1379,  1394, 1546, 1680,  1693,  1700 
Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Heisel,  47 

Mich.  393,  '     1436,1539 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Heisel,  38 

Mich.  62,  1417, 1634 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Horn,  41 

Ind.  479,  1425,  1436 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Huntley,  38 

Mich.  537,  2009,  2012,  2474,  2567 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  81 

Ind.  523,  1841 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Judson,  34 

Mich.  506,  1872 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Martin,  41 

Mich.  667,  1950,  2459 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Runnels,  77 

Mich.  104,  954 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sanders,  17 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  552,  628,  631 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sanders,  54 

How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  214,  626, 632 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  VanDriele, 

24  Mich.  409,  1499 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  VanDusen, 

29  Mich.  431,  1584 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weiden,  70 

Mich.  390,  1493 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R»  Co.  v.  West  Side 

Street  R.  Co.,  48  Mich.  433,  1381 

Grand  Surrey  Canal  v.  Hall,  1  M.  &  Gr. 

392,  564 

Grand  Tower,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ullman,  89  111. 

244,  492,  569,  2190 

Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  In  re,  2  Interst. 

Com.  R.  496,  2686 

Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brodie,  9 

Hare  823,  20 

Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cummings, 

106  U.  S.  700,  2062 

Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Eastern 

Township  Bank,  10  Lower  Canada  Jur. 

11,  536 

Grand  Trunk  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ives,  144  U.  S. 

408,  1678, 1745, 1750,  1753, 1783, 1792,  2069 

Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McMillan,  16 

Can.  Sup.  R.  543,  2226,  2233,  2238 


cc 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  443-7262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richardson, 

91  U.  S.  454,  557, 1917, 1924,  1940,  2311 

Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rosenberger, 

9  Can.  S.  C.  311,  1044, 1987 

Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sibbald,  20 

Can.  S.  C.  R.  259,  1794 

Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tennant,  66 

Fed.  R.  922,  2034 

Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Twitchell,  59 

Fed.  R.  727,  932,  938,  940 

Granger  v.  Bassett,  98  Mass.  462,  251,  417,  424 
Granger  v.  Grubb,  7  Phila.  (Pa.)  350,  238 

Grangers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Vinson,  6  Ore.  172,  158 
Grangers'  Insurance  Co.  v.  Turner,  61  Ga. 

561,  198 

Grangers'    Life,    etc.,    Insurance    Co.  v. 

Kamper,  73  Ala.  325,  126,  225 

Granier  v.  Louisiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  La. 

Ann.  880,  2495,  2499 

Grannahan  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

Mo.  546,  1594 

Granniss  v.  Cherokee  Township  of  York 

County,  47  Fed.  R.  427,  1173,  1190 

Grant  v.  Attrill,  11  Fed.  R.  469,  137 

Grant  v.  East  &  West  R.  R  Co.,  54  Fed.  R. 

569,  167,  252,  690 

Grant  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Iowa  673,  1097 
Grant  v.  Norway,  2  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  Rep.  337,  414 
Grant  v.  Norway,  10  C.  B.  665,  2204,  2301 

Grant  v.  Phoenix  Insurance  Co.,  106  U.  S. 

429,  s.  c.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  58,  689 

Grant  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N.  Car. 

462,  2456 

Grant  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Ga.  348, 

1570,  1573, 1577 

<Jrant  v.  Shaw,  16  Mass.  341,  2389 

Grant  v.  Strong,  18  Wall.  (U.  S.)  623,  1607 
Grant  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  Co.,  45  Fed.  673, 

2005,  2031 

Grantham  v.  Lucas,  15  W.  Va.  425,  761 

Grape  Creek  Coal  Co.  v.  Farmers'  L.  &.  T. 

Co.,  63  Fed.  R.  891,  667,  668,  686,  716 

Gratiot  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  116  Mo. 

450,  971 

Gratz  v.  Redd,  4  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  178,  215,  437 
Gravelle  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Fed.  R.  711,  2028 

Gravely  v.  Southern,  etc.,  Co.,  (La.)  16  So. 

R.  866,  882 

Graves  v.  Bank,  10  Bush  23,  387 

Graves  v.  Battle  Creek,  95  Mich.  266,  2713 

Graves  v.  Corbin,  132  U.  S.  571,  938,  947 

Graves  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Conn. 

143,  2278 

Graves  v.  Harwood,  9  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  477,  2206 
Graves  v.  Lebanon  Nat.  Bank,  10  Bush 

(Ky.)  23,  328 


Graves  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137 

Mass.  33,  2263,  2335,  2337,  2338 

Graves  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Mont. 

556,  1813, 1879 

Graville  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  105  N.  Y. 

525,  2556, 2557 

Graville  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Hun 

224,  .  365 

Gray  v.  Bennett,  3  Mete.  (Mass.)  522,          1033 
Gray  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Iowa 

119,  1309,  1310, 1726, 1727 

Gray  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  11  Hun  (N.  Y.)  70, 

1571, 1573,  1574, 1576 

Gray  v.  Chaplin,  2  Russ.  126,  758 

Gray  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  11 

Fed.  R.  683,  63,  2452 

Gray  v.  Coffin,  9  Cush.  (Mass.)  192,  263 

Gray  v.  Jackson,  51  N.  H.  9, 

2107,  2224,  2227,  2228,  2241,  2244,  2248,  2330 
Gray  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Beav. 

391,  540 

Gray  v.  Lynch,  8  Gill  (Md.)  403,  138 

Gray  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  N.  Y. 

499,  897 

Gray  v.  Monongahela,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Watts 

&  S.  Pa.  156,  207 

Gray  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  48  L.  T.  Rep. 

904,  1739 

Gray  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Am. 

&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  351,  1799 

Gray  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.  (Pa.  St.)  33  Atl. 

R.  697,  1778 

Gray  v.  Portland  Bank,  3  Mass.  364, 

127,  277,  441 

Gray  v.  Pullen,  34  L.  J.  Q.  B.  265,  1589 

Gray  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Hun 

212,  2571, 2572 

Gray  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Mo.  126, 

1347,  1467,  1509 

Gray  v.  Stone,  69  L.  T.  R.  282,  150 

Gray  v.  Waldron,  101  Mich.  612,  390 

Gray  v.  Wain,  2  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  229,  2427 

Graydon  v.  Church,  7  Mich.  36,  797 

Great  Central  Road  Co.  v.  Gulf,  Colorado 

&  Santa  Fe  R.  Co.,  26  Am.  &  Eng.  Ry. 

Cases  114,  99 

Great  Eastern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hackney  Dis- 
trict, L.  R.  8  App.  Cas.  687,  1109 
Great  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner,  L.  R. 

8  Ch.  App.  149,  140,  503 

Great  Falls,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Atty.-General  Gar- 
land, 124  U.  S.  581,  1414,  1460 
Great  Falls,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Copp,  38  N.  H. 

124,  212 

Great  Falls  Ins.  Co.  v.  Harvey,  45  N.  H. 

292,  277 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CC1 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  T,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  ITT.  pp.  1263-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Great  Falls  Manufacturing  Co.v.Garland, 
25  Fed.  B.  521,  1414 

Great  Luxembourg,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Mag- 
nay,  25  Beav.  586,  373,  375 

Great  North,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Biddulph,  7  M. 
&  W.  243,  203 

Great  North,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Clarence  E. 
Co.,  1  Collier  507,  914 

Great  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  Re,  62  L.  T.  B. 
231,  365 

Great  Northern,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Eastern 
Counties  B.  Co.,  12  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  224, 

569,  612 

Great  Northern,  etc.,  Ey.  Co.  v.  Eastern, 
etc.,  By.  Co.,  21  L.  J.  Ch.  837, 

142, 143,  643,  693 

Great  Northern,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  4 

Exch.  417,  216,  217 

Great  Northern,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Manches- 
ter E.  Co.,  5  DeG.  <fe  S.  138,  913 
Great  Northern,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Manches- 
ter E.  Co.,  10  Eng.  Law  &  Eq.  11,  490 
Great  Northern,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Sheperd, 

14  Eng.  L.  &  E.  B.  367,  2208 

Great  Northern,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Shepherd, 

8  Exch.  30,  2283,  2611,  2612,  2614 

Great  Northern  E.  Co.  v.  Swaffield,  43 

L.  J.  Exch.  89,  2435 

Great  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  Re,  56  L.  J.  Ch. 

3,  123 

Great  Western,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Bagge,  etc., 

Co.,  L.  B.  15  Q.  B.  Div.  625,  2423 

Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Bishop,  50 

Ga.  465,  2148 

Great  Western,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Blake,  7  H. 

&  N.  987,  614,  2493 

Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Braid,  1 

Moore  P.  C.  (N.  S.) ,  2469 

Great.  Western,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Bunch, 

L.  E.  13  App.  Cas.  31,  2620,  2622 

Great  Western,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Burnham, 

79  Wis.  47,  206 

Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Bums,  60 

111.  284,  2282,  2286,  2306 

Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Central 

Wales  B.  Co.,  L.  B.  10  Q.  B.  Div.  231,  7 

Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Crouch,  3 

Hurl.  &  N.  183,  2226,  2373,  2375 

Great  Western,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Geddis,  33 

111.  304,  1856 

Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Goodman, 

11  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  546,  281 

Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Hawkins, 

18  Mich.  427,  2290,  2292,  2306,  2403,  2406 

Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Haworth, 

39  111.  346,  1899, 1926, 1927 


Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Helm,  27 

111.  198,  1819 

Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  May,  L.  E. 

7  H.  L.  283,  899 
Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Miller,  19 

Mich.  305,  2576,  2581 

Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Morthland, 

30  111.  451,  1847 

Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Bailroad 

Commissioners,  L.  B.  7  Q.  B.  D.  182,  1015 
Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Shepherd, 

8  Exch.  30,  2621 
Great  Western,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Sutton, 

L.  E.  4  H.  L.  226,  2166,  2285,  2666,  2672,  2674 
Great  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Wheeler, 

20  Mich.  419,  321, 411 

Great  Western  Tel.  Co.  v.  Gray,  122  m. 

630,  130 

Great  Western  Tel.  Co.  v.  Haight,  49  111. 

App.  633,  190,  255 

Great  Western  Tel.  Co.v.  Loewenthal,  154 

111.  261,  172 

Great  Western  Tel.  Co.  v.  Purdy,  (U.  S.) 

16  Sup.  Ct.  B.  810,  211 

Greaves  v.  Gouge,  52  How.  Pr.  58,  240 

Greeley  v.  Hamman,  12  Colo.  94,  2710 

Greeley  v.  Maine  Central  E.  Co.,  53  Me. 

200,  1405 

Greeley  v.  Provident  Sav.  Bank,  103  Mo. 

212,  778, 826 

Greeley  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  33  Minn. 

136,  1836,  1837,  1842 

Greeley,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Harris,  12  Colo. 

226,  1602 

Greeley,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Yount,  (Colo.  App.) 

42  Pac.  B.  1023,  1512 

Greely  v.  Smith,  3  Story  (U.  S.)  657,  94 

Green  v.  Abietine,  etc.,  Co.,  96  Cal.  322,       221 
Green  v.  Boston,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  128  Mass. 

221,  2701 

Green  v.  Brookins,  23  Mich.  48,  133 

Green  v.  Canaan,  29  Conn.  157,  564 

Green  v.  Chicago,  97  111.  370,  1522 

Green  v.  City  of  Bridgeton,  9  Cent.  L.  J. 

206,  285 

Green  v.  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  78  Md.  294, 

1620, 1635 
Green  v.  City  Suburban  Ey.  Co.,  (Md.)  28 

Atl.  B.  626,  12 

Green  v.  Clarke,  12  N.  Y.  343,  2695,  2696 

Green  v.  Cross,  79  Tex.   130,  2046 

Green  v.  Fox,  7  Allen  (Mass.)  85,  1608 

Green  v.  London,  etc.,  Co.,  7  C.  B.  (N.  S.) 

290,  1989 

Green  v.  Miller,  6  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  38,  358 

Green  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  38  Iowa 

100,  2190, 2620 


CC11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-HSS,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  neS-SlGlt,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  H65-S725.] 


Green  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Iowa 

410,  2615, 2616 

Green  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Mo.  653, 

1507, 1541 
Green  v.  Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  J.  L. 

486,  1728 

Green  v.  Neal,  6  Peters  289,  1087 

Green  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  553,  2624 

Green  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Abb. 

Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  473,  2627 

Green  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  36  Fed.  R. 

66,  2589 

Green  v.  Southern  Ex.  Co.,  45  Ga.  305,        2208 
Green  v.  Van  Buskirk,  5  Wall.  307,  644 

Green  v.  Van  Buskirk,  7  Wall  139,  46 

Green  v.  Ward,  82  Va.  324,  1103 

Green  v.  Weller,  32  Miss.  650,  362 

Green  v.  Winter,  1  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y. )  60,      732 
Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Union  Steam- 
boat Co.,  107  U.  S.  98, 

58,  475,  511,  575,  579,  620 
Green  County  v.  Conness,  109  U.  S.  104, 

455,  1065,  1145, 1255 
Green  Mount,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bulla,  45  Ind.  1, 

135,  145, 147 
Green  Ridge,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brinkman,  64 

Md.  52,  1911, 1936 

Greenawalt  v.  Wilson,  52  Kan.  109,  786 

Greenbrier,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ward,  36  W.  Va. 

573,  87, 867 

Greene,  In  re,  52  Fed.  R.  104,         230,  996,  2662 
Greene  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 

Minn.  248,  2039,  2051 

Greene  v.  Mumford,  5  R.  I.  472,  1070 

Greene  v.  Smith,  17  R.  I.  28,  423 

Greene  v.  West  Cheshire,  Lines,  etc.,  L.  R. 

13  Eq.  44,  913,  969 

Greene  County  v.  Daniel,  102  U.  S.  187, 

635,  1220,  1262 
Greenfield  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

49  N.  W.  R.  95,  1896 

Greenleaf  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33 

Iowa  52,  2039 

Greenleaf  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Iowa 

14,  1766, 2069 

Greenlee  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5 

Lea  418,  2148 

Greenock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Caledonian  R. 

Co.,  3  Nev.  &  Mac.  145,  2686 

Greenough  v.  Greenough,  11  Pa.  St.  489, 

965,  982,  1015 
Greensboro,  etc.,  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Strat- 

ton,  120  Ind.  294,  371,  378 

Greenville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Planters',  etc.,  Co., 

70  Miss.  669,  443,  514 


Greenville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Reis,  (Ohio)  44 

N.  E.  R.  271,  387 

Greenville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cathcart,  4 

Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  89,  215 

Greenville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Coleman,  5 

Rich.  L.  118,  71, 199,  229 

Greenville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  8 

Baxter  (Tenn. )  332,  185 

Greenville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nunnamaker,  4 

Rich.  L.  (S.  Car.)  107,  1533 

Greenville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Partlow,  5  Rich. 

428,  1426, 1436,  1440 

Greenville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Woodsides,  5 

Rich.  L.  (N.  C.)  145,  160 

Greenwich  v.  Easton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  J. 

Eq.  217,  902 

Greenwich,  Inhabitants  of,  v.  Eastern, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  N.  J*.  Eq.  217,  1650 

Greenwood  v.  Curtis,  6  Mass.  358,  2312 

Greenwood  v.  Freight  Co.,  105  U.  S.  13, 

92,  565,  866,  869, 1061 
Greenwood  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

124  Pa.  St.  572,  1754,  1776, 1777, 1784 

Greenwood  v.  Union  Freight  R.  R.  Co., 

105  U.  S.  13,  66,  67 

Greenwood,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York  &  G. 

L.  R.  Co.,  8  N.  Y.  S.  26,  545 

Greer  v.  Chartiers,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Pa.  St. 

391,  163 

Gregg  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co.,  147  111. 

550,  2175,  2277,  2357,  2444,  2445 

Gregg  v.  Sanford,  65  Fed.  R.  151,  1208 

Gregory  v.  Blanchard,  98  Cal.  311,  695 

Gregory  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Ohio 

St.  675,  986 

Gregory  v.  Gregory,  1  J.  &  S.  1,  738,  750 

Gregory  v.  Mighell,  18  Vesey  328,  491 

Gregory  v.  Wabash  By.  Co.,  46  Mo.  App. 

574,  2190,  2277,  2307 

Greig  v.  Riordan,  99  Cal.  316,  394 

Grenada  County  Supervisors  v.  Brogden, 

112  U.  S.  261,  1171, 1176,  1222 

Grethen  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Fed. 

R.  609,  1741,  1952,  1968 

Greve  v.  Dunham,  60  Iowa  108,  2394 

Greve  v.  First  Div.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

26  Minn.  66,  1446 

Grew  v.  Breed,  12  Met.  (Mass.)  363,  107 

Grey  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Ala.  387, 

2267,2311 
Gribble  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  Co.,  100  Cal.  67, 

481,642 

Gridley  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  Co.,  71  111.  200,  366 
Gridley  v.Westbrook,  23  How.  (U.  S.)  503,  949 
Griffee  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  194,  2523 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CC111 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-27i5.] 


Griffin  v.  Asheville  Light  &  Power  Co., 

Ill  N.  C.  434,  874,  876 

Griffin  v.  Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Ga.  164,  1536 
Griffin  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  Mass. 

143,  2065 

Griffin  v.  Dohan,  48  Miss.  11,  1331 

Griffin  v.  Hodshire,  119  Ind.  235,  678 

Griffin  v.  House,  18  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  397,  1283 
Griffin  v.  Kentucky  Ins.  Co.,  3  Bush  (Ky.) 

592,  93 

Griffin  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  102  N.Y.  449, 

792,  795 

Griffin  v.  Macon  County,  36  Fed.  R.  885,  633 
Griffin  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  Ind.  326,  2105 
Griffin  v.  Overman,  etc.,  61  Fed.  R.  568, 

2107 
Griffith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Iowa 

85,  392 

Griffith  v.  Commissioners   of   Crawford 

County,  20  Ohio  609,  1144 

Griffith  v.  Griffith,  2  Ves.  Sen.  400,  783 

Griffith  v.  Ingledew,  6  S.  &  R.  (Pa.)  429, 

2214,  2695 
Griffith  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Cir. 

Ct.  of  Jackson  Co.,  Mo.,  Feb.,  1896,    2438,  2439 
Griffith  v.  Mangam,  73  N.  Y.  611,  262,  751 

Griffith  v.  Paget,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  Div.  511,  123 

Griffith  v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  N.  Y.  S. 

692,  2564 

Griffiths  v.  Earl  of  Dudley,  9  Q.  B.  D.  357, 

2124,  2144,  2145,  2159 

Griffiths  v.  Lee,  1  Car.  &  P.  110,  2381 

Griffiths  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  13 

Q.  B.  D.  259,  2063,  2067,  2708 

Griggs  v.  Houston,  104  U.  S.  553,  1,  7 

Grimes  v.  Eddy,  126  Mo.  168,  2401,  2651 

Grimes  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Ind. 

App.  573,  1988 

Grimes  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Minn.  66,  4%,  2502,  2519 

Grimes  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  36  Fed.  R.  72,  2460 
Grimes  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Hous.  (Del.)  529,  2590 

Grimstead  v.  Marlowe,  4  Term.  R.  717,  1318 
Grindle  v.  S^one,  78  Me.  176,  253 

Grinnell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  U.  S. 

739,  1118, 1129 

Grinterv.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  23  Kan. 

642,  1135, 1374 

Grippen  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  N.  Y.  34, 

1744,  1764,  1800 

Griscom  v.  Gilmore,  16  N.  J.  Law  105,  1468 
Grisim  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  84  Wis.  19,  308 
Grissell  v.  Housatonic,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  54 

Conn.  447,  69, 1894 

Griswold  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Fed. 

R.  797,  766 


Griswold  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Wis. 

652,  2459, 2545 

Griswold  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

53  N.  W.  R.  295,  523 

Griswold  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co.,  90 

Iowa  265,  1917, 1918, 1919 

Griswold  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Johns.  (N.  Y.)  321,  2421 

Griswold  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  53  Conn. 

371,  496,  2318,  2510,  2514,  2601,  2602 

Griswold  v.  Pelton,  34  Ohio  St.  482,    1103,  1104 
Griswold  v.  Seligman,  72  Mo.  110,  157 

Griswold  v.  Wright,  69  Wis.  1,  1601 

Grocers'  Bank  v.   Kingman,  16  Gray 

(Mass.)  473,  328 

Groff  v.  Bird-in-hand  Turnpike  Co.,  144 

Pa.  St.  150,  1380 

Groff  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  Sixth  Dist. 

Ct.  of  Rhode  Island,  January  19,  1893,    2439 
Grogan  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  114  Pa.  St.  523, 

2337,2345 
Grogan  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  W. 

Va.  415,  2497,  2573 

Grogan  v.  San  Francisco,  18  Cal.  590,  1133 

Grose  v.  Hilt,  36  Me.  22,  268 

Gross  v.  United  States,  etc.,  Co.,  108  U.  S. 

477,  463 

Grosse,  The  Peter  der,  L.  R.  1  Prob.  Div. 

414,  2207 

Grosse  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Wis.)  65 

N.W.R.  185,  1836,1837 

Grosse  Isle  Hotel  Co.  v.  I'Anson,  43  N.  J. 

L.  442,  203,  210 

Grostick  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Mich. 

594,  1769 

Grosvenor  v.  Hempstead,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 

L.  J.  R.  (Ch.)  731,  1272 

Grosvenor  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

N.  Y.  34,  2182,  2190,  2191,  2273 

Grote  v.  Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Exch.  251, 

2467,  2469,  2474 

Grove  v.  Brien,  8  How.  (U.  S.)  429,  2422 

Grove  St.,  In  re,  61  Cal.  438,  1497, 1499 

Grover,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R. 

Co.,  70  Mo.  672,  411,  412,  2228,  2232 

Groves  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mo. 

304,  1594 

Grows  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Me.  100, 

1760, 1778 
Grubb  v.  Mahoning  Nav.  Co.,  14  Pa.  St. 

302,  207 

Grubbs  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Ala. 

398,  207, 209 

Grube  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  98  Mo.  330, 

301,  2720 
Gruber  v.  Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92 

N.  C.  1,  501,  2449 


,-civ 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,pp..M3-lS62,  Vol.  ITI,pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Grand  v.  Pendergast,  58  Barb.  216,  2693 

Grand  v.  Tucker,  5  Kan.  70,  258,  259 

Grundy  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.)  2 

S.  W.  K.  899,  1870 

Grymes  v.  Hone,  49  N.  Y.  17,  143 

Guarantee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weil,  141  Pa. 

St.  511,  192 

Guaranty  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Green  Cove, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  U.  S.  137,  s.  c.  11  Sup. 

Ct.  R.  512,  673,  685 

Guardians,  etc.,  v.  Stroher,  24  Erig.  Law 

&  Eq.  183,  329 

Gudger  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 

N.  C.  481,  539 

Gudger  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  N.Car. 

325,  1566,  1642 

Gue  v.  Tidewater,  etc.,  Co.,  24  How.  U.  S. 

257,  105, 695 

Guenther  v.  Lockhart,  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  717, 

2057 
Guesnard  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76 

Ala.  453,  2443 

Guess  v.  Railway  Co.,  30  S.  Car.  163,  1864 

Guffin  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  Mass. 

143,  2117 

Guffin  v.  Overman,  61  Fed.  R.  568,  2117 

Guggenheim  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

66  Mich.  150,  987,  988, 1758 

Guidhall,  The,  58  Fed.  R.  796,  2329,  2331 

Guiding  Star,  The,  53  Fed.  R.  936,      2204,  2275 
Guidry  v.  Brousard,  32  La.  Ann.  924,  1071 

Gnilbaultv.  McGreevy,  18  Can.  Sup.  Ct. 

609,  1578, 1581 

Guilbert  v.  Guild,  144  Mass.  601,  2024 

Guilfoos  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  593,  1316, 1815 

Guilford  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

48  Minn.  560,  627,672,673 

Guilford  v.  Western  U.  Tel.  Co.,  43  Minn. 

434,  116 

Guillaume  v.  Hamburg,  etc.,  Packet  Co., 

42  N.  Y.  212,  2214 

Guillaume  v.  General  T.  Co.,  100  N.  Y.  491, 

2209,  2210,  2309,  2*59,  2380,  2699 
Guinard  v.  Knapp,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Wis.  123,  2468 
Guinault  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  La. 

Ann.  571,  37,  40 

Guinn  v.  Iowa  Central  R.  Co.,  14  Fed.  R. 

323,  936 

Guinn  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Mo.  App. 

453,  2401, 2409 

Guinness  v.  Land  Corp.,  L.  R.  22  Ch.  Div. 

349,  118 

Guldager  v.  Rockwell,  14  Colo.  459,  2147 

Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Compton,  75  Tex.  667,        308 
Gulf  City,  etc.,  Co.v.  Galveston,  etc.,  Co., 

65  Tex.  502,  99,  1617, 1641 


Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adair,  4  Tex.  App. 

(Civil  Cases)  55,  2236 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baird,  75  Tex.  256,        2245 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benson,  69  Tex.  407, 

1895,  1902,  1936, 1944 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blohn,  73  Tex.  637,      2051 
Gulf,  etc.r  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  24  S.  W.  R.  918,  2344 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Calvert,    (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  32  S.  W.  R.  246,  2114 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  76  Tex.  174, 

2461,  2462,  2554 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  2  Tex.  App. 

(Civ.  Gas.)  459,  2353 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke,  5  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  547,  22Si 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cole,  (Tex. )  28  S.  W. 

R.  391,  223;} 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cusenberry,  86  Tex. 

525,  1903 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Daniels,   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  29  S.  W.  R.  426,  24X5 

Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Danshank,  6  Tex.  C. 

A.  385,  2563 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dawkins,  77  Texas 

228,  305,  2060,  2465,  2561 

Gulf,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Donahoo,  59  Tex.  128, 

1404,  1538,  1439,  1551 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Douglas,   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  30  S.  W.  R.  487,  2631 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dwyer,  75  Tex.  572,    2245 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eddins,  60  Tex.  656, 

1411, 1441,  1633,  1634 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Edloff,  (Tex.)  34  S.  W. 

R.  410,  2252 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  EUis,  (Tex.)  18  S.  W. 

R.  723,  973,  1885 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ellis,  87  Tex.  19, 

973,  1885,  1886 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ellison,  70  Tex.  491, 

2402,  2415 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Finley,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.) 

32  S.  W.  R.  51,  2016,  2017 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fox,  (Tex.)  6  S.  W.  R. 

569,  2506 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Freeman,  4  Tex.  App. 

(Civ.  Cas.)  419,  2362 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fuller,  63  Tex.  467,       1438 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.Gann,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

620, 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gatewood,  79  Tex.  89, 

2320,  2340,  2343 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Glenk,  (Tex.)  30  S.  W. 

R.  278,  2479 

Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Greenlee,  62  Tex.  344, 

1653,  1678,  1751 


TABLE    OK    CASES. 


CCV 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  l>r,3-2H>4,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  (Tex.)  28 
S.  W.  R.  906,  1755 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harriett,  80  Tex.  73,    2046 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hathaway,  75  Tex. 
557,  871 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hefley,  158  U.  S.  98, 

952,  264Q,  2650,  2652,  2653 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Helsley,  62  Tex.  593, 

1405,  1538 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  84  Tex.  678, 

284,  2491 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hodge,  (Tex.)  30  S.W. 

R.  829,  2187 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hodges,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  24  S.  W.  R.  563,  2591 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hohl,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.) 

29  S.  W.  R.  1131,  2006,  2028 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holder,  (Tex.)  30  S. 

W.  R.  383,  2251,  2252 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  HoUiday,  65  Tex.  512,  1405 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hume,  6  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  653,  2289 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hune,  87  Tex.  211,  2340 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Insurance  Co.,  (Tex.) 

28  S.  W.  R.  237,  2194 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ions,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

619,  2614,  2628,  2632 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  65  Fed.  R.  48, 

2040,  2048,  2055 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  4  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  (Civ.  Gas.)  73,  2631 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  James,  73  Tex.  12, 

303,  414,  874 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  54  Fed.  R. 

474,  1854,  1924,  1925,  1939 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  1  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  103,  1996 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  63  Tex.  524,  1399 
Gulf,  etc.,R.  Co.  v.  Keith,  74  Tex.  287,  1880, 1881 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kemp,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.) 

30  S.  W.  R.  714,  2421 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Killebrew,  (Tex.)  20  S. 

W.  R.  182,  2563 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kirkbride,  79  Tex.  457,  2575 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kizziah,  86  Tex.  81,  2028 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knott,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.) 

36  S.  W.  R.  491,  2705 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kuenhle,  4  Tex.  App. 

(Civ.  Cas.)  427,  2575 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lankford,  (Tex.)  29  S. 

W.  R.  933,  1969 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  2270 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Looney,  85  Tex.  158, 

2493,  2494 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McAulay,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  26  S.  W.  R.  475,  2412 


Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCorquodale,  71  Tex. 

41,  2415, 2416 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCown,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  25  S.  W.  R.  435,  2376 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGown,  65  Tex.  640, 

496,  2512,  2513,  2514,  2515,  2600 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLean,  74  Tex.  646,  1926 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McWhirter,  77  Tex. 

356,  1978 

Gulf,  etc.,    R.  Co.  v.  Miami  County,  12 

Kan.  230,  1141 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montgomery,  85  Tex. 

64,  1659 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moody,  3  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  622,  2573 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moody,    (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  308.  W.  R.  574,  2452,2492,2618 

Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Morris,  67  Tex.  692, 

56,  100,  246,  291,  448,  484,  570,  612,  692,  694,  718, 
1271,  1861,  2450 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mud  Creek,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  1  Tex.  App.  Civil  Cases  169,  1501 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neeley,  64  Tex.  344,  253 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  5  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  387,  2686,  2713 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newell,  73  Tex.  334, 

448,704 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pendery, 87  Tex.  553,  1798 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pettis,  69  Tex.  689,  2047 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pittman,  4  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  167,  488 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pomeroy,  67  Tex.  498,  1404 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reagan,  (Tex.)  32  S. 

W.  R.  846,  1895,  1901 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richards,  83  Tex.  203,  548 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richards,  (Tex.)  32 

S.  W.  R.  96,  1304 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Rowland,  (Tex.  C. 

App.)  23  S.  W.  R.  421,  1901 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rowland,  70  Tex.  298, 

969,  1660, 1718,  1723 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ryan,  69  Tex.  665, 

2019,  2087 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Saddler,  8  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  300,  1930 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schwabbe,  1  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  573,  2029,  2033 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott, (Tex.  Civ.  App.) 

27  S.  W.  R.  827,  2703 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shields,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  28  S.  W.  R.  709,  2585 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  74  Tex.  276,  2703 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  72  Tex.  122,  1315 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  (Tex.  C.  A.)  30 

S.  W.  R.  361,  2564 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  87  Tex.  348,       1748 


ccvi 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U&,  Vol.  II. pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  12fi3-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2723.] 


Gulf,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Southwick,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  30  S.  W.  R.  592,  2137 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  John,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  35  S.  W.  R.  501,  2496 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  72  Tex.  404, 

500,  526,  2663 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stricklin,  (Tex.)  27 

S.  W.  R.  1093,  2470 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stricklin,  (Tex.)  36 

S.  W.  R.  247,  2468 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trawick,  68  Tex.  314, 

2279,2340 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trawick,  (Tex.)  15  S. 

W.  R.  568,  2183 

-Golf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trawick,  80  Tex.  270, 

2340,  2344,  2403,  2406,  2410 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vancil,  2  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  427,  2631 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vaughn,  4  Tex.  App. 

(Civil  Cases)  269,  2343 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  70  Tex.  126,    1645 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warlick,  (Indian  Ty.) 

&5  S.  W.  R.  235,  2466,  2489,  2703,  2704 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warner,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  36  S.  W.  R.  118,  2062 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Washington,  49  Fed. 

R.  347,  1823, 1854, 1872 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wells,  81  Tex.  685, 

2007,2008 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilbanks,  7  Tex.  C. 

App.  489,  2234 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilhelm,  3  Tex.  App. 

(Civil  Cases)  558,  2339 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  7  Tex.  C.  App. 

128,  2234 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  79  Tex.  371, 

1829,  2002,  2509,  2560 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wittig,  (Tex.)  35  S. 

W.  R.  859,  2034 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  2  Tex.  C.  App. 

463,  24%,  2498 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Younger,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  29  S.  W.  R.  948,  1748 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Zimmerman,  81  Tex. 

605,  2334 

Gulliher  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Iowa 

416,  2149 

Gulliver  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  38  111.  503,  2177 
Gummere  v.  Lehigh  Val.  R.  Co.,   (Pa. 

Com.  PL)  12  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  106,  896 

Gunderman  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58 

Mo.  App.  370,  2480,  2591 

Gundy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Iowa 

420,  1889 

Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  610,  1158 

Gunn  v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  74  Ga.  509,      511 


Gunn  v.  London,  etc.,  Co.,  12  Com.  B.  N. 

S.  694,  21 

Gunn  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co  ,  36  W.  Va.  165,  1967 
Gunter  v.  Graniteville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  S. 

Car.  262,  2010,  2078,  2084 

Gnrley  v.  Armstead,  148  Mass.  267,  2283 

Gurley  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  Mo. 

211,  1659,  1675 

Gurney  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  N.  Y. 

358,  267, 858 

Gurney  v.  Behrend,  3  El.  &  Bl.  622,     2218,  2219 
Guruey  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  59  Hun 

625,  2630 

Gurney  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

Minn.  223,  1287, 1387,  1524 

Gurney  v.  Union  Transfer  &  S.  Co.,  25 

Jones  &  S.  (57  Super.  Ct.)  444,  225 

Gurnsey  v.  Edwards,  26  N.  H.  224,  1460 

Gustafson  v.  Hamm,  56  Minn.  334,      1614,  1628 
Gustine  v.  Phillips,  38  Mich.  674,  2390 

Guta  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Mich. 

291,  1770, 1775 

Gutridge  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  105 

Mo.  520,  2063 

Gutridge  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  Co.,  94 

Mo.  468,  2015 

Guthrie  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Me.  572, 1997 
Gutta  Percha,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Village  of 

Ogalla,  40  Neb.  775,  396 

Guy  v.  Baltimore,  100  U.  S.  434,          1079, 1083 
Guy  v.  Doak,  47  Kan.  236,  779 

Guy  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  399,  2576 

Gwin  v.  Barton,  6  How.  7,  2133 

Gwin  v.  Breedlove,  2  How.  29,  2135 

Gwinn  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Mo. 

App.  453,  2416 

Gwin  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  N. 

Car.  420,  2391,  2694 

Gwynne  v.  Burnell,  7  Cl.  &  F.  572,  1057 

Gwynne  v.  Cincinnati,  3  Ohio  24,  1485 

Gyger  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  136 

Pa.  St.  96,  5,  9 


H 


Haas  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Wis.  44, 

971, 1044 

Haas  v.  Chicago,  etc. ,  R .  Co. ,  90  Iowa  259,   2048 
Haas  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47 

Mich.  401,  1678, 1751,  1752,  1777 

Haas  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.,  81  Ga.  792, 

2218,  2270 
Haas  v.  Missionary  Society,  etc.,  26  N.  Y. 

Supp.  868,  318 

Haase  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Ore.  354, 

2461,  2465,  2550 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  1M-12G2,  Vol. 

Hack  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Fed.  R. 

356,  932 

Hackensack,  etc.,  Co.  v.  DeKay,  36  N.  J. 

Eq.  548,     342, 486, 511, 550,  631,  632,  643,  671,  705 
Hackett  v.  Ottawa,  99  U.  S.  86, 

1178,  1236, 1238,  1239 
Hackett  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  80  Wis. 

187,  1588, 1589, 1592 

Hadd  v.  United  States,  etc.,  Ex.  Co.,  52 

Vt.  335,  2228,  2234,  2260 

Hadden  v.  Collector,  5  Wall.  107,  524 

Hadden  v.  Shoutz,  15  111.  582,  561 

Haddow  v.  Parry,  3  Taunt.  303,  2207 

Hade  v.  McVay,  31  Ohio  St.  231,  796 

Haden  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

60  N.  W.  R.  537,  1960,  2112,  2122,  2152 

Haden  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

48  N.  W.  R.  733,  2072 

Hadjii,  The,  18  Fed.  R.  459,  2337 

Hadley  v.  Clarke,  8  T.  R.  259,  2305 

Hadley  v.  Russell,  40  N.  H.  109,  263 

Haehl  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  119  Mo.  325,          1989 
Haesley  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Minn. 

233,  1975 

Haetsch  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Wis. 

304,  1772 

Hafer  v.  Cincinnati,  H.  &  D.  R.  Co.,  (Ohio 

Com.  PI.)  29  Wkly.  Law  Bui.  68,         584,  585 
Hafer  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Cincin- 
nati Super.  Ct.)  14  Week.  Law  Bui.  68,     249 
Haff  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Mc- 

Crary  622,  613 

Hagaman  v.  Commissioners,  19  Kan.  394,    1071 
Hagan  v.  Blindell,  56  Fed.  R.  696,  910 

Hagan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Mich. 

615,  1898 

Hagan  v.  Hardie,  8  Heisk.  812,  593 

Hagan  v.  Walker,  14  How.  (U.  S.)  29,    677, 678 
Hagar  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  47  Cal. 

222,  1331 

Hagar  v.  Brainerd,  44  Vt.  294,  1491 

Hagar  v.  Buck,  44  Vt.  285,  1313 

Hagar  v.  Reclamation  Dist.,  Ill  U.  S.  701, 

1091, 1478 
Hagar  v.  Union  Nat.  Bank,  63  Me.  509, 

148, 150,  428 
Hagen  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Mich. 

615,  1900, 1914 

Hager  v.  Burlington,  42  Iowa  661,  1104 

Hager  v.  Stevens,  2  Halst.  Ch.  374  (6  N.  J. 

Eq.  374) ,  758 

Hagerstown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Creeger,  5  Hair. 

&J.  (Md.)  122,  157 

Haggerty  v.  Fagan,  2  Penrose  &  W.  533,      562 
Haggin  v.  Lewis,  66  Fed.  199,  943 

Hagner  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  154 

Pa.  St.  475,        1272, 1277, 1281, 1283, 1289, 1402 


///,  pp.  1263-216!.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Hagood  v.  Southern,  117  U.  S.  52,  1010 

Hahn  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Iowa 

333,  1556 

Hahn  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Cal.  605, 

1985 
Hahnemannian  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Beebe,  48 

111.  87,  872 

Haigh  v.  Royal  Mail,  etc.,  Co.,  52  L.  J.  Q. 

B.  640,  2144,  2145,  2148 
Haight  v.  Railroad  Co.,  6  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

15,  664 

Haille  v.  Smith,  1  B.  &  P.  563,  2215 

Haines  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Minn. 

160,  2611, 2612 

Haines  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Iowa 

216,  1429 

Haire  v.  Rome  R.  Co.,  57  Fed.  R.  321,  938,  940 
Haislip  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

N.  Car.  376,  1424 

Haldan  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  30  U.  C. 

C.  P.  89,  1780 
Haldeman  v.  Ainslie,  82  Ky.  395,  130 
Haldeman  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  50  Pa. 

St.  425,  1387,  1388 

Hale  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Mc- 

Crary  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  558,  1607 

Hale  v.  Cheshire  R.  R.  Co.,  161  Mass.  443,  449 
Hale  v.  Finch,  104  U.  S.  261,  1139 

Hale  v.  Frost,  99  U.  S.  389,  708 

Hale  v.  Kenosha,  29  Wis.  599,  1100 

Hale  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  36  Neb.  266, 

1047,  2340,  2414 
Hale  v.  Mutual  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  32  N.  H.  295, 

509 
Hale  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  N.  H.  333, 

668,681 
Hale  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  15  Conn. 

539,  2300, 2312 

Hale  v.  Republican,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Kan.  466, 

373,  441 
Hales  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Best  &  S. 

66,  2280,  2304,  2355 

Haley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Iowa  15, 

2138,  2574,  2576 
Haley  v.  Jump  River  Lumber  Co.,  81 

Wis.  422,  2071 

Haley  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Mo. 

614,  1945 

Halferty  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Mo. 

90,  1738, 1856 

Halff  v.  Allyn,  60  Tex.  278,  2390 

Halifax  City  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1  Russ.  Eq. 

(Nova  Scotia)  319,  1642 

Halifax,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Francklyn,  8  Ry. 

&  Corp.  L.  J.  91,  360 

Hall  v.  Astoria,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Ry.  &  Corp.  L. 

J.  412,  757 


CCV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-JU2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Hall  v.  Baker,  74  Wis.  118,  1175 

Hall  v.  Boston,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  14  Allen 

(Mass.)  439,  2350,  2363 

Hall  v.  Brown,  54  N.  H.  495,  6,  612, 1986 

Hall  v.  Carney,  140  Mass.  131,  887 

Hall  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Minn.  439, 

2052,  2071,  2119 

Hall  v.  City  of  Ionia,  38  Mich.  493,  558 

Hall  v.  Clearfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  168  Pa.  St. 

64,  1731 

Hall  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Conn. 

319,  2466, 2473 

Hall  v.  DeCuir,  95  U.  S.  485,        1083,  2641,  2644 
Hall  v.  Dimond,  63  N.  H.  565,  2394,  2444 

Hall  v.  Fitler  Mfg.  Co.,  10  Phila.  (Pa.) 

370,  891 

Hall  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Fed.  R. 

18,  2089 

Hall  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  31  U.  C.  Q.  B. 

535,  2206 

Hall  v.  Klinck,  25  S.  Car.  348,  263,  265,  380 

Hall  v.  Leonard,  1  Pick.  27,  552 

Hall  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  15  Q. 

B.  Div.  505,  2435,  2670 

Hall  v.  London,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  17  Q.  B. 

D.  230,  989 

Hall  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Fed.  R. 

57,  2487,  2490, 2578 

Hall  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  10  Q. 

B.  437,  2515,  2543 

Hall  v.  Ocean  Ins.  Co.,  37  Fed.  R.  371,        2445 
Hallv.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  14  Phila.  414, 

2270,2343 

Hall  v.  Penn  Co.,  90  Ind.  459,  2209,  2697 

Hall  v.  People,  57  111.  307,  1494 

Hall  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  111.  163, 

1297, 1298 

Hall  v.  Pickering,  40  Me.  548,  1310,  1539 

Hall  v.  Posey,  79  Ala.  84,  2120  ; 

Hall  v.  Railroad  Co.,  13  Wall.  (U.S.)  367,  2335 
Hall  v.  Renfro,  3  Mete.  (Ky.)  51, 

2262,  2266,  2400 

Hall  v.  Rose  Hill,  etc.,  Co.,  70  111.  673,          118 
Hall  v.  Russell,  101  U.  S.  503,  1118,  1123 

Hall  v.  Sims,  (Ala.)  17  So.  R.  534,  177 

Hall  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  28  S.  Car. 

261,  2506, 2575 

Hall  v.  Sullivan,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Brunner  C.  C. 

613,  106, 868 

Hall  v.  Sullivan  Railroad  Co.,  21  Law  Re- 
porter 138,  101, 102,  637, 1350 
Hall  v.  Tanner,  etc.,  Co.,  91  Ala.  363,  471 
Hall  v.  Thayer,  12  Mete.  (Mass.)  130,  159 
Hall  v.  Vermont  &  Mass.  R.  Co.,  28  Vt. 

401,  21 

Hall  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  5  McCrary, 

(U.  S.)  257,  2004 


Hall  v.  United  States  Ins.  Co.,  5  Gill 

(Md.)  484,  209 

Hall  v.  Wisconsin,  103  U.  S.  5,  1133 

Ha  11am  v.  India uola  Hotel  Co.,  56  Iowa 

178,  378,  726 

HaUenbeck  v.  Hahn,  2  Neb.  377,  1141 

Halliburton  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  58  Mo.  App. 

27,  2059 

Halliday  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.,  74  Mo.  159, 

2227,  2238,  2245 
Halloran  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  2  E.  D. 

Smith  257,  1803,  1863 

Hallowell,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Hamlin,  14  Mass. 

178,  394 

Halsey  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  45  N.  J. 

Law  26,  1540 

Halsey  v.  Rapid  Transit  By.  Co.,  47  N.  J. 

Eq.  380,  12 

Halsey  v.  Warden,  25  Kan.  128,  2215 

Halsted  v.  Straus,  32  Fed.  R.  279,  772 

Halverson  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Minn.  88,  1814,  1815, 1826 

Halverson  v.  Nisen,  3  Sawy.  (U.  S.)  562,    2079 
Haman  v.  Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Neb. 

74,  2583 

Hambelton  v.  Glenn,  72  Md.  351,  263 

Hamblin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Fed. 

R.  401,  947 

Hamblin  v.  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  147  U.  S. 

531,  1127 

Hamburg,  etc.,  Packet  Co.  v.  Gattman, 

127  HI.  598,  2612,  2614 

Hamer  v.  Sears,  81  Ga.  288,  1544 

Hamill  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  56  N.  J. 

L.  370,  1985 

Hamilton  v.  Annapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Md. 

553,  539 

Hamilton  v.  Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Interst.  Com.  R.  19,  2677 

Hamilton  v.  Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Interst.  Com.  R.  482,  2685 

Hamilton  v.  Clarion,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  Pa. 

St.  34,  251,  252 

Hamilton  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  N. 

J.  Law  263,  2144 

Hamilton  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Iowa  31,  2249 

Hamilton  v.  Dunn,  22  111.  259,  16015 

Hamilton  v.  Fort  Wayne,  73  Ind.  1,  1552 

Hamilton  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  23  U.  C. 

Q.  B.  600,  2315 

Hamilton  v.  Great  Falls,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  17 

Mont.  334,  2469,  2475 

Hamilton  v.  Jones,  125  Ind.  176,  2129 

Hamilton  v.  Lubukee,  51  111.  415,  675 

Hamilton  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Mo. 

85,  1822, 1840 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CC1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT, pp.  lf',3-1262.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  Z165-S7S5.] 


Hamilton  v.  Newcastle,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Ind. 

359,  290,  295,  618 

Hamilton  v.  New  York  Central  R.  Co.,  51 

N.  Y.  100,  2491 

Hamilton  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,   49 

Fed.  Rep.  412,  143,  569 

Hamilton  v.  State,  30  Fla.  229,  1051 

Hamilton  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Tex.  251, 

1964 
Hamilton  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  53  N.  Y.  25, 

2491 
Hamilton  v.Vicksburg,  ete.,  R.  Co.,  34  La. 

Ann.  970,  61 

Hamilton  v.  West,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163  Mass. 

199,  2468 

Hamilton  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  N. 

Car.  398,  2211,  2270,  2295,  2326 

Hamilton  Ave.,  In  re,  14  Barb.  405,       48,  1379 
Hamilton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  Co.,  88 

Iowa  364,  247 

Hamilton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rice,  7  Barb.  (X.Y.) 

157,  153,  157 

Hamilton  Gaslight,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of 

Hamilton,  146  U.  S.  258,  942 

Hamilton;  etc.,  Hydraulic  Co.  v.  Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Ohio  St.  341,  517 
Hamilton  St.  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hamilton, 

etc.,  Co.,5OhioCir.  Ct.  R.  319,  906 

Hamlin  v.  European  &  N.  A.  Ry.  Co.,  72 

Me.  83,  651,  652 

Hamlin  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  1  H.  & 

N.  408,  2698 

Hamlin  v.  Jerrard,  72  Me.  62,    461,  465,  648,  655 
Hamlin  v.  Kassafer,  15  Ore.  456,  341 

Hamlin  v.  Meadville,  6  Neb.  227,  1217 

Ham  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142  Pa.  St. 

617,  2575 

Ham  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  155  Pa. 

St.  548,  1956 

Ham  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ga.)  24 

S.  E.  R.  152,  2468 

Ham  v.  Salem,  100  Mass.  350,  1342,  1514 

Ham  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Iowa 

716,  1425,  1428,  1430,  1431,  1438 

Hammans  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  R.  &  Canal  Traf.  Cas.  181,  2686 

Hammersmith,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brand,  L.  R. 

4  H.  L.  Cas.  171,  1441,  1442 

Hammett  v.  Linneman,  48  N.  Y.  399,  2196 

Hammett  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  Co.,  20 

Ark.  204,  88 

Hammett  v.  Philadelphia,  65  Pa.  146, 

1100,  1331 
Hammock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  105 

U.  S.  77,  645,  715,  778 

CORP. — xiv 


Hammond,  The  Maggie,  9  Wall.  435,  2264 

Hammond's  Appeal,  123  Pa.  St.  503,  381 

Hammond  v.  Beeson,  112  Mo.  190,       1581,  1585 
Hammond  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 

Iowa  168,  1845 

Hammond  v.  Hastings,  134  TJ.  S.  401, 

114,  115,  116,  148,  149, 150 
Hammond  v.  Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

6  So.  Car.  130,  2456 

Hammond  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

So.  Car.  10,  559,  703,  1305,  1308,  1311, 1316 

Hammond  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

Iowa  450,  1862 

Hammond  v.  Straus,  53  Md.  1,  23,  29 

Hampden,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Springfield,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  124  Mass.  118,  1421 

Hampe  v.  Mt.  Oliver  I.  R.  Co.,  (Pa.  Com. 

PI.)  24  Pittsburgh  Leg.  J.  (N.  S.)  330,        585 
Hampson  v.  Weare,  66  Am,  Dec.  116,  881 

Hampson  v.  Weare,  4  Iowa  13,  258 

Hamsher  v.  Hamsher,  132  111.  273,          538,  543 
Hance  v.  Cayuga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  N.  Y. 

428,  1843,  1849 

Hance  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mo. 

App.  R.  719,  2695 

Hancock  v.  Chicot  County,  32  Ark.  575, 

1215, 1217, 1222, 1223 

Hancock  v.  Holbrook,  112  U.  S.  229,  948 

Hancock  v.  Holbrook,  9  Fed.  R.  353,     336,  862 
Hancock  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145 

U.  S.  409,     446,  583,  1205,  1210, 1218,  2434,  2652 
Hancock  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Biss. 

(U.  S.)  148,  720 

Hancock,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Worcester,  etc., 

R.  R.  Co.,  149  Mass.  214,  460 

Hancock  v.  Yaden,  121  Ind.  366,  963, 1166 

Hand  v.  Ballou,  12  N.  Y.  542,  993 

Hand  v.  Baynes,  4  Whart.  (Pa.)  204, 

2237,  2268,  2345,  2416,  2695 
Hand  v.  Clearfield,  etc.,  Co.,  143  Pa.  St. 

408,  474 

Hand  v.  Dexter,  41  Ga.  454,  757 

Hand  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  S.  Car. 

314,  39,  44,  687 

Hand  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  17  S. 

Car.  219,  636,  702,  835,  839, 844 

Hand  Gold  Min.  Co.  v.  Parker,  59  Ga.  419, 

1337, 1340, 1342 

Handelun  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72 
Iowa  709,  2705 

Handley  v.  Stutz,  139  U.  S.  417, 

126,  128,  131, 167,  236,  238,  252,  628 

Handy  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.Co.,  31  Fed. 
R.  689,  829 


ccx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JUS-126S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2/65-2725.] 


Hangen  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  S.  Dak. 

394,     '  2721 

Hanes  v.  North  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109 

N.  Car.  490,  1527, 1533 

Haney  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

W.  Va.  570,  2089,  2090 

Hankins  v.  Kimball,  57  Ind.  42,  1294 

Hankins  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142 

N.  Y.  416,  2010,  2077,  2084 

Hanks  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  147  Mass. 

495,  1675, 1741 

Hanlin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Wis. 

515,  1328,  1634,  1651 

Hanlon  v.  South  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129 

Mass.  310,  1025, 1647 

Hanna  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  20 

Ind.  30,  71,  453 

Hanna  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  41  111. 

App.  116,  883,  2134 

Hanua  v.  Hanna,  89  N.  Car.  68,  778 

Hanna  v.  Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Ind.  113,  2140,  2143  j 

Hanna  v.  Phelps.  7  Ind.  21,  2288  ! 

Hanna  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119 

Ind.  316,  1850, 1864 

Hannah  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  154 

Mass.  529,  2071 

Hannah  v.  Moberly  Bank,  67  Mo.  678,  891 

Hannaher  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5 

Dak.  1,  1566, 1895 

Hannauer  v.  Doane,  12  WaU.  342,  2640 

Hannewinkle  v.  Georgetown,  15  Wall.  547, 

1070 
Hannibal  v.  Fauntleroy,  105  U.  S.  408, 

1241, 1262 
Hannibal  v.  Hannibal  &  St.  Jo.  R.  Co.,  49 

Mo.  480,  1378,  1654,  1681 

Hannibal  Bridge  Co.  v.  Schaubacker,  49 

Mo.  555,  1410,  1533 

Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State  Board,  64  Mo. 

294,  1091 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crane,  102  m. 

249,  880, 887 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fox,  31  Kan.  587, 

2010,  2076,  2078 
Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Husen,  95  TJ.  S. 

465,  966, 967 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Kanaley,  39  Kan.  1, 

2084 
Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kenney,  41  Mo. 

271,  1804, 1867 

Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marion  County,  36 

Mo.  294,  504,  868,  1221,  1241 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  111  111. 

219,  2460,  2475,  2558 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  11  111. 

App.  386,  2570 


Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  45  Mo. 

443,  1135 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  79  Mo. 

367,  1817 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morton,  27  Mo. 

317,  1475,  1486 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Muder,  49  Mo. 

165, 

539,557,1345,1354,1355, 1379, 1495, 1524, 1663, 1664 
Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rowland,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  29  Mo.  337,  1533 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rutledge,  78  Mo. 

286,  1817 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shacklett,  30 

Mo.  550,  111,  1062,  1118 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  41  Mo. 

310,  1277 

Hannibal,  ete.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  9  Wall. 

95,  1123 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Swift,  12  WaU.  262, 

2168,  2185,  2283,  2288,  2292,  2451,  2606,  2607, 
2612,  2614,  2621 

Hanover  R.  Co.  v.  Coyle,  55  Pa.  St.  396,        615 
Hanover  Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Halde- 

man,  82  Pa.  St.  36,  26,  161,  173. 

Hanrahan  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

Hun  420,  2478 

Hanrathy  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 

Md.  280,  2076,  2705 

Hanrick  v.  Hanrick,  153  U.  S.  192,          929,  940 
Hans  v.  Louisiana,  134  U.  S.  1,  1133 

Hansen  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Wis.  346, 

412,  497,  2200.  2227,  2228,  2232 
Hansen  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  105  Cal. 

379,  1743 

Hansford  v.  Payne,  11  Bush  380,          2129,  2146 
Hanson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

62  N.  W.  R.  788,  1794 

Hanson  v.  Dexter,  36  Me.  516,  361 

Hanson  v.  European,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Me. 

84,  2580 

Hanson  v.  Mansfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  La. 

Ann.  Ill,  2464,  2469,  2561,  2595 

Happy  v.  Mosher,  48  N.  Y.  313,  1476 

Harbach  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Iowa  593,  901, 1650 

Harben  v.  Philips,  L.  R.  23  Ch.  D.  14,  233 

Harbershon's  Case,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  286,  205 

Harcourt  v.  Good,  39  Tex.  455,  1140 

Hard  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Vt.  473, 

2049,  2075,  2085 
Hardcastle  v.  South  Yorkshire,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  4  Hurl.  &  N.  1950 

Hardee  v.  Sunset  Oil  Co.,  56  Fed.  R.  51,        757 
Hardenbergh  v.  VanKeuren,  16  Hun(N.Y.) 

17,  .  1163 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCX1 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  W- 1362,  Vol. 

Hardenburgh  v.Van  Keuren,  4  Abb.  (N.Y.         | 

N.  Gas.)  43,  1172 

Harding  v.  City  of  Boston,  163  Mass.  14,  1592 
Harding  v.  Goodlett,  3  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  41,  1371 
Harding  v.  People,  (111.)  43  ,N.  E.  R.  624,  2103 
Harding  v.  Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  111. 

90,  1182, 1209 

Harding  v.  Vandewater,  40  Cal.  77,  237,  360 
Hardman  v.  Wilcock,  9  Bing.  382,  2214 

Harden  v.  Newton,  14  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  376,  862 
Hardwick  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Ga. 

507,  2596, 2704 

Hardwick  v.  Hook,  8  Ga.  354,  788,  794 

Hardwick  v.  Kean,  95  Ky.  563,  942,  945 

Hardy  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Kan. 

698,  951 

Hardy  v.  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Car.  5, 

1998 
Hardy  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N.  J.) 

31  Atl.  R.  281,  2082 

Hardy  v.  McClellan,  53  Miss.  507,  774,  778,  779 
Hardy  v.  McKinney,  107  Ind.  364,  1553 

Hardy  v.  Mernweather,  14  Ind.  203,  165 

Hardy  v.  North  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

N.  Car.  734,  2489 

Hare  v.  Horton,  5  Barn.  &  Ad.  715  653 

Hare  v.  Kennerly,  83  Ala.  608,  1103 

Hare  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  J.  &  H.  80, 

499,  2663 
Hargis  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100 

Mo.  210,  546,  548, 1304,  1322,  1329 

Harker  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Iowa 

409,  1996, 2036 

Harkins  v.  Philadelphia  R.  Co.,  15  Phila. 

286,  2136 

Harkins  v.  Sugar  Refinery,  etc.,  Co.,  122 

Mass.  400,  2109 

Harknes  v.  Manhattan  R.  R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y. 

Super.  Ct.  174,  427 

Harkness  v.  District,  1  McArthur  (D.  C.) 

121,  1070 

Harkness  v.  Hyde,  98  U.  S.  476,  1127 

Harlam  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  111.  353,  1433 
Harlan  v.  Logansport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133 

Ind.  323,  555 

Harlan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Mo. 

22,  1748, 1762 

Harland  v.  Bankers',  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  33 

Fed.  R.  199,  680 

Harley  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.,  142  N.  Y.  31,  2008 
Harley  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Fed. 

R.  144,  2079 

Harlow  v.  Marquette,  etc.,  Railroad  Co., 

41  Mich.  336,  898,  1328, 1460 

Harmon  v.  Birchard,  8  Blkf.  418,  1477 

Harmon  v.  Chicago,  110  111.  400,  1620 


III,  pp.  IseS-ZlGlt,  Vol.  TV,  pp.  2165-1725.] 

Harmon  v.  City  of  Chicago,  140  HI.  374, 

995,  2662 
Harmon  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  S. 

Car.  401,  569,  570,  603,  611,  612 

Harmon  v.   New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  323,  2199,  2209 

Harmon  v.  Page,  62  Cal.  448,  261 

Harmony  v.  Bingham,  12  N.  Y.  99, 

2266,  2268,  2416 
Harmony  v.  Bingham,  1  Duer  (N.  Y.)  209, 

2214,2290 
Harned  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Mo. 

App.  482,  2341 

Harness  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  1  Md.  Ch. 

248,    1335,  1413, 1423, 1508,  1524, 1536,  1547, 1549 
Harney  v.  Indianapolis  R.  Co.,  32  Ind. 

244,  1139, 1146 

Harp  v.  The  Grand  Era,  1  Woods  (C.  C.) 

184,  2243,  2244,  2254 

Harpending  v.  Munson,  91  N.  Y.  650, 

713,  715,  726 
Harper  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.,  (Ky.)  22 

S.  W.  R.  849,  492 

Harper  v.  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Dana 

(Ky.)  227,  1475, 1479, 1481,  1525,  1532 

Harper  v.  Newport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ky. 

359,  614 

Harper  v.  Norfolk  R.  Co.,  36  Fed.  R.  102, 

2141,  2706 
Harper  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.,  (Pa.) 

34  Atl.  R.  356,  2180 

Harper  v.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  100  111.  225,  269 
Harrell  v.  Mexico,  etc.,  Co.,  73  Tex.  612,  891 
Harrell  v.  Wilmington  &  W.  R.  Co.,  106 

N.  Car.  258,  2186 

Harrigan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  111. 

App.  344,  2721 

Harriman  v.  Railway  Co.,  45  Ohio  St.  11, 

1743,  1958,  1973,  1977, 1990,  2062,  2290 
Harriman  v.  Southam,  16  Ind.  190,  551,  553 
Harriman  v.  Stowe,  57  Mo.  93,  325 

Harrington  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 

Mo.  384,  1846 

Harrington  V.  Plainview,  27  Minn.  224, 

1180,  1233,  1242 
Harrington  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

Minn.  215, 

1313, 1460, 1487, 1544, 1546,  1560,  1634 
Harris  v.  Cockermouth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  C. 

B.  (N.  S.)  693,  2671 

Harris  v.  Cockermouth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Nev.  &  McN.  97,  2667,  2669 

Harris  v.  Costar,  1  C.  &  P.  636,  2381 

Harris  v.  Davis,  44  Fed.  R.  172,  725 

Harris  v.  Dennie,  3  Peters  (U.  S.)  292,  2443 
Harris  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ry.,  15  R.  I.  371, 

2228,2230,2233 


CCX11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  l-ltt&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  jUS-1262,  Vol.  1  1  1,  pp.  WGS- 


Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-27S5.] 


Harris  v.  Grand  Trunk  Railway,  13  R.  I. 

572,  2228 

Harris  v.  Great  Western  Railway  Co.,  L. 

R.  1  Q.  B.  Div.  515,  2313,  2633 

Harris  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mo. 

233,  2466,  2553,  2564 

Harris  v.  Howe,  74  Tex.  534,  2626 

Harris  v.  Howes,  75  Me.  436,  1528 

Harris  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Fed. 

R.  116,  1992 

Harris  v.  Marblehead,  10  Gray  (Mass.) 

40,  1559 

Harris  v.  McGregor,  29  Cal.  124,  26,  271 

Harris  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  25  W.'R.  63,  2404 
Harris  v.  Mississippi  Valley  R.  Co.,  51 

Miss.  602,  76,  81,  859 

Harris  v.  Muskingum,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Blatchf. 

267,  336, 353 

Harris  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y. 

232,  2298,  2406,  2411 

Harris  v.  Packwood,  3  Taunt,  264,  2279,  2423 
Harris  v.  Panama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  N.  Y. 

660,  1879 

Harris  v.  Pratt,  17  N.  Y.  249,  2220,  2390,  2395 
Harris  v.  Rand,  4  N.  H.  259,  2265,  2266 

Harris  v.  Roberts,  12  Neb.  631,  531 

Harris  v.  Shaw,  13  111.  456,  561 

Harris  v.  State,  14  Lea  (Tenn.)  485,  1049 

Harris  v.  Stevens,  31  Vt.  79,  285,  1965 

Harris  v.  Stevens,  7  N.  H.  454,  420 

Harris  v.  Tenney,  85  Tex.  254,  2394,  2395 

Harris  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  13  Fed.  R. 

591,  2571 

Harris  v.  Woodstock,  27  Conn.  567,  1523 

Harris,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  3  C.  B.  N.  S. 

693,  914 

Harrisburg,  The,  119  U.  S.  199,  2125,  2143 

Harrisburg  v.  Harrisburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Pears  (Pa.)  298,  1641 

Harrisburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harrisburg, 

149  Pa.  St.  465,  1622 

Harrison  v.  Annapolis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  50 

Md.  490,  642 

Harrison  v.  Arkansas  Valley  Ry.  Co.,  4 

McCrary  (U.  S.)  264,  167,  455,  462 

Harrison  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  N.  J. 

Law  293,  -2080 

Harrison  v.  Collins,  86  Pa.  St.  153,  1587, 1588 
Harrison  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mich. 

409,  2086 

Harrison  v.  Fink,  42  Fed.  R.  787,  2574,  2583 
Harrison  v.  Harrison,  2  Atk.  121,  138 

Harrison  v.  Iowa  Midland  R.  Co.,  36  Iowa 

323,  1516, 1521 

Harrison  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Mo. 

App.  332,  299,  411 


Harrison  v.   Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  B. 

Mon.  470,  546,  1286 

Harrison  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Best  & 

S. ,  2338 

Harrison  v.  Maxwell,  44  N.  J.  L.  316,  794 

Harrison  v.  Mexican  R.  Co.,  44  L.  &  J. 

(Ch.)  403,  119 

Harrison  v.  Mexican  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  19  Eq. 

Gas.  358,  119,  442 

Harrison  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  Co.,  74 

Mo.  364,  306,  410,  1881,  2266 

Harrison  v.  Mt.  Auburn  Cable  Ry.  Co., 

(Ohio)  17  W.  L.  Bull.  265,  13 

Harrison  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.,  28  La. 

Ann.  777,  477,  1632 

Harrison  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  Co.,  13  Fed. 

R.  522,  130,  620 

Harrison  v.  Vines,  46  Tex.  15,  112 

Harrison  v.  Waterberry,  etc.,  Co.,  (Tex.) 

s.  c.  27  S.  W.  R.  109,  785 

Harrison  v.  Young,  9  Ga.  359,  48,  1511, 1513 
Harrod  v.  Hamer,  32  Wis.  162,  29,  266 

Harrold  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Minn. 

17,  2578 

Harshbarger  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  131  Ind. 

177,  1449 

Harshman  v.  Bates  Co.,  92  U.  S.  569, 

450,  1200,  1224,  1231,  1234 
Harshman  v.  Knox  County,  122  U.  S.  '306, 

1258,  1259 

Hart's  Appeal,  96  Pa.  St.  355,  1594 

Hart  v.  Allen,  2  Watts  (Pa.)  114,  2268,  2296 
Hart,  v.  Baxendale,  16  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  390,  2282 
Hart  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Conn.  524, 

39,  77,  471,  865 

Hart  v.  Buckner,  54  Fed.  R.  925,  900,  1638 

Hart  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  S.  Car. 

427,  612 

Hart  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Iowa 

485,  996,  2236,  2319,  2405,  2407,  2543,  2651 

Hart  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Iowa 

412,  2654 

Hart  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Iowa  166, 

1986 

Hart  v.  Cole,  156  Mass.  475,  1951 

Hart  v.  Eastern  U.  Ry.  Co.,  7  Exchq.  246, 

638,  649,  661 
Hart  v.  Eastern  Union  Ry.  Co.,  6*Engi 

Ry.  &  Can.  Gas.  818,  7  Exch.  246,  661 

Hart  v.  Lauman,  29  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  410, 

1573,  1579 

Hart  v.  Naumburg,  123  N.  Y.  641,  2063 

Hart  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  112  U.  S.  331, 

2263,  2320,  2336,  2337,  2338,  2399 
Hart  v.  Railroad  Co.,  112  U.  S.  331,  2178 

Hart  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8  N.  Y. 
37,  448,  2239,  2244,  2246,  2626 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


CCX111 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  US-1S62,  Vol.  ITT,  pp.  126S-S16U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-Z7S5.] 


Hart  v.  St.  Charles  St.  R.  E.  Co.,  30  La. 

Ann.  Pt.  1,  758,  127 

Hart  v.  State,  15  Tex.  App.  202,  2715 

Hart  v.  Ten  Eyck,  2  Johns.  Ch.  62,  138 

Hart  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Mete.  99, 

1891,  1893, 1914 
Hartan  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  114  Mass.  44, 

2228,  2243,  2493 
Hartford  B.  Co.  v.  Union  Ferry  Co.,  29 

Conn.  210,  48 

Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  70  Fed.  Rep.  201,  1917, 1920,  2602 

Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Owen,  30  Mich. 

441,  878 

Hartford  Ins.  Co.  v.  Raymond,  70  Mich. 

485,  44 

Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  65  How. 

(N.  Y.)  Pr.  133,  1388 

Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boorman,  12  Conn. 

530,  256 

Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Croswell,  5  Hill 

(N.  Y.)  383,  69,  70,  224 

Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  12 Conn. 

499,  214,  215,  216,  224,  244 

Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  3  Robt.  (N.  Y. )  411,  490 

Harter  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Kan. 

250,  2721 

Harter  v.  Kernochan,  103  U.  S.  562, 

933,  1178,  1224 

Hartfleld  v.  Roper,  34  Am.  Dec.  273,  2592 

Hartfleld  v.  Roper,  21  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  615,  1981 
Hartigan  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Cal. 

142,  2146, 2148 

Hartley  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Iowa 

455,  1301, 1463 

Hartman  v.  Belleville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  111. 

24,  1555,  1556 

Hartman  v.  Grennhow,  102  U.  S.  672,  1089, 1133 
Hartman  v.  Ins.  Co.,  32  Gratt.  (Va. )  242,  869 
Hartman  v.  Kloeppinger,  9  Ohio  C.  C.  433, 

2054 
Hartman  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 Mo. 

App.  88,  2279 

Hartman  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159 

Pa.  St.  442,  1639 

Hartman,  etc.,  Co.'s  Appeal,  (Pa.)  18  Atl. 

R.  553,  1614 

Hartman  Steel  Co.'s  Appeal,  (Pa.)  18  Atl. 

Rep.  553,  1350 

Hartridge  v.  Rockwell,  R.  M.  Charleton 

(Ga.)  260,  141 

Harts  v.  Brown,  77  111.  226,  245,  377,  380,  726 
Hartshorn  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

Iowa  f  13,  1457 

Hartung  v.  Witte,  59  Wis.  285,  561,  1308'| 


Hartwell  v.  Northern  Pac.  Exp.  Co.,  5 

Dak.  463,  2201 

Harty  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  42  N.  Y.  468, 

1739,  1757, 1986,  2066 
Harty  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Mo.  368, 

2707 
Hartz  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Minn. 

358,  1634 

Harvard  v.  St.  Clair,  etc.,  Dist.,  51  111. 

130,  H78 

Harvey  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  Mass. 

269,  3547 

Harvey  v.  Lacka wanna,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47 

Pa.  St.  428,  1429,  1436 

Harvey  v.  Linville,  etc.,  Co.,  (N.  Car.)  24 

S.  E.  R.  489,  230 

Harvey  v.  Lloyd,  3  Pa.  St.  331,  1498 

Harvey  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Int. 

St.  Com.  R.  153,  2522 

Harvey  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  Y. 


481, 


2011 


Harvard  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  3 

Interst.  Com.  R.  257,  2671 

Harvey  v.  Railroad  Co.,  88  N.  Y.  481,          2080 
Harvey  v.  Rose,  26  Ark.  3,  2348 

Harvey  v.  South  Chester,  99  Pa.  St.  565,    1105 
Harvey  v.  Tyler,  2  Wall.  328,  1478 

Harvey  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Mo.  538,  2263,  2336,  2339,  2694 

Harvey  v.  Thomas,  10  Watts.  (Pa.)  63,    7, 1271 
Harwell  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  236,  2676 

Harwood  v.  Railroad  Co.,  17  Wall.(U.  S.) 

78,  711, 712 

Hasbrouck  v.  Milwaukee,  13  Wis.  37, 

1140,  1197 

Haskell  v.  Jones,  86  Pa.  St.  173,  2654 

Haskell  v.  New  Bedford,  108  Mass.  208,      1651 
Haskins  v.  Newcomb,  2  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

405,  1030 

Haskins  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Hun 

159,  2044 

Haslam  v.  Adams  Ex.  Co.,  6  Bosw.  (N.Y.) 

235,  2178, 2358 

Haslam  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  111.  353, 

1434,  1435,  1472 
Haslett  v.  New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Ind. 

App.  603,  1634 

Haslett  v.  Wotherspoon,  1  Strobh.  Eq.  (S. 

Car.)  209,  23 

Hass  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Wis.  44,     1761 
Hasselman  v.  Japanese,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Ind. 

App.  180,  481 

Hasselman  v.  U.  S.  Mortgage  Co.,  97  Ind. 

365,  75 

Hanson  v.  Oil  Creek,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Phila. 

(Pa.)  556,  1389 


CCX1V 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 

Ha  ugh  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa  66, 


Hastings  v.  Amherst,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Cush. 

(Mass.)  596,  82,  1285 

Hastings  v.  Blue  Hills,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Pick. 

(Mass.)  80,  144 

Hastings  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Iowa  316,  1286,  1507,  1548 

Hastings  v.  Drew,  76  X.  Y.  9,  433, 434,  851 

Hastings  v.  Pepper,  11  Pick.  41,  2205,  2264 

Hastings,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ingalls,  15  Neb. 

123,  1488, 1526 

Hastings,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitney,  132  U.  S. 

357,  1131 

Hasty  v.  Sears,  157  Mass.  123,  2106 

Has  well  v.  Vermont  Central  R.  Co.,  23  Vt. 

228,  1555 

Hatch  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Blatchf. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  105,  932,933,935,945 

Hatch  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Ohio 

St.  92,  1288,  1407,  1443,  1507 

Hatch  v.  Coddington,  95  U.  S.  48,  394,  641 

Hatch  v.  Dana,  101  U.  S.  205, 

211,  212,  261,  263 

Hatch  v.  Ferguson,  66  Fed.  R.  668,  366 

Hatch  v.  Hawkes,  126  Mass.  177,  1551 

Hatch  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  50  Hun 

(N.  ¥.)  64,  1674 

Hatch  v.  Tacoma,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Wash.  1,    1411 
Hatch  v.Vermont  Central  R.Co.,  25  Vt.  49, 

1302,  1438,  1439,  1456,  1564 
Hatch  v.  Vermont  Central  R.  Co.,  28  Vt. 

142,  1400,  1401,  1632 

Hatcher  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  111.  477, 

444,  462,  643,  696 
Hatfleld  v.  Central  H.  Co.,  29  N.  J.  Law 

571,  1486 

Hatfleld  v.  Phillips,  9  M.  &  W.  647,    2218,  2220 
Hatfield  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Minn. 

130,  2713 

Hathaway  V.  Addison,  48  Me.  440,  364 

Hathaway  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

Fed.  R.  489,  1768,  2720 

Hathaway  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

60  N.  W.  R.  651,  2022,  2084 

Hathaway  v.  Michigan  Cenft  R.  Co.,  51 

Mich.  253,  2014,  2016,  2032,  2043 

Hathaway  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Ind. 

25,  1982, 2718 

Hatry  v.  Painesville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Ohio 

Cir.  Ct.  426,  1537 

Hatt  v.  Nay,  144  Mass.  186,  301,  2035 

Hatter  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Miss.  642, 

2042 
Hattersley  v.  Earl  of  Shelburne,  10  Week. 

R.  881,  370 

Haugan  v.  Netland,  51  Minn.  552,  777 

Haagen  v.  Albina,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Ore.  411,    2692 


2053 

Haun  v.  Mulberry,  etc.,  Road,  33  Ind.  103, 

203,206 

Hause  v.  Judson,  4  Dana  7,  2390 

Hauser  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  147  Pa.  St.  440,    2720 
Hausman  v.  Nye,  62  Ind.  485,  2215 

Haveghart  v.  Lindberg,  67  111.  463,  1609 

Havemeyer  v.  Havemeyer,  11  J.  &  S.  (N.Y.) 

506,  134 

Havemeyer  v.  Havemeyer,  86  N.  Y.  618,       250 
Havemeyer  v.  Superior  Ct.,  84  Cal.  327, 

244,761 

Haven  v.  Adams,  4  Allen  (Mass.)  80,  641 

Haven  v.  Emery,  33  N.  H.  66,  653 

Haven  v.  Grand  Junction  R.  R.  Co.,  109 

Mass.  88,  634,  636 

Haven  v.   New  Hampshire  Asylum,    13 

N.  H.  532,  364 

Haven,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  20  Ch.  D. 

151,  233 

Havens  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  41  N.  Y.  296,  1772 

Havens  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  53  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

328,  1042, 1756 

Haverly  v.  State  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135 

Pa.  St.  50,  1926,  1927 

Hawes  v.  Anglo-Saxon  Petroleum  Co.,  101 

Mass.  385,  258,  259 

Hawes  v.  Oakland,  etc.,  Co.,  104  U.  S. 

450,  239,  757,  877,  878 

Hawkv.  Pennsylvania  Railway  Co.,  (Pa. 

St.)  11  Atl.  R.  459,  2043 

Hawker  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

W.  Va.  628,  1857 

Hawkes  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  DeG. 

M.  &  G.  737,  563,  1298 

Hawkins  v.  Board,  etc.,  50  Miss.  735,  1153 

Hawkins  v.  Carroll  County,  50  Miss.  735, 

1139, 1179,  1180 

Hawkins  v.  Fall  River,  119  Mass.  94,  1520 

Hawkins  v.  Front  Street,  etc.,  Co.,  3 

Wash.  592,  2598 

Hawkins  v.  Glenn,  131  U.  S.  319,      211,  247,  258 
Hawkins  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  17 

Mich.  57,  2292,  2328 

Hawkins  v.  Hoffman,  6  Hill  586, 

2214,  2605,  2608,  2609,  2611 
Hawkins  v.  Mansfield,  etc.,  Co.,  52  Cal. 

513,  255 

Hawkins  v.  Mitchell,  34  Fla.  405,  1139 

Hawkins  v.  The  Governor,  1  Ark.  570,  983 

Hawks  v.  Northampton,  116  Mass.  420,       1642 
Hawkshaw  v.  Supreme  Lodge,  etc.,  29 

Fed.  R.  770,  364 

Hawley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Iowa 

717,  2049 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


CCXV 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-M2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  M3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Hawley  v.  Gray  Bros.,  etc.,  Co.,  706  Gal. 

337,  390, 394 

Hawley  v.  Harrall,  19  Conn.  142,  1529 

Hawley  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  Co.,  48  Kan.  593,  2434 
Hawley  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  N.  Y. 

370,  2064 

Hawley  v.  Screven,  62  Ga.  347,  2626 

Hawley  v.  Upton,  102  U.  S.  314,  113, 163,  228 
Hax  v.  Davis,  etc.,  Co.,  39  Mo.  App.  453, 

358,361 

Hay  v.  Cohoes  Co.,  2  N.  Y.  159,  1565, 1567 

Hay  v.  People,  59  111.  94,  30 

Hayburn's  Case,  2  Dall.  409,  980 

Hayden  v.  Davis,  3  McLean  (U.  S.  Cir.) 

276,  504 

Hayden  v.  Lincoln,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Neb. 

680,  629 

Hayden  v.  Middlesex  Turnp.  Co.,  10  Mass. 

397,  323,  487 

Hayden  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  Mo. 

566,  1773, 1782 

Hayden  v.  Noyes,  5  Conn.  391,  276 

Hayden  v.  Official,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Fed.  R.  875,  725 
Hayden  v.  Platt,  84  Hun  487,  2044 

Hayden  v.  Skillings,  78  Me.  413,  905,  1423 

Hayden  v.  Smithville  Manufacturing  Co., 

29  Conn.  548,  2035,  2063 

Hayden  v.  Stoughton,  5  Pick.  (Mass.)  528,  1310 
Haydon's  Case,  3  Rep.  (Coke)  7,  916 

Hayes  v.  Campbell,  63  Cal.  143,  2188,  2332 
Hayes  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Minn.  17,  1930 
Hayes  v.  Ferguson,  15  Lea  (Tenn.)  1,  824 
Hayes  v.  Heyer,  4  Sandf.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  485,  777 
Hayes  v.  Holly  Spring,  114  U.  S.  120, 

1172,  1176,  1243 
Hayes  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  Ill  U.  S. 

228,     493, 1024, 1025, 1026,  1624,  1811,  2467,  2705 
Hayes  v.  Norcross,  162  Mass.  546,  1979 

Hayes  v.  Ottawa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  111.  373, 

1428,  1438,  1456,  1522, 1550 

Hayes  v.  Todd,  34  Fla.  233,  945,  946 

Hayes  v.  Wells,  23  Cal.  185,  2309 

Hayes  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Cush. 

2701,  2052 

Hayes  v.  Williams,  17  Colo.  465,  2128 

Hayman  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  118  Pa. 

St.  508,  2478,  2586 

Haynes  v.  Brown,  36  N.  H.  545,  163 

Haynes  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Cold.  222,  2016,  2084 

Haynes  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  Co.,  114  N.  Car. 

203,  1978 

Haynes  v.  Thomas,  7  Ind.  38,  1417, 1628 

Haynes  v.  Town  of  Trenton,  123  Mo.  326,  2713 
Haynes  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mo. 

App.  582,  2402 

Hays  v.  Branham,  36  Ind.  219,  211 


Hays  v.  Briggs,  74  Pa.  St.  373,  1271 

Hays  v.  Campbell,  17  Ind.  430,  1497 

Hays  v.  Commonwealth,  82  Pa.  St.  518,  231 
Hays  v.  Dowes,  75  Mo.  250,  1170 

Hays  v.  Fisher,  32  Pa.  St.  169,  1270 

Hays  v.  Franklin  County  Lumber  Co.,  35 

Neb.  511,  217 

Hays  v.  Gainesville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Tex. 

602,  1647, 1746 

Hays  v.  Gallon,  etc.,  Co.,  29  Ohio  St.  330, 

503,  642,  643 
Hays  v.  Kennedy,  41  Pa.  St.  378, 

2265,  2269,  2299 
Hays  v.  Ly coming,  etc.,  Co.,  99  Pa.  St. 

621,  260 

Hays  v.  Ottawa,  etc.,  Co.,  61  111.  422, 

104,  569,  637 
Hays  v.  Pacific  Mail  Steamship  Co.,  17 

How.  (U.  S.)  596,  1074,  1076,  2643 

Hays  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  Co.,  12  Fed. 

R.  309,  -286,  2284,  2285,  2684 

Hays  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Pa. 

St.  81,  203,  205 

Hays  v.  Riddle,  1  Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  248,  2446 
Hays  v.'Risher,  32  Pa.  St.  169,  1360, 1366,  1385 
Hays  v.  Stone,  7  Hill.  128,  2695 

Hays  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Tex.  397, 

547,  1445,  1447 

Hays  v.  Wells,  Fargo  Co.,  23  Cal.  185,  2339 
Hay  ward  v.  Andrews,  106  U.  S.  672,  s.  c.  1 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  544,  675 

Hayward  v.  Bath,  40  N.  H.  100,  1534 

Hay  ward  v.  Middleton,  3  McCord  (S.  Car.) 

121,  2423 

Hay  wood  v.  Lincoln  Lumber  Co.,  64  Wis. 

639,  757, 855 

Haywood,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan,  6  Jones  L. 

(N.  Car.)  82,  159, 177 

Hazard  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Biss. 

503,  2553 

Hazard  v.  Durant,  11  R.  I.  195,  330,  385 

Hazard  v.  Durant,  19  Fed.  R.  471,  771,  797 
Hazard  v.  Fiske,  83  N.  Y.  287,  2218 

Hazard  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Miss. 

32,  2203,  2204,  2205,  2217,  2301 

Hazard  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Fed. 

R.  753,  465,  466 

Hazel  v.  Chicago  R.  Co.,  82  Iowa  477,  2312 
Hazel  Milling  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  3  Interstate  Com.  R.  701,  2409 

Hazelett  v.  Butler  University,  84  Ind.  230,  71 
Hazlehust  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Ga. 

13,  119, 120, 142,  323, 338,  348,  503,  507,  524 

Hazelrigg  v.  Bronaugh,  78  Ky.  62,  809 

Hazoltine  v.  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Me. 

411,  118, 121,  432 


CCXV1 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-UH,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1%62,  Vol 

Hazen  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Gray 

(Mass.)  574, 

1329, 1421,  1424,  1456,  1459,  1481,  1543,  1563, 1736 
Hazen  v.  Emerson,  9  Pick.  (Mass.)  144,  890 
Hazen  v.  Essex  Co.,  12  Cush.  (Mass.)  475, 

1372,  1539,  1547 

Hazlett  v.  Sinclair,  76  Ind.  488,  561 

Heacock  v.  Sherman,  14  Wend.  (N.  Y  )  58, 

266 

Head  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Ga.  358,    2488 
Head  v.  Providence  Ins.  Co.,  2  Cranch 

(U.  S.)  127,  483,  504 

Head  Money  Cases,  112  U.  S.  580,        1079,  1083 
Heady  v.  Vevay,  etc.,  Turnpike  Co.,  52 

Ind.  117,  1523 

Healey  v.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Ohio  St  23, 

2575,  2580 

Healy  v.  Prevost,  8  The  Rep.  103,  932 

Heaney  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 

N.  Y.  122,  1781, 1800 

Heap  v.  Heap  Manufacturing  Co.,  97 

Mich.  147,  86,  87 

Heard  v.  Eldredge,  109  Mass.  258,  422,  424 

Heard  v.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  3  Interst.  Com. 

R.  Ill,  2644 

Hearn  v.  St.  Charles,  etc.,  Co.,  34  La. 

Ann.  160,  1648 

Hearns  v.  Waterbury  Hospital,  66  Conn. 

98,  2162 

Heaston  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  16 

Ind.  275,  155,  204,  206,  220,  271,  S72,  873 

Heath  v.  Barmore,  50  N.  Y.  302,  505,  S69 

Heath  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Iowa 

11,  1614,  1619,  1651 

Heath  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  8  Blatchf.  (U.  S.) 

347,  239, 240 

Heath  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  83  Mo. 

617,  785,  799,  812,  859 

Heath  v.  Silverthorn,  etc.,  Co.,  39  Wis.  146, 236 
Heatli  v.  Stewart,  90  Wis.  418,  1767 

Heath  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  La.  Ann. 

728,  1302,  1563 

Heathcote  v.  North  Staffordshire  R.  Co., 

6  Eng.  R.  &  Canal  Cas.  358,  1583, 1584 

Heathcote  v.  North  Staffordshire  R.  Co., 

20  L.  J.  Ch.  82,  924,  1299 

Heaton  v.  Morgan's,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Tex.  App. 

(Civ.  Cases)  425,  2319 

Heavilon  v.  Farmers'  Bank,  81  Ind.  249,       778 
Heazle  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  111. 

501,  2567 

Hecht  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132  Ind.  507, 

2140,  2145 
Heck  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Interst.  Com.  R.  775,  2655 

Heddles  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Wis. 

239,  1738,  1753,  1754 


III,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Heddles  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Wis. 

228,  1678, 1739, 1751 

Hedges  v.  Dixon  County,  150  U.  S.  182, 

1209,  1225, 1226, 1227,  1233 
Hedges  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  6  Robt. 

(N.  Y.)  119,  2351 

Hedges  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y. 

223,  2351,  2368,  2372 

Hedges  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  28  Beav. 

109,  1537 

Hedges  v.  Paquett,  3  Ore.  77,  346 

Hedges  v.  Silver  Hill,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Ore.  200, 

257 

Hedin  v.  City,  etc.,  Co.,  26  Ore.  155,  1647 

Hedrick  v.  Ilwaco,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Wash. 

400,  2146 

Hedricks  v.  Steamship  Morning  Star,  18 

La.  Ann.  353,  2237 

Heeney  v.  Sprague,  11  R.  I.  456,  1023 

Heenrich  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Fed.  R. 

100,  299,  2529,  2581,  2587 

Heffner  v.  Commonwealth,  28  Pa.  St.  108,     925 
Heffron  v.  Detroit  City  R.  Co.,  92  Mich. 

406,  2505 

Heffron  v.  Gage,  149  IU.  182,  665 

Heffron  v.  Rice,  149  IU.  216,  822,  826 

Hefner  v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.,  123 

U.  S.  747,  s.  c.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  337,  678 

Hegan  v.  Eighth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  15  N.  Y. 

380,  1644 

Hegeman  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  16  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  353,  2599 

Hegeman  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  N.  Y. 

9,  2289, 2473 

Hegerich  v.  Kedure,  99  N.  Y.  258,  2145 

Heggie  v.  People's,  etc.,  Assn.,  107  N.  C. 

581,  141 

Heidritter  v.  Oilcloth  Co.,  112  U.  S.  294,      766 
Heil  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mo.  App. 

363,  2699 

Heilman  v.  Lebanon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145  Pa. 

St.  23,  1635 

Heine  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Wis. 

525,  2077 

Heine  v.  Levee  Commissioners,  19  Wall. 

655,  1056,  1259, 1261 

Heineman  v.  Grand  T.  R.  Co.,  31  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  430,  2212,  2412 

Heinig  v.  Adams,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Ky.  300,  26 

Heininger  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

59  Minn.  458,  1985 

Heinlein  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  147  Mass. 

136,  1950, 1965 

Heintzelman  v.   Druids',    etc.,  Assn.,  38 

Minn.  138,  364 

Heirn  v.  McCaughan,  32  Miss.  17,  2698 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXV1L 


[References  are  to  Pages  ] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1S6S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  7263-2764,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-?725.] 

Heise  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  62  Pa.  St. 

67,  1275, 1484 

Heisennan  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

Iowa  732,  2431,  2432,  265C 

Heiter  v.  East  St.  Louis  Connecting  R. 

883 
1499 


Co.,  53  Mo.  App.  331, 
Helena,  City  of,  v.  Harvey,  6  Mont.  114, 
Helfrich  v.  Ogden  City  R.  Co.,  7  Utah  186, 

2046,  2068,  2145 

Helfrich  v.  Williams,  84  Ind.  553,  2708 

Hellebush  v.  Blake,  119  Ind.  349,  735,  780 

Heller  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Kan. 

625,  1631 

Heller  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.)  66 

N.  W.  R.  667,  2399 

Helliwell  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 

Fed.  R.  68,  2292,  2295,  2306 

Hellman  v.  HoUaday,  1  Woolw.  (C.  C.) 

365,  2612 

Helm  v.  Chapman,  66  Cal.  291,  1596 

Helm  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.)  33 

S.  W.  R.  396,  2037 

Helm  v.  Swiggett,  12  Ind.  194,          147,  149, 150 
Helme  v.  Littlejohn,  12  La.  Ann.  298,  794 

Helmore  v.  Smith,  56  L.  J.  Ch.  Div.  145,       809 
Helton  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Ala. 

275,  2132 

Helton  v.  St.  Louis,  K.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

25  Mo.  App.  322,  496,  2519,  2520 

Heltzell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Mo. 

315,  878, 1602 

Heman  v.  Britton,  14  Mo.  App.  121, 

397,  433,  434,  565,  868 

Hemmens  v.  Nelson,  138  N.  Y.  517,  2720 

Hemmingway  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72 

\Vis.  42,  1786 

Hpmmingway  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67 

Wis.  668,  2550 

Hempstead  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

Barb.  485,  2244,  2247 

Henchey  v.  Chicago,  41  111.  136,  2148 

Hendee  v.  Pinkerton,  14  Allen  (Mass.)  381, 

347,  492,  638,  640 
Hendershott  v.  City  of  Ottumwa,  46  Iowa 

658,  1565 

Henderson  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Fed.  R. 

358,  99,  1289 

Henderson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Iowa 

620,  1816,  1818,  1846 

Henderson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,    R.  Co.,  48 

Iowa  216,  1717,  1845,  1846 

Henderson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,    R.  Co.,   39 

Iowa  220,  1846 

Henderson  v.  Indiana  Trust  Co.,  143  Ind. 

561,  165,  850,  854,  856 

Henderson  v.  Jackson  County,  2  McCrary 

(U.  S.)  615,  1165 


Henderson  v.  Jackson  County,  12  Fed.  R. 

676,  1177 

Henderson  v.  Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86 

Ky.  389,  2067 

Henderson  v.  Lacon,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  249,  32& 

Henderson  v.  Lagow,  42  111.  360,  1143 

Henderson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Fed.  Rep.  430,  2539,  2621 

Henderson  v.  Mayor,  92  U.  S.  259, 

952,  966, 1083,  2641,  2648- 
Henderson  v.  New  York  Central  R.  Co.,  17 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  341,  1441,  1444 

Henderson  v.  New  York  Central  R.  Co.,  78 

N.  Y.  423,  1436,  1546, 1634 

Henderson  v.  Ogden  City  R.  Co.,  7  Utah 

199,  2,  904,  914,  1625 

Henderson  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

144  Pa.  St.  461, 

1889, 1895, 1898, 1937, 1939,  1940 
Henderson  v.  Railroad  Co.,  17  Tex.  560, 

193, 196, 307 

Henderson  v.  Sherbone,  2  M.  &  W.  236,        1033- 
Henderson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Iowa  387,  1877 

Henderson  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

Minn.  497,  1780 

Henderson  v.  Stevenson,  L.  R.  2  Sc.  &  Div. 

App.  Gas.  470,  2633 

Henderson  v.  Three,  etc.,  Tons  of  Iron 

Ore,  38  Fed.  R.  36,  2207 

Henderson  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Mo. 

605,  1883 

Henderson  v.  Walker,  55  Ga.  481,  815,  210* 
Henderson  Bridge  Co.  v.  McGrath,  134 

U.  S.  216,   .  1578,  1579 

Henderson  Bridge  Co.  v.  O'Connor,  88  Ky. 

303,  1586 

Henderson,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  DeChamp,  95 

Ky.  219,  1629,  1632 

Henderson,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dickerson,  17 

B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  173, 

1169, 1436, 1437,  1465, 1550, 1554 
Henderson,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Leavell,  16 

B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  358,  16* 

Hendrick  v.  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  N. 

Car.  431,  1553 

Hendricks  v.  Johnson,  6  Porter  (Ala.)  472,  1374 
Hendricks  v.  Sixth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  12  Jones 

&  S.  (N.  Y.)  8,  2584- 

Hendricks  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Ga. 

467,  214& 

Hendrickson  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  49 

Minn.  245,  1738, 1740,  2719 

Hendrickson  v.  Hendrickson,  51  Iowa  68,  2149 
Hendrie  v.  Canadian  Bank,  49  Mich.  401,  1581 
Hendry  v.  Trinity  &  Sabine  R.  Co.,  (Tex.) 

24  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  286,  1448 


CCXV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[VoL  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  /M-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Henkle  v.  Salem  Manufacturing  Co.,  39 

Ohio  St.  547,  113 

Henline  v.  People,  81  111.  269,  1203 

Hennessey  v.  Farrell,  4  Gush.  (Mass.)  267, 

1570, 1571 

Hennessy  v.  Boston,  161  Mass.  502,  2120 

Hennessy  v.  City  of  Boston,  161  Mass.  502,  2106 
Henning  v.  CaldweU,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  339,  1783 
Henning  v.  Raymond,  35  Minn.  303,  794 

Henning  v.  United  States  Ins.  Co.,  47  Mo. 

425,  290 

Henning  v.  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co., 

43  Fed.  R.  97,  937,  949 

Hennington  v.  State,  90  Ga.  3%,  2320,  2647 
Hennington  v.  Georgia,  163  U.  S.  299, 

2640,  2647,  2656,  2657,  2661 
Henriquez  v.  Dutch  West  Indies  Co.,  2  Ld. 

Raym.  1532,  873 

Henry  v.  Brackenridge,  etc.,  Co.,  (La.)  20 

So.  R.  221,  2706 

Henry  v.  City  of  Newburyport,  149  Mass. 

582,  1403 

Henry  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  2  Iowa 

288, 

61,  1287,  1387,  1388,  1417,  1432,  1437,  1440,  1517, 

1803 
Henry  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Iowa 

540,  1423,  1561 

Henry  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  1 

DeGex  &  J.  606,  121 

Henry  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Kay  &  J.  (Eiig.  Ch.)  1,  119,  122,  125 

Henry  v.  Jackson,  37  Vt.  431,  280 

Henry  v.  Jennes,  47  Ohio  St.  116,  876 

Henry  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Mich. 

495,  2051, 2705 

Henry  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (W.  Va.)  21  S. 

E.  R.  863,  1565 

Henry  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  435, 

371,  378 

Henry  v.  Sargeant,  13  N.  H.  321,  1022 

Henry  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50Cal.  176, 

1901,  1910, 1937, 1942,  2065 

Henry  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Mo.  288,  2704 
Henry  v.  Stuart,  14  Phila.  (Pa.)  110,  863 

Henry  v.  Vermillion,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Ohio 

187,  159, 166,  212,  258,  261 

Henry  v.  Vermont  Cent.  R.  Co.,  30  Vt.  638,  1403 
Henry  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  Mo.  488,  2046 
Henry  County  v.  Nicolay,  95  U.  S.  619, 

1145,  1224,  1254 

Henry,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Evans,  97  Mo.  47,  1601 

Henshaw  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N.Car.) 

24  S.  E.  R.  426,  2593 

Henshaw  v.  Wells,  9  Humph.  (Tenn.)  568,  778 
Hensley  Township  v.  People,  84  111.  544,  1151 
Henson  v.  Lott,  8  Wall.  148,  2637 


Hentz  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  13  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  646,  1264, 1265, 1282,  1345, 1449, 1536 
Henze  v.  St.Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Mo.  636,  1777 
Hepfel  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Minn. 

263,  1976,  1979 

Herkimer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Small,  21  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  273,  216 

Herman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa 

161,  2595 

Herman  v.  Roberts,  119  N.  Y.  37,  905 

Hermann  v.  Goodrich,  21  Wis.  536,  2361 

Hermann  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

La.  Ann.  5,  2125 

Hermann  v.  Port  Blakely,  etc.,  Co.,  71 

Fed.  R.  853,  2027,  2065 

Hermans  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

N.  Y.  Supp.  319,  1749 

Hermitage,  The,  4  Blatchf.  474,  2276 

Herndon  v.  Hurter,  19  Fla.  397,  826 

Heroy  v.  Gibson,  10  Bosw.  591,  753 

Herr's  Mill  Road,  14  S.  &  R.  (Pa.)  204,       1533 
Herrick  v.  Belknap's  Estate  and  Ver- 
mont, etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  673, 

1572, 1573,  1574,  1576,  1577, 1580 
Herrick  v.  Galligher,  60  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  566, 

2375 

Herrick  v.  Miller,  123  Ind.  304,        811,  822,  823 
Herrick  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 

Minn.  11,  968,  1023,  2132 

Herries  v.  Platt,  21  Hun  (N.  Y.)  132,  267 

Herriman  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Iowa  187,  930, 1031 

Herring  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105 

N.  Y.  340,  677,  678,  687 

Herring  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Iredell  L.  402,  1787, 1942, 1969 

Herron  v.  Vance,  17  Ind.  595,  158,  863,  867 

Hersey  .v.  Tally,  (Colo.)  44  Pac.  R.  854,          19 
Hersey  v.  Veazie,  24  Me.  9,  240 

Hersfield  v.  Adams,  19  Barb.  577,  2178 

Hersh  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Pa.  St. 
.  181,  2285 

Hershey  v.  O'Neill,  36  Fed.  R.  136,  1992 

Herstine  v.  Lehigh  Valley,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151 

Pa.  St.  244,  2596,2598 

Hervey  v.  Illinois  Midland  Ry.  Co.,  28  Fed. 

R.  169,  629,  641,  658,  704,  706,  778,  840,  844 

Hervey  v.  Rhode  Island,  etc.,  Works,  93 

U.  S.  664,  644,  659,  819 

Herj  ford  v.  Davis,  102  U.  S.  235,  644,  659 

Heskett  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Iowa 

467,  1840 

Hess  v.  Lowrey,  122  Ind.  225,  2713 

Hess  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Mo.  App. 

202,  2344 

Hess  v.  Werts,  4  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  356,          267 
Hessler  v.  Drainage  Com.,  53  111.  105,          1470 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-HS62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-Z161,,  VoL  IV,  pp.  S165-27H5.} 


Hester  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  32 

Miss.  378,  70 

Hestonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Phila- 
delphia, 89  Pa.  St.  210,  5,  9, 1288 
Hetfield  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  29  N.  J.  L.  571, 

1324 

Hetherington  v.  Hayden,  11  Iowa  335,  629 
Heucke  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

Wis.  401,  1645,  1796 

Heugh  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5 

Exch.  50,  2365,  2378,  2383 

Hewett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,R.  Co.,  63  Iowa  . 

611,  2209,  2292,  2354 

Hewett  v.  Commissioners,  85  Me.  308,  1418 
Hewitt  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Mich.  61, 

2006,  2031,  2034,  2290 

Hewitt  v.  Dean,  91  Cal.  5,  665 

Hewitt  v.  Powers,  84  Ind.  295,  2393 

Hewitt  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Minn. 

226,  1282 

Hewlins  v.  Shippam,  5  B.  &  C.  221,  1324 

Hexamer  v.  Webb,  101  N.  Y.  377,  1588 

Heyl  v.  Inman,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Hun  564,  2267 

Heymann  v.  European,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

7  Eq.  154,  190,  199 

Heyneman  v.  Blake,  19  Cal.  579,  1388 

Hezel,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5  Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  57,  2669,  2674 

Hezel  Milling  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

3  Interstate  Com.  R.  701,  2436 

Hiatt  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

64  N.  W.  R.  766,  2590 

Hibbard  v.  Foster,  24  Vt.  542;  1529 

Hibbard  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  N.Y. 

455,  282,  283,  302,  2461,  2487 

Hibberd  v.  Smith,  50  Cal.  511,  688 

Hibbs  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Iowa 

340,  1485,  1536,  1549 

Hibernia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  DeCamp,  47  N.  J. 

L.  518,  1271,  1388 

Hibernia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harrison,  93  Pa. 

St.  264,  277 

Hibernia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Trans- 
portation Co.,  120  U.  S.  166,  2265 
Hibernia  T.  Cor.  v.  Henderson,  8  Serg.  & 

R.  (Pa.)  219,  160 

Hibler  v.  McCartney,  31  Ala.  501,  2265,  2358 
Hichens  v.  Congreve,  1  Russ.  &  M.  150,  17 
Hick  v.  Rodocanachi,  L.  R.  (1891)  2  Q.  B. 

626,  2270 

Hickey  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Allen 

429,  1741,  2072,  2547,  2556,  2560,  2595 

Hickey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Bradw. 

(111.)  172,  1611 

Hickey  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn.) 

61  N.  W.  R.  893,  1648 


Hickman  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mo. 

*33.  2544 

Hickok  v.  Hine,  23  Ohio  St.  523, 

108, 130,  252,  260,  261,  1374, 1376,  1377 
Hickory  Farm,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Buffalo,  etc. 

R.  Co.,  32  Fed.  R.  22,  538,  543 

Hickox  v  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Mich. 

615,  1312 

Hickox  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Mich. 

237,  1288,  1289 

Hickox  v.  Naugatuck,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 

Conn.  281,  2191,  2608,  2622 

Hicks  v.  Burns,  38  N .  H.  141,  269 

Hicks  v.  Citizens',  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  Mo.  115, 

1648 
Hicks  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Mo.  329, 

2703 
Hicks  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Mo.  App. 

304,  1767 

Hicks  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  164  Mass. 

424,  2126 

Hicks  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Mo.  34, 

1766,2069 

Hidden  v.  Davisson,  51  Cal.  138,  1490 

Hiel  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mo.  App. 

363,  2329 

Hiern  v.  Mill,  13  Yes.  114,  322 

Hieskell  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank,  89  Pa. 

St.  155,  2217 

Higbee  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  N.  J. 

Eq.  276,  1629 

Higby  v.  People,  5  111.  165,  1027 

Higginbotham  v.  Great  Northern,    etc., 

R.  Co.,  2  F.  &  F.  796,  2301 

Higgins,  In  re,  27  Fed.  R.  443,  809,  911 

Higgins  v.  Ausmuss,  77  Mo.  351,  1113 

Higgins  V.  Butcher,  Yelverton  89,  2125 

Higgins  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  Mass. 

176,  1023,  2132,  2134 

Higgins  v.  Flemington  Water  Co.,  36  N.  J. 

Eq.  538,  1546 

Higgins  v.  Hopkins,  3  Exch.  163  19 

Higgins  v.  Lansingh,  154  111.  301, 

119, 167,  239,  363 
Higgins  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Mo. 

App.  547,  2091 

Higgins  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

La.  Ann.  133,  2319 

Higgins   v.    United    States,    etc.,  Co.,  3 

Blatchf.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  282,  2358 

Higgins  v.  Watervliet,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  N.Y. 

23,  282,304 

High  Bridge,  etc.,  Co.  v.  United  States, 

69  Fed.  R.  320,  1415 

Highland  Ave.,etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Birmingham 

Union  R.  Co.,  93  Ala.  S05,  90S 


ccxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.II,pp.W-l~'K,  Vol. 

Highland  Ave.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burt,  92  Ala. 

291,  2547 

Highland  Ave.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Donovan, 

94  Ala.  299,  2557 

Highland  Ave.,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Maddox,  100 

Ala.  618,  1782 

Highland  Ave.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walters,  91 

Ala.  435,  296,  2113 

Highland  Ave.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winn,  93 

Ala.  306,  1955 

Higley  v.  Gilmer,  3  Mont.  90,  2560 

Hightower  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67 

Mo.  726,  1910 

Hightower  v.  Thornton,  8  Ga.  486, 

111,  215,  565, 869 

Hildreth  v.  Lowell,  11  Gray  (Mass.)  345,  1479 
Hildreth  v.  Mclntire,  1  J.  J.  Marsh.  (Ky.) 

206,  343 

Hiles  v.  Moore,  15  Beav.  175,  757 

Hill  v.  Allison,  etc.,  Co.,  (So.  Dak.)  60  N. 

W.  R.  752,  1608 

Hill  v.  Atoka,  etc.,  Co.,  (Mo.  Sup.)  21  S. 

W.  R.  508,  141,  421 

Hill  v.  Barclay,  16  Ves.  402,  1313 

Hill  v.  Beach,  12  N.  J.  Eq.  31,  271,  877 

Hill  v.  Birmingham  Union  R.  Co.,  100  Ala. 

447,  2558 

Hill  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  Mass.  284, 

2327,  2331,  2335,  2337,  2603 
Hill  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Iowa 

196;  2228,  2229,  2233,  2242,  2429 

Hill  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  La.  Ann. 

599,  1634 

Hill  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  U.  S.  52, 

s.  c.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  690,  690 

Hill  v.  City  of  Memphis,  134  U.  S.  198, 

1148, 1167,  1222 

Hill  v.  City  of  Memphis,  23  Fed.  R.  872,  1148 
•Pill  v.  Commissioners,  67  N.  C.  368,  1140 

Hill  v.  Fogg,  41  Mo.  563,  859 

Hill  v.  Frazier,  22  Pa.  St.  320,  437,  438 

Hill  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  S.  Car. 

461,  2699 

Hill  v.  Glasgow  R.  Co.,  (C.  C.  D.  Ky.)  41 

Fed.  R.  610,  67,  242 

Hill  v.  Glendon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  N.  C. 

259,  1498 

Hill  v.  Gould,  (Mo.)  30  S.  W.  R.  181,  20 

Hill  v.  Higdon,  5  Ohio  St.  243,  1151,  1331 

Hill  v.  Humphreys,  5  Watts  &  S.(Pa.)  123, 

2351,  2375 

Hill  v.  LaCrosse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Wis.  291,  892 
Hill  v.  LaCrosse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Wis.  214,  1599 
Hill  v.  Leadbetter,  42  Me.  572,  2420 

Hill  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  823,  1025 


c   lu   .£  uytro.  J 

ITT,  pp.  126S-216!,,  Vol.  TV,  pp.  1165-3725.] 

Hill  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  Co.,  5  B.  &  Ad. 

866,  24T 

Hill  v.  Memphis,  134  U.  S.  198, 

1216,  1232,  1233 
Hill  v.  Merchants'  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  134  U.  S. 

515,  66- 

Hill  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  121  Mo.  477,  180* 
Hill  v.  Mohawk  R.  Co.,  7  N.  Y.  152, 

1383, 1417,  1448,  1530 

Hill  v.  New  Haven,  37  Vt.  501,  2143 

Hill  v.  Newichawanick  Co.,  71  X.  Y.  593,  419 
Hill  v.  Nisbet,  100  Ind.  341, 

142,  207,  220,  225,  245,  348,  379,  446,  726 
Hill  v.  Peekskill  Sav.  Bank,  46  Hun  180,  1221 
Hill  v.  Pine  River  Bank,  45  N.  H.  300, 

136, 148,  150 
Hill  v.  Pioneer  Lumber  Co.,  113  N.  Car. 

173,  855 

Hill  v.  Portland  R.  Co.,  55  Me.  438, 

1797, 1987 
Hill  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  So.  Car. 

393,  1796 

Hill  v.  Probst,  120  Ind.  528,  1208 

Hill  v.  Salem,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Rob.(Va.)  263,  1552 
Hill  v.  Scotland  County,  32  Fed.  R.  716,  1258 
Hill  v.  South  Staffordshire  R.  Co.,  11  Jur. 

N.  S.  192,  1576 

Hill  v.  Spencer,  61  N.  Y.  274,  267 

Hill  v.  Sturgeon,  28  Mo.  323,  2264,  2343 

Hill  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  N.  Y.  101, 

2496,  2499 
Hill  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  N.  Y.  351, 

2320,2324 
Hill  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Vt.  68, 

544,  1302 
Hilles  v.  Parrish,  14  N.  J.  Eq.  380, 

236,  250,  363,  912 
Hilliard  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Iowa 

442,  1815,  1817,  1839 

Hilliard  v.  Goold,  34  N.  H.  230,  283,  323. 

Hillis  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa  228, 

2535,  2538,  2541,  2609,  2621 
Hill  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc., 

Railroad,  104  Mass.  122, 

2226,  2228,  2230,  2239,  2243 

Hills  V.  Mackill,  36  Fed.  R.  702,  2301 

Hills  v.  Parker,  111  Mass.  508,  803 

Hills  v.  Peekskill,  etc.,  Bank,  101  N.  Y. 

490,  1243,  1245 

Hills  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Fed. 

R.  81,  929,  941 

Hilltown  Road,  18  Pa.  St.  233,  1472 

Hilton  v.  Mason,  92  Ind.  157,  1194 

Hilton  v.  St.  Louis,  99  Mo.  199,  1449 

Hilts  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Mich.  437,  300 
Hilz  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Mo. 

36,  1748 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXX1 


[References  are  to  1'ayes.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 


Hinchman  v.  Lincoln,  124  U.  S.  38,  133 

Hinchman  v.  Patterson  Horse  R.  Co.,  17 

N.  J.  Eii.  T5,  1635 

Hinchman  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.,  160 
*   Pa.  St.  150,  74,83,84,88 

Hinckley  v.  Cape  Cod  K.  Co.,  120  Mass. 

257,  1764, 1771,  2117,  2718,  2721 

Hinckley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Wis. 

194,  2581 

Hinckley  v.  Oilman,  etc.,  Co.,  100  U.  S. 

153,  773, 828 

Hinckley  v.  Oilman,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  94  U.  S. 

467,  690, 823 

Hinckley  v.  Merchants'  Nat.  Bank,  131 

Mass.  147,  629 

Hinckley  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

N.  Y.  429,  2209,  2210,  2238,  2249 

Hinckley  v.  Pfister,  83  Wis.  64,  241,  864 

Hindman  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Co.,  17  Ore.  614, 

1809,1863 
Hindman  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Ore. 

619,  1860 

Hindoustan,  The,  67  Fed.  R.  794,  2348 

Hine  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Iowa  636,  1612 
Hine  v.  New  Haven,  40  Conn.  478,  1331 

Hine  v.  New  York,  etc.,R.Co.,36  Hun  293,  1521 
Hiner  v.  Fon  du  Lac,  71  Wis.  74,  1797 

Hines  v.  Darling,  99  Mich.  47,  1030 

Hines  v.  Leavenworth,  3  Kan.  186,  1100, 1102 
Hiiies  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. ,  86  Mo.  629,  1883 
Hines  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Hun 

239,  2004 

Hines  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  N. 

Car.  434,  1033,  2675 

Hingham,  etc.,  Co.  v.  County  of  Norfolk, 

6  Allen  (Mass.)  353, 

1151, 1341,  1383,  1389,  1526 
Hicken  v.  Iowa  Central  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  66 

N.  W.  R.  882,  1772 

Hinkle  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  N. 

Car.  472,  1567, 1678, 1749,  1759 

Hinkle  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

Cal.  627,  1580 

Hinsdeil  v.  Weed,  5  Denio  (N.  Y.)  172,  2422 
Hin^haw  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Car.) 

24  S.  E.  R.  426,  2548 

Hinson  v.  Lott,  8  Wall.  148,  2643 

Hinton  v.  Dibbin,  2  Q.  B.  646,  2517 

Hinz  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Wis.)  66 

N.  W.  R.  718,  2048 

Hior  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  4  Ex. 

Div.  188,  2363 

Hirsch  v.  City  of  Buffalo,  107  N.  Y.  671,  1797 
Hirschman  v.  Iron  Range,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

97  Mich.  384,  295,  298 

Hiscock  v.  Lacy,  30  N.  Y.  Supp.  860,  431 


Hiss  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  52  Md. 

242,  1635 

Hissong  v.   Richmond,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  91 

Ala.  514,  2118,  2124 

Hitch  v.  Hawley,  132  N.  Y.  212,  864 

Hitchcock  v.  Danbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

Conn.  516,  1551 

Hitchcock  v.  Galveston,  96  U.  S.  341,  324,  507 
Hitchings  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Trans.  Co.,  68 

Hun(N.  Y.)33,  488 

Hite  v.  Hite,  93  Ky.  257,  422, 425 

Hite's  Executors  v.  Hite's  Devisees,  2  Ry. 

&  Corp.  L.  J.  (Ky.)  568,  422 

Hitte  v.  Republican,  etc.,  Railroad  Co., 

19  Neb.  620,  1592 

Hittinger  v.  Westford,  135  Mass.  258,  2109 
Hixon  v.  Oneida  County,  82  Wis.  515,  1070 
Hoadley  v.  County  Commissioners,  105 

Mass.  519,  22 

Hoadley  v.  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  115  Mass. 

304,  2066,  2201,  2266,  2307,  2319,  2329 

Hoag  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Pa. 

St.  293,  2065,  2467 

Hoag  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  Y. 

199,  1791 

Hoagland  v.  Bell,  36  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  57,  162 

Hoagland  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

Ind.  452,  25 

Hoagland  v.  Hannibal  <fe  St.  Joseph  R. 

Co.,  39  Mo.  451,  508,  511 

Hoar  v.  Maine  Central  Co.,  70  Me.  65, 

312,  1961,  2448,  2555,  2561 
Hoard  v.  Chesapeake  &  O.  Ry.,  123  U.  S. 

222,  449,  704, 1282,  1299, 1310 

Hoare  v.  Great  Western  R.,  37  L.  T.  R. 

(N.  S.)  186,  2359 

Hoare  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  25  W.  R. 

631,  2695 

Hobart  v.  Ford,  6  Nev.  77,  1374 

Hobart  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis. 

194,  1629,  1635,  1638 

Hobart  v.  Supervisors,  17  Cal.  23,  1147,  1335 
Hobbs  v.  Hatch,  48  Me.  55,  1529 

Hobbs  v.  McLean,  117  U.  S.  567,  671 

Hobbs  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  111.  273,  2554 
Hobbs  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Ark.  357, 

2465,  2573 
Hobson  v.  New  Mexico,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ariz.) 

11  Pac.  R.  545,  2076 

Hochester  v.  De  La  Tour,  2  El.  &  Bl.  678,  1584 
Hockstadter  v.  Harrison,  71  Ga.  21,  932 

Hockett  v.  State,  105  Ind.  250,  4,  916,  956 

Hocum  v.  Weitherick,  22  Minn.  152,  2069 

Hodder  v.  Kentucky,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  7  Fed. 

R.  793,  631,  345,  640,  641 

Hodgdon  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 

Wis.  81.  2370 


CCXX11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Reference.-!  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  463-1262,  TW. 

Hodge  v.  Lehigh  Val.  R.  Co.,  39  Fed.  449, 

1564, 1565 

Hodge  v.  State,  82  Ga.  643,  1049 

Hodge's  Appeal,  84  Pa.  St.  359,  706 

Hodgerson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (111.) 

43  N.  E.  R.  614,  50 

Hodges  v.  Baltimore  U.  P.  R.  Co.,  58  Md. 

603,  74,  82,  1176 

Hodges  v.  New  England,  etc.,  Co.,  1  R.  I. 

312,  348, 382 

Hodges  v.  New  England  Co.,  3  R.  I.  9,         384 
Hodges  v.  Percival,  132  111.  53,  1796,  2117 

Hodges  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Vt.  220, 

370,  371,  372,  380 
Hodges  v.  Silver  Hill  Min.  Co.,  9  Ore.  200, 

261,  262,  263,  270 
Hodges  v.  Western  Un.  Tel.  Co.,  (Miss.) 

29  L.  R.  A.  770,  1621 

Hodges  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  Railroad  Co., 

105  N.  C.  170,  1027 

Hodgkins  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  Co.,  119  Mass. 

419,  2001,  2011,  2055,  2087,  2120 

Hodgkinson  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

14  Q.  B.  Div.  228,  2629 

Hodgkinson  v.  Nat'l,  etc.,  Co.,  26  Beav. 

473,  255 

Hodgman  v.  People,  4  Den.  (N.  Y.)  235,      1026 
Hodgson  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Minn. 

454,  236 

Hodnett  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  156  Mass. 

86,  2137 

Hoeger  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Wis. 

100,  2612,  2616,  2617,  2628 

Hoehn  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  152  111.  223, 

2555 

Hoen  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mo.  561,      883 
Hoff  v.  Jasper  County,  110  U.  S.  53,  1250 

Hoff  v.  West  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  J. 

Law  201,  1895, 1898 

Hoffbauer  v.  Davenport  Railway  Co.,  52 

Iowa  342,  288,  2018,  2574,  2575 

Hoffe  v.  Hoffe,  104  Cal.  94,  677 

Hoffnagle  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

N.  Y.  608,  2065 

Hoffman  v.  Bloomsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  157 

Pa.  St.  174,  164 

Hoffman  v.  Bloomsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143 

Pa.  St.  503,'  1525 

Hoffman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Minn. 

60,  1925 

Hoffman  v.  Knox,  50  Fed.  R.  484,  689 

Hoffman  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  N.Y. 

25,  1962, 2577 

Hoffman  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  J. 

&  S.  (N.  Y.)  1,  2716 


III,  pp.  1263-SlBl,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Hoffman  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75 

N.  Y.  605,  2589 

Hoffman  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  45  Minn. 

53,  2495, 2499 

Hoffman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cumberland,  etc., 

Co.,  16  Md.  456,  320 

Hofnagle  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

N.  Y.  688,  2079 

Hogan  v.  Kentucky  Union  R.  Co.,  (Ky.) 

21  S.  W.  R.  242,  1566 

Hogan  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  (N.  Y.)  43 

N.  E.  R.  403,  1984 

Hogan  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  53  Fed. 

R.  519,  2058 

Hogan  v.  Page,  2  Wall.  605,  552 

Hogan  v.  Tyler,  90  Va.  19,  1784 

Hoge  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  99  U.  S.  348,  1089 
Hogencamp  v.  Paterson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

N.  J.  Eq.  83,  1638 

Hogue  v.  Capital,  etc.,  Bank,  (Neb.)  66 

N.  W.  R.  1036,  30 

Hogue  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Fed.  R. 

365,  2153 

Hohl  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn.)  63 

N.  W.  R.  742,  1856 

Hohorst,  In  re,  150  U.  S.  653,  884 

Hoke  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Ga.  215, 

897, 1393 

Hoke  v.  Henderson,  4  Dev.  (N.  C.)  1,  965 

Holbert  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Iowa 

23,  1348 

Holbrook  v.  Ives,  44  Ohio  St.  516,  1608 

Holbrook  v.  New  Jersey  Zinc  Co.,  57  N.  Y. 

616,  144 

Holbrook  v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y. 

236,  2563,  2596,  2598 

Holbrook  v.  Wight,  24  Wend.  169,  2215 

Holcombe  v.  Holcombe,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  413,  825 
Holden  v.  Gilbert,  7  Paige  (N.  Y.)  208,  716 
Holden  v.  Hoyt,  134  Mass.  181,  364 

Holden  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.,  3  C.  B.  1,  2069 
Holden  v.  Phelps,  141  Mass.  456,  400 

Holdeu  v.  Putnam,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  46  N.  Y. 

1,  936 

Holden  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  Co.,  30  Vt.  297,  1808 
Holder  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Lea 

(Tonn.)  176,  -  1859 

Holder  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  111. 

106,  372 

Holder  v.  Railroad,  92  Tenn.  141,  2148 

Hole  v.  Settingbourne  R.  Co.,  6  H.  &  N. 

488,  1589, 1820 

Holgate  v.  Oregon  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  16  Ore. 

123,  883 

Holladay  v.  Davis,  5  Ore.  40,  376 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXX111 


[References  are  to 


I l\,rjKi  c/tcea   u-7  e  tw   jruyex.  j 

[  FoZ.  7,  pp.  J--W2,  FbZ.  77.  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  126S-21P1,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.} 

.11 3 TT'li:^.*.*-      O    C\~^       Qt  1fi9  TTrf-*l  wvn-vc.    TT      SZLn  •*.*-«  n  n  ..          IJ.,,,1.       OT    T>~.        O*. 


HoUaday  v.  EUiott,  8  Ore.  84,  162 

Holladay  v.  Kennard,  12  Wall.  254,  2269,  2475 
HoUaday  v.  Patterson,  5  Ore.  177, 

4,  376,  528,  529,  530,  1279, 1309 
Holland  v.  Cheshire  R.  Co.,  151  Mass.  231, 

120,  724,  1007,  1012 
Holland  v.  Festiniog,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Nev. 

&  McN.  278,  2669 

Holland  v.  Heyman,  60  Ga.  174,  268 

Holland  v.  Leslie,  2  Harr.  (Del.)  306,  887 

Holland  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  Cal. 

240,  2047 

HoUand  v.  Sparks,  92  Ga.  753,  1985,  2135 

Holland,  The  Robert,  59  Fed.  R.  200,  2129 

Holland  v.  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Ala. 

444,  2014,  2023,  2025,  2144 

Hollenbeck  v.  Berkshire  R.  Co.,  9  Cush. 

478,  2129, 2131 

Hollenbeck  v.  Donnell,  94  N.  Y.  342,  734 

Hollinger  v.  Canadian,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Ont.  App.  244,  1800 

Hollingshead  v.  Woodward,  35  Hun  410,  107 
Hollingsworth  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  63  Iowa  443,  1437 

Hollins  v.  Brierfield,  etc.,  Co.,  150  TJ.  S. 

371,  165,  677,  850 

Hollins  v.  Demorest,  129  N.  Y.  676,  1449 

Hollins  v.  St.  Paul  M.  &  M.  R.  Co.,  29 

N.  Y.  S.  R.  208,  115,  242,  725 

Hollister  v.  Hollister  Bank,  2  Keyes 

(N.  Y.)  245  1011,  2131 

Hollister  v.  Nowlen,  19  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  234, 

2208,  2263,  2315,  2316 

Hollister  v.  Stewart,  111  N.  Y.  644, 

656,  663,  684,  722 

Holloway  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92 

Ky.  2444,  1328 

Holloway  v.  Memphis  R.  Co.,  23  Tex.  465,  873 
Holly  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Ga.  215, 

2179,2585 
HoUy  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Gray 

(Mass.)  123,  1981 

Hollyman  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Mo. 

480,  1884 

Holman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Mo. 

562,  1857 

Holman  v.  State,  105  Ind.  569,  27,  78, 129,  169 
Holmes,  Ex  parte,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  426,  229 
Holmes  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  N.  Y. 

S.  R.  743,  1979 

Holmes  v.  Bailey,  92  Pa.  St.  57,  2215 

Holmes  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Ga.  598, 

1732, 1986 

Holmes  v.  Drew.  151  Mass.  578,  1951 

Holmes  v.  Eastern  Counties,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

3  K.  &  J.  675,  540,  1297 


Holmes  v.  German,  etc.,  Bank,  87  Pa.  St. 

525,  2218 

Holmes  v.  Gilliland,  41  Barb.  {N.  Y.)  568, 

27,272 
Holmes  v.  Holmes,  etc.,  Man.  Co.,  37  Conn. 

278,  54 

Holmes  v.  Jannispi,  14  Pet.  (U.  S.)  540,       930 
Holmes  v.  Northeastern  Railroad  Co.,  L. 

R.  4  Exch.  255,  1952,  2061,  2459 

Holmes  v.  Sherwood,  16  Fed.  R.  725,  261 

Holmes  v.  Sherwood,  3  McCrary  405,     263,  797 
Holmes  v.  Tutton,  5  El.  &  B.  65,  890 

Holmes  v.  Wakefleld,  12  Allen  (Mass.)  580,  2575 
Holmes,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Holmes,  etc.,  Co.,  127 

N.  Y.  252,  348,  861 

Holroyd  v.  Marshall,  10  H.  L.  C.  191,  661 

Holsapple  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  N.  Y. 

275,  2328,  2402,  2696,  2698 

Holston  v.  Coal  &  Iron  Co.,  95  Tenn.  521,    2126 
Holt  v.  Bennett,  146  Mass.  437,  856 

Holt  v.  Somerville,  127  Mass.  408,  544, 1302, 1480 
Holt  v.  Spokane,  etc.,  Co.,  (Idaho)35Pac. 

R.  39,  307 

Holt  v.  Westcott,  43  Me.  445,  2423 

Holt  v.  Winfleld  Bank,  25  Fed.  R.  812,          156 
Holton  v.  Daly,  106  111.  131,          n  2145 

Holton  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Wis. 

27,  1424 

Holum  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Wis. 

299,  2074 

Holyoke,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Connecticut  River 

Co.,  22  Blatch.  (U.  S.)  131,  1546 

Holyoke,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lyman,  15  Wall.  500,    1089 
Holzab  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  La. 

Ann.  185,  1798 

Home,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Ore.  569,  1914,  1916 

Home,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Roanoke,  (Va.)  27  L.  R. 

A.  551,  1640 

Home,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  19  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  214,  945,  946 

Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Augusta,  93  U.  S.  116,      1097 
Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.,  93 

U.  S.  527,  2333 

Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Morse,  20  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

445,  34 

Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  New  York,  134TT.  S.  594, 

1059,  1085, 1095 
Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Western  Transp.  Co.,  4 

Rob.  (N.  Y.)  257,  2335 

Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Western  Transp.  Co.,  51 

N.  Y.  93,  2376 

Home  of  Friendless  v.  Rouse,  8  Wall.  430, 

1063,1087 

Homersham  v.  Wolverhampton  Water- 
Works,  6  Excbq.  137,  356 


ccxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  «65-*7«5.] 


Homertake,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fullerton,  69  Fed. 

R.  923,  2011,  2039 

Homesly  v.  Elias,  66  N.  Car.  330,  2359 

Homuth  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129 

Mo.  629,  2150 

Honenstine  v.  Vaughn,  7  Blkf^(Ind.)520,    1528 
Honey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,R.  Co.,  59  Fed.  R. 

423,  1792 

Honeyman  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Ore. 

352,  2173,  2281,  2609 

Hood  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  29  Fed.  R.  55,       758 
Hood  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  20  U.  Can. 

C.  P.  361,  2340 

Hood  v.  McNaughton,  54  N.  J.  Law  425,      256 
Hood  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Conn.  1, 

58,  2226,  2228,  2243,  2493,  2494 
Hood  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Conn. 

502,  2228,  2494 

Hood  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Ch. 

525,  1297 

Hood  v.  Northeastern  Co.,  L.  R.  8  Eq. 

666,  913 

Hoodless  v.  Reid,  112  111.  105,  667 

Hook  v.  Bosworth,  64  Fed.  R.  443,  784 

Hook  v.  Worcester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  N.  H. 

251,  1846, 1865 

Hooker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  76  Wis.  542,    308 
Hooker  v.  Montpelier,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Vt. 

47,  1514 

Hooker  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

Conn.  146,  1399,  1456,  1560 

Hooker  v.  Vandewater,  4  Denio  349,      500,  525 
Hooks  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Miss.)  18 

So.  R.  925,  2549 

Hookset  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  N.  H. 

242,  1891, 1894,  1909 

Hoole  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  3Ch. 

262,  118,  430,  431 

Hooper  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis. 

81,  2176,  2370,  2695 

Hooper  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Ala. 

213,  1541 

Hooper  v.  Cummings,  45  Me.  359,  131* 

Hooper  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  L.  J. 

C.  B.  Div.  103,  2626 

Hooper  v.  Wells,  27  Cal.  11,  2264 

Hooper  v.  Winston,  24  111.  353,  822 

Hoosier  Stone  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  131  Ind.  575,  2295 

Hoover  v.  Beech  Creek,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  154 

Pa.  St.  362,  2086 

Hoover  v.  Montclair,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  N.  J. 

Eq.  4,  818,  839 

Hoover  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  156  Pa.  St. 

220,  2286,  2433 

Hoover  v.  Wise,  91  U.  S.  308,  368 


Hoover  Stone  Co.  v.  McCain,  133  Ind.  231, 

2084 

Hope  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Va.  283,  1295 
Hope  v.  Valley  City  Salt  Co.,  25  W.  Va. 

789,  726 

Hope,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Beckmann,  47  Mo.  93,  349 
Hope  Mining  Co.  v.  Kennon,  3  Mont.  35,  1068 
Hope  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  2  Robt. 

(N.  Y.)  278,  797 

Hopkins  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  H. 

9,  1525 

Hopkins  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.Co.,  6  Mackey 

311,  1613 

Hopkins  v.  Kansas  Pacific  R.  Co.,  18  Kan. 

462,  1864 

Hopkins  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tenn.) 

34  S.  W.  R.  1029,  2722 

Hopkins  v.  Roseclare  Lead  Co.,  72  111.  373, 

232,  244,  859 
Hopkins  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Dill. 

(U.  S.)  396,  703 

Hopkins  v.  Westcott,  6  Blatch.  (C.  C.)  64, 

2208,  2263,  2607,  2608,  2633 
Hopkins  v.  Worcester,  etc.,  Canal  Prop., 

L.  R.  6  Eq.  437,  732,  744,  754 

Hoppensack  v.  Hoppensack,  61  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  498,  824 

Hopper  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Iowa 

639,  2425 

Hopper  v.  Covington,  8  Fed.  R.  777,  1236 

Hopper  v.  Sage,  112  N.  Y.  530,  418,  420 

Hoppin  v.  Buffum,  9  R.  I.  513,  135,  227,  229 
Hopple  v.  Hippie,  33  Ohio  St.  116,  1217 

Hopson  v.  JStna,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Conn.  597, 

347,856, 
Hord  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Swan 

(Tenn.)  497,  1556 

Horn  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  35  N.  H.  169, 

958,  967,  1622 
Horn  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Fed.  R. 

301,  1746,  1756, 1769,  1771,  1778,  2070,  2720 

Horn  v.  Bennett,  135  Ind.  158,  675 

Horn  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Wis.  463, 

971,  1044 
Horn  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Bank,  21  Am. 

St.  R.  231,  715 

Horn  v.  Indianapolis  Nat.  Bank,  125  Ind. 

381,  717 

Hornback  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Ohio  St.  81,  1313 

Hornblower  v.  Crandall,  7  Mo.  App.  220,  20 
Hornblower  v.  Crandall,  78  Mo.  581,  386 

Home  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  H. 

440,  1727 

Home  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  R. 

50,  39 

Home  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  N.  H.  454,  471 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXV 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I.  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1 


1692 


Hornellsville.etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  New  York, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  N.  Y.  Supp.  745, 
Homer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Wis. 

165,  1307, 1314 

Homer  v.  Lawrence,  37  N.  J.  L.  46,  326 

Homer  v.  United  States,  143  U.  S.  207,       2688 
Homer  v.  Williams,  100  N.  Car.  230,  1865 

Hornthal  v.  Roanoke,  etc.,  Co.,  107  N.  C. 

76,  2248 

Hornsby  v.  Eddy,  56  Fed.  R.  461,  2108 

Born  Silver  Mining  Co.  v.  New  York,  143 

U.  S.  305,  36, 1080 

Horn  Silver  Mining  Co.  v.  Ryan,  42  Minn. 

196,  384, 385 

Hornstein  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Pa. 

St.  87,  1426, 1436 

Horseman  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  31  U.  C. 

Q.  B.  535,  2206 

Horton  v.  Horton,  83  Hun  213,  2703 

Horton  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

12  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  30,  1541 

Horton  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mo. 

541,  »  1880 

Horton  v.  Thompson,  71  N.  Y.  513, 

1150, 1173, 1191,  1198, 1201,  1218,  1231,  1245 
Horton  v.  Wilder,  48  Kan.  2222,  337,  339 

Hortsman  v.  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  B. 

Mon.  (Ky.)  218,         1301,  1302.  1400,  1406, 1566 
Hosack  v.  College,  etc.,  5  Wend.  547,  334 

Hosford  v.  Johnson,  74  Ind.  479,  679 

Hosher  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 

Mo.  329,  1324, 1520 

Hoskison  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  66 

Vt.  618,  1939, 1940 

Hosmer  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  156  Mass. 

506,  2319,  2514,  2602,  2603 

Hospes  v.  Car  Co.,  48  Minn.  174,  855 

Hospes  v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.,  48 

Minn.  174,  107,  131,  252 

Hostetter  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Pa.) 

11  Atl.  Rep.  609,  2210 

Hostetter  v.  City  of  Pittsburgh,  107  Pa. 

St.  419,  1574, 1575 

Hotchin  v.  Kent,  8  Mich.  526,  296,  324 

Hotchkiss  v.  Artizans'  Bank,  2  Abb.  App. 

Dec.  (N.  Y.)  403,  2385 

Hotchkiss  v.  Auburn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  600,  1371,  1492 

Hotchkiss  v.  National  Banks,  21  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  354,  626 

Hotchkiss,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Union,  etc.,  Bank, 

68  Fed.  R.  76,  399 

Hotel  Co.  v.  Wade,  97  U.  S.  13,  378,  669,  670,  855 
Hotham  v.  East  India  Co.,  1  T.  R.  638,  1306 
Hotel  Runners'  Com.  v.  Power,  7  Mete. 

(Mass.)  596,  285 

CORP. — xv 


Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Hot  Springs,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dial,  58  Ark. 

318,  1963 

Hot  Springs,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hudgins,  42 

Ark.  485,  2700 

Hot  Springs,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trippe,  42 

Ark.  465,  2231,  2243,  2244 

Hot  Springs  R.  Co.  v.  Tyler,  36  Ark.  205,    1492 
Hot  Springs  R.  Co.  v.  Williamson,  136 

U.  S.  121,  1411,  1633 

Hottenstein  v.  Conrad,  9  Kan.  435,        776,  779 
Houck  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Fed. 

R.226,  2644 

Houck  v.  Wachter,  34  Md.  265,  1631 

Houfe  v.  Fulton,  29  Wis.  296,  1790 

Hougan  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 

Iowa  558,  1358, 1406, 1564 

Hough,  Ex  parts.  69  Fed.  R.  330,  2637 

Hough  v.  Buchanan,  27  Fed.  R.  328,  1133 

Hough  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  U.  S.  213, 

2086 
Hough  v.  Railway  Co.,  100  U.  S.  213, 

287,  2010,  2016,  2039.  2069,  2078 
Hough  v.  Rawson,  17  111.  588,  588 

Houghkirk  v.  President,  etc.,  of  Canal 

Co.,  92  N.  Y.  219,  1752 

Houghtaling  v.  Lewis,  10  Johns.  297,  562 

Houghton,  Appeal  of,  42  Cal.  35,  1552 

Houghton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99 

Mich.  308,  1777 

HounseU  v.  Smyth,  7  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  731, 

1741, 1950 
Housatonic  Bank  v.  Martin,  42  Mass. 

(1  Mete.)  294,  321 

Housatonic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knowles,  30 

Conn.  313,  1804 

Housatonic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  118  Mass.  391, 

57,  61,  907, 1275, 1374, 1378, 1392,  1393, 1395, 1664 
House  v.  House,  10  Paige  Ch.  158,  536 

House  v.  Rochester,  15  Barb.  517,  1470 

Houser  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Iowa 

230,  2091, 2114 

Houston  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Tex. 

548,  1615, 1620, 1621 

Houston  v.  Jefferson  College,  63  Pa.  St. 

428,  235, 861 

Houston  v.  Laffee,  46  N.  H.  505,  1324 

Houston  v.  People,  55  111.  398,  1262 

Houston  v.  Vicksburg  Railroad  Co.,  39 

La.  Ann.  796,  1768,  2477 

Houston  v.  Walcott,  7  Iowa  173,  890 

Houston  v.  Williams,  13  Cal.  24,  983 

Houston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Insurance  Co.,  (Tex.) 

32  S.  W.  R.  889,  2662 

Houston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Insurance,  (Tex.) 
31  S.  W.  R.  560,  2662 


CCXXV1 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-126S,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  126S-S164,  Vol.  TV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Houston,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Adams,  49  Tex. 

748,  2353,  2359,  2360,  2363,  2364,  2383 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  58  Tex. 

476,  1301 

Houston,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Adams,  63  Tex. 

200,  1441 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barrager,  (Tex.) 

14  S.  W.  R.  242,  2042 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boiling,  59  Ark. 

395,  2462, 2555 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boozer,  70  Tex. 

530,  1981 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bradley,  45  Tex. 

171,  2147 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brin,  77  Tex.  174,  1767 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burke,  55  Tex.  323,  2208 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carson,  66  Tex. 

345,  1755 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chaffin,  60  Tex. 

553,  1459 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clemmons,  55  Tex. 

88,  2463, 2560 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crawford,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  32  S.  W.  R.  155,  819,  2072 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  31  S.  W.  R.  308,  2333 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dillon,  3  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  303,  1983 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunham,  49  Tex. 

181,  1998 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Farrell,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  27  S.  W.  R.  942,  2707 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Glosson,  1  Tex. 

App.  (Civ.  Cas.)  89,  2701 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harn,  44  Tex.  628, 

2166,  2168 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harry,  63  Tex.  256,  1032 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hill,  63  Tex.  381, 

411,  497 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keller,  (Tex.)  28  S. 

W.  R.  724,  705 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  (Tex.)  34 

S.  W.  R.  809,  2053 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knapp,  51  Tex. 

592,  1519, 1521 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  69  Tex.  556,  2567 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKinney,  55  Tex. 

176,  1297 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meader,  50  Tex.  77, 

1589,1820 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Milburn,  34  Tex. 

224,  1465, 1526 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  49  Tex.  31, 

284,  2021,  2147,  2454,  2464 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Muldrow,  54  Tex. 

233,  1879, 1882 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Myers,  55 Tex.  110,  2057 


Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nixon,  52 Tex.  19,    1756 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Odum,  53  Tex.  343, 

1632,1633 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Poras,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  29  S.  W.  R.  945,  1762 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Randolph,  24  Tex. 

317,  1010 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roberts,   (Tex. 

Sup.)  19  S.  W.  R.  512,  813 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ross,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  28  S.  W.  R.  254,  2571 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rust,  58  Tex.  98. 

497,  533,  2669 
Houston,  ete.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shirley,  54 Tex.  125, 

448,  462,  469,  704,  722 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shirley,  111  U.  S. 

358,  932, 944 

Houston,  ete.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simpson,  60  Tex. 

103,  1785,  1978 

Houston,  Btc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  63  Tex.  392, 

2282,  2286,  2287,  2693 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  77  Tex.  179,  1980 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stewart,  1  Tex. 

App.  (Civ.  Cas.)  718,  2696 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sympkins,  54  Tex. 

615,  1736, 1787 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Terry,  42Tex.  451,    1851 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.    Texas,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  70  Tex.  649,  66 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trentum,  63  Tex. 

442,  1579, 1580 

Houston,  ete.,  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Alstyne,  56 

Tex.  439,  378 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Washington,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  30  S.  W.  R.  719,  2460 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.*  31  S.  W.  R.  556,  2640 

Houston,  ete.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  60  Tex. 

142,  1747 

Hovey  v.  Blanchard,  13  N.  H.  145,          321,  322 
Hovey  v.  McDonald,  109  U.  S.  150,  823 

Hovey  v.  State,  119  Ind.  386,  60 

Hovorka  v.  Minneapolis,  ete.,  R.  Co.,  31 

Minn.  221,  1821, 1845 

How  v.  Field,  5  Mass.  390,  89C 

How  v.  Jones,  60  Iowa  70,  823 

Howard  v.  Alleghany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Pa. 

St.  489,  1572,  1573, 1577 

Howard  v.  Chicago,  ete.,  R.  Co.,  61  Miss. 

194,  2484,  2497,  2503 

Howard  v.  Delaware,  ete.,  R.  Co.,  40  Fed. 

R.  195,  2049,  2126,  2137,  2153 

Howard  v.  Denver,  ete.,  R.  Co.,  26  Fed.  R. 

837,  2053 

Howard  v.  Drainage  Comrs.,  126  111.  53,     '1552 
Howard  v.  Glenn,  85  Ga.  238,  198,  261,  263 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1,1*3-1262,  Vol. 

Howard  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

Kan.  403,  1768,  1780 

Howard  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  67 

Miss.  247,  1855 

Howard  v.  Macondray,  7  Gray  (Mass.) 

516,  2447 

Howard  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Biss. 

(U.  S.)  73,  680 

Howard  v.  Palmer,  Walk.  (Mich.)  391,  811 
Howard  v.  Proprietors  of  Locks  and  Ca- 
nals, 12  Cush.  (Mass.)  259,  1463 
Howard  v.  Railway  Co.,  101  U.  S.  837,  1603 
Howard  v.  Savannah,  T.  Charlt.  (Ga.) 

173,  277 

Howard  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Minn. 

214,  1764 

Howard  v.  Tucker,  1  B.  &  Ad.  712,  1609 

Howard  v.  Union  F.  R.  Co.,  156  Mass.  159,  10 
Howard  County  v.  Booneville,  etc.,  Bank, 

108  U.  S.  314,  1224,  1270 

Howard  County  v.  Paddock,  110  U.  S.  384, 1232 
Howbeach,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Teague,  5  H.  &  N. 

151,  205 

Howe  v.  Deuel,  43  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  504,  82,  735 
Howe  v.  Finch,  17  Q.  B.  D.  187,  2105 

Howe  v.  Harding,  76  Tex.  17,  791,  817 

Howe  v.  Illinois,  etc..  Works,  46111.  App. 

85,  253 

Howe  v.  Jones,  57  Iowa  130,  774 

Howe  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  B.  Co., 

(Minn.)  64  N.  W.  R.  102,  1791 

Howe  v.  Omhart,  7  Ind.  App.  32,  1950 

Howe  v.  Oswego,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Barb. 

121,  2301 

Howe  v.  Robinson,  20  Fla.  352,  865,  869 

Howe  v.  St.  Clair,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  101,  2062 
Howe  v.  Starkweather,  17  Mass.  240,  106 

Howe  v.  Stewart,  40  Vt.  145,  2389 

Howe,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gage,  100  U.  S.  676,  1083 
Howe,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sanford,  etc.,  Co.,  44 

Fed.  R.  231,  855 

Howell  v.  Buffalo,  37  N.  Y.  267,  1151 

Howell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  51 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  378,  35,  429,  430,  437,  441 

Howell  v.  Howell,  15  Wis.  55,  2143 

Howell  v.  Manglesdorf ,  33  Kan.  194,  270 

Howell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  272,  2681,  2683 

Howell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst. 

Com.  R.  162,  272,  2681,  2682 

Howell  v.  Ripley,  10  Paige  43,  755,  770 

Howell  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  U.  S. 

463,  666,  672,  699,  716 

Howells  v.  Steel  Co.,  L.  R.  10  Q.  B.  62,  2080 
Howenstein  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Mo. 

33,  1856 

Hower  v.  Ulrich,  156  Pa.  St.  410,  1990 


777,  pp.  n6S-2161>,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S7S5.] 

Howes  v.  Davis,  4  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  71,  826 
Howes  v.  Reliance  Wire  Works  Co.,  46 

Minn.  44,  1593 

Howey  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

N.  Y.  Supp.  1089,  2040 

Howland  v.  Eldeige,  43  N.  Y.  457,  1199 

Howland  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 

Wis.  226,  2601 

Howland  v.  Myer,  3  N.  Y.  290,  394 

Howser  v.  Cumberland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Md.  146,  1984 

Hoye  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Wis.  666, 

1768,  1783 

Hoye  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Wis.  1,  1753 
Hoylake,  In  re,  L.  R.  9  Chan.  App.  C.  257,  150 
Hoyle  v.  Excelsior,  etc.,  Co.,  95  Ga.  34,  2023 
Hoyle  v.  Plattsburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  54 

N.  Y.  314,  47,  245,  377,  379,  536,  615,  726 

Hoyt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  111.  601, 

50,  2351,  2671 

Hoyt  v.  East  Saginaw,  19  Mich.  39,  1100 

Hoyt  v.  Jeffers,  30  Mich.  181,  1909 

Hoyt  v.  Kimball,  49  N.  H.  322,  1311 

Hoyt  v.  Quicksilver  Mining  Co.,  17  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  169,  119 

Hoyt  v.  Thompson,  5  N.  Y.  320, 

362,  555,  641,  798 
Hoyt  v.  Thompson,  19  N.  Y.  207, 

319,  334,  347,  352,  484,  577 

Hoyt  v.  Wright,  4  Fed.  R.  168,  947 

Hoyt  v.  Wright,  1  McCrary  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

130,  948 

Hozier  v.  Caledonian  By.  Co.,  1  Nev.  & 

MacN.  27,  2285,  2667,  2684 

Hubbard  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  162  Mass. 

132,  1763 

Hubbard  v.  Camperdown  Mills,  26  S.  Car. 

581,  509 

Hubbard  v.  GuUd,  1  Duer  (N.  Y.)  662,  782 
Hubbard  v.  Harnden  Ex.  Co.,  10  R.  I.  244, 

2168,2347 

Hubbard  v.  Harrison,  38  Ind.  323,  675 

Hubbard  v.  Kansas  City  R.  Co.,  6S  Mo.  68, 

1297, 1309,  1310 
Hubbard  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  275,  627 

Hubbard  v.  Weare,  79  Iowa  678,  431 

Hubbell  v.  Dana,  9  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  424,  803 
Hubbell  v.  Meigs,  50  N.  Y.  480,  247 

Hubbersty  v.  Ward,  8  Ex.  330,  2203,  2204,  2222 
Huber  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Dak. 

392,  1870 

Huber  v.  LaCrosse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Wis.)  66 

S.  W.  R.  708,  2468 

Hubgh  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co..  6  La. 
Ann.  495,  2125 


ccxxvin 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Huck  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  HI.  852,  593 
Huck  v.  Qaylord,  50  Tex.  578,  ^  1581 

Huckenstine's  Appeal,  70  Pa.  St.N  102,  904 

Hucker  v.  Railroad  Co.,  7  Ky.  L.  R.  761,  1732 
Huckshold  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 

Mo.  548,  1744 

Huddleston  v.  Borough  of  West  Bellvue, 

111  Pa.  St.  110,  1405 

Hudson  v.  Baxendale,  2  Hurls.  &  N.  575, 

2274,  2276 

Hudson  v.  Baxendale,  27  L.  J.  Exch.  93,  2300 
Hudson  v.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Fed. 

R.  248,  2072,  2705 

Hudson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Iowa 

581,  1796,  1997 

Hudson  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  McCrary 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  249,  ^  2499 

Hudson  v.  Leeds,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Q.  B. 

796,  1329 

Hudson  v.  McCartney,  33  Wis.  331,  1576 

Hudson  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B. 

366,  2609 

Hudson  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

60  N.  W.  R.  608,  2317,  2330,  2344,  2415 
Hudson  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  329,  2317 
Hudson  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145,  N.  Y. 

408,  2050,  2721,  2724 

Hudson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Mo. 

525,  879 

Hudson  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  101  Mo.  13,  1780 
Hudson  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  Mo. 

445,  1780 

•Hudson,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  9  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  323,  1285, 1546 
Hudson  Canal  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc., 

Co.,  8  Wall.  276,  1139,  2210,  2313 

Hudson  Real  Estate  Co.  v.  Tower,  156 

Mass.  82,  156 

Hudson  River  R.  Co.v.  Out/water,  3  Sandf. 

(N.  Y.)  689,  142,  12S3,  1343,  1503 

Hudson  River  Tel.  Co.  v.  Watervliet,  etc., 

Co.,  9  N.  Y.  Supp.  177,  1620 

Hudson  River  Tel.  Co.  v.  Watervliet,  etc., 

Co.,  1:35  N.  Y.  393,  12 

Hudson  River  Tel.  Co.  v.  Watervliet,  etc., 

Co.,  56  Hun  67,  48,  58 

Huelsenkamp  v.  Citizens',  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Mo.  537,  2467 

Huerzeler  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  N.Y. 

490,  1973, 1981 

Hueston  v.  Easton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Ohio  St. 

685,  1539 

Huey  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Ind. 

320,  1820 

Huey  v.  Macon  County,  35  Fed.  R.  481,  633 
Huff  v.  Ames,  16  Neb.  139,  1982 


Huffman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Mo.  50, 

2035 
Huffman,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cumberland,  etc., 

Co.,  16  Md.  456,  375 

Hufford  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 

Mich.  631,  2453,  2488,  2578 

Hugh  v.  McRae,  Chase  466,  745,  760 

Hugenot,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Studwell,  6  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  13,  343 

Hughes  v.  Antietam,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Md.  316, 

153, 197, 198,  209,  214,  220 
Hughes  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  164  Pa. 

St.  178,  2025 

Hughes  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  39 

Ohio  St.  461,  1587,  1588,  1591,  1592 

Hughes  v.  Commissioners,  107  N.  C.  598,      603 
Hughes  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Tex. 

595,  1968 

Hughes  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

C.  B.  637,  2304,  2354,  2699 
Hughes  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Ind. 

175,  1468,  1469 

Hughes  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y. 

Super.  Ct,  (4  J.  &  S.)  222,  2716 

Hughes  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  18  Fed. 

R.  106,  1377, 1378 

Hughes  v.  Oregonian  R.  Co.,  11  Ore.  158, 

261,  887 

Hughes  v.  Parker,  19  N.  H.  181,  292 

Hughes  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  74 

Fed.  R.  499,  2587 

Hughes  v.  Sellers,  34  Ind.  337,  1529 

Hughes  v.  State,  103  Ind.  344,  1053 

Hughes  v.  Sun  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  100  N.  Y.  58,    2426 
Hughes  v.  Todd,  2  Duv.  188,  1419 

Hughes  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Minn. 

137,  1999,  2031 

Hughesdale,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Vanner,  12  R.  I. 

491,  29 

Hughlett  v.  Ozark,  etc.,  Co.,  53  Mo.  App. 

87,  2084, 2086 

Hughson  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

D.  C.  App.  98,  2083,  2457 
Hugo  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  506,  1717 

Huguenin  v.  Baseley,  13  Ves.  105,  756 

Huidekoper  v.  Dallas  County,  3  Dill. 

(U.  S.)  171,  1170 

Huidekoper  v.  Locomotive  Works,  99 

U.  S.  258,  707 

Hulbert  v.  City  of  Topeka,  34  Fed.  R.  510, 

2146,  2148 
Hulbert  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  N.Y. 

145,  2479 

Hulehan  v.  Greenbay,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Wis. 

520,  1997, 2052 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
(Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Hulett  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Railway  Co.^  67 

Mo.  239,  -     2042 

Hulick  v.  Scovil,  4  Gilm.  (111.)  159,  553 

Huling  v.  Kaw  VaUey,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130 

U.  S.  559,  1475,  1478, 1482 

Hull  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Neb.  371, 

1480, 1482, 1506,  1559 
Hull  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Iowa  713, 

1314, 1823 
Hull  v.  East  Line,  etc.,  Co.,  66  Tex.  619, 

298,409 

Hull  v.  Marshall  County,  12  Iowa  142,       1133 
Hull  v.  Sacramento,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Kan. 

387,  1942 

Hull  v.  Welsh,  82  Iowa  117,  1029 

Hullin  v.  Second  Municipality,  11  Rob. 

(La.)  97,  1504, 1507 

Humaston  v.  Telegraph  Co.,  20  Wall.  20,   1577 
Humbolt,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Stevens,  34  Neb. 

528,  127 

Humbolt  Min.  Co.  v.  American,  etc.,  Co., 

62  Fed.  R.  356,  620 

Humbolt  Township  v.  Long,  92  U.  S.  642, 

1239,  1241 
Humes  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  71  Mo. 

434,  1883 

Hume  v.  Winyah  Canal  Co.,  Carolina  L. 

J.,  vol.  1,  217,  212 

Humeston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  74  Iowa  554,  1695, 1698 

Hummel  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  2  Colo.  App. 

571,  875 

Humphrey  v.  People,  18  Hun  393,  365 

Humphrey  v.  Thorn,  63  Ind.  296,  2396 

Humphreys  v.  Allen,  101 IU.  490,     837,  840,  845 
Humphreys  v.  Hopkins,  81  Cal.  551, 

773,  799,  892 
Humphreys  v.  McKissock,  140  U.  S.  304, 

246,  251,  576.  647 
Humphrey  v.  Mooney,  5  Colo.  282, 

271,  273,  342,  877 
Humphreys  v.  Pegues,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.)  244, 

869,1063 
Humphreys  v.  Perry,  148  TJ.  S.  627, 

2309,  2610,  2611,  2612 
Humphreys  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 

Va.  431,  1301 

Humphreys  v.  St.  Louis,  I.  M.  &  S.  R.  Co., 

37  Fed.  R.  307,  235,  446,  575,  576,  589 

Humphreys  County  v.  McAdoo,  7  Heisk. 

585,  1257 

Humphries  v.  Davis,  110  Ind.  274,       1007, 1160 
Hun  v.  Gary,  82  N.  Y.  65,  382,  384 

Hungerford  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

Minn.  444,  2016 

Hungerford  v.  Winnebago,  etc.,  Co.,  33 

Wis.  303,  2356 


Hunn  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Mich. 

513,  2021,  2084,  2152 

Hunnewell  v.  Cass  County,  22  Wall.  464,    1097 
Hunnewell  v.  Taber,  2  Sprague  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

1,  2300, 2345 

Hunt,  Appellant,  141  Mass.  515,  138 

Hunt  v.  Bay  State,  etc.,  Co.,  97  Mass.  279,   535 
Hunt  v.  Bullock,  23  IU.  320,  535,  647,  654 

Hunt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Iowa  363, 1997 
Hunt  v.  Columbian  Ins.  Co.,  55  Me.  290, 

TO,  888 

Hunt  v.  Haskell,  24  Me.  339,  2427,  2445 

Hunt  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Iowa  15, 

1455, 1565,  1566 
Hunt  v.  Kansas  &  Missouri  Bridge  Co.,  11 

Kan.  412,  25 

Hunt  v.  Le  Grand,  etc.,  Co.,  143  111.  118,      864 
Hunt  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Ind. 

69,  1834 

Hunt  v.  Lowell,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Allen  343,   2036 
Hunt  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  N.  Y. 
'  162,  2252 

Hunt  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  La. 

Ann.  446,  2200,  2203,  2204 

Hunt  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  31  S.  W.  R.  523,  2438 

Hunt  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  75  Mo.  252,  1446 
Hunt  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Ind. 

593,  1500 

Hunt  v.  Nutt,  (Tex.  C.  App.)  27  S.  W.  R. 

1031,  2247 

Hunt  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  51  Pa.  St. 

475,  1588 

Hunt  v.  School  Dist.,  14  Vt.  300,  237.  359 

Hunt  v.  Smith,  9  Kan.  137,  1527,  1531 

Hunt  v.  The  Propeller  Cleveland,  6  Mc- 
Lean?^ 2380 
Hunter  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76 

Iowa  490,  704,  1731 

Hunter  v.  Case,  20  Vt.  195,  890 

Hunter  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  S. 

Car.  86,  1894, 1921 

Hunter  v.  Cooperstown,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126 

N.  Y.  18,  2551 

Hunter  v.  Cooperstown,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 

N.  Y.  371,  2547,  2595 

Hunter  v.  Farren,  127  Mass.  481,  1567 

Hunter  v.  Jones,  13  Minn.  307,  1551 

Hunter  v.  Matthews,  1  Rob.  (Va.)  468,       1478 
Hunter  v.  Mayor  of  Newport,  5  R.  I. 

325,  1531 

Hunter  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  N.Y. 

615,  2725 

Hunter  v.  Roberts,  83  Mich.  63,  429,  912 

Hunter  v.  Southern  P.  R.  Co.,  76  Tex.  195, 

2224,  2225,  2228,  2233,  2281 
Hunter  v.  Stewart,  47  Me.  419,  270:} 


ccxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  arc  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I, pp.  J-44?,  Vol.  II, pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216/,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-27S5.] 


Hunter  v.  Sun  Mutual,  etc.,  Co.,  26  La. 

Ann.  13,  276,  369 

Hunter  v.  Watson,  12  Cal.  363,  552 

Huntingdon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Decker,  82  Pa. 

St.  119,  367 

Huntingdon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Decker,  84  Pa. 

St.  419,  2025,  2151 

Huntington  v.  Attrill,  146  U.  S.  657, 

1022,  1023, 1088 
Huntington  v.  Attrill,  118  N.  Y.  365, 

365,  403,  2133 
Huntington  v.  Central  Pacific,  etc.,  Co., 

2  Sawy.  (U.  S.  Cir.)  503,  1058 

Huntington  v.  First,  (Ind.  App.)  43  N.  E. 

R.  17,  2721 

Huntington  v.  Pease,  56  Ind.  305,  2710 

Huntington  v.  Risdon,  43  Iowa  517,  890 

Huntington  v.  Worthen,  120  U.  S.  97,  1056 

Huntington  County  v.  Kauffman,  126  Pa. 

St.  305,  1552 

Huntress,  The,  2  Ware  (U.  S.)  89,  2365 

Huntsville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Corpening,  97  Ala. 

681,  308 

Hurd  v.  City  of  Elizabeth,  41  N.  J.  Law 

1,  771,  772,  798 

Hurd  v.  Columbus  Ins.  Co.,  55  Me.  228,         771 
Hurd  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Vt,  116, 

1289,  1803,  1824, 1844 

Hurford  v.  Omaha,  4  Neb.  336,  1100,  1104 

Hurlbert  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  N.  Y. 

145,  2590 

Hurlburt  v.  Hicks,  17  Vt.  193,  892 

Hurlburt  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  2 

Interst.  Com.  R.  81,  2671 

Hurlbut  v.  Carter,  21  Barb.  221,  100,  853 

Hurlbut  v.  Marshall,  62  Wis.  590,  290,  292 

Hurlbut  v.  Tayler,  62  Wis.  607,  434 

Hurley  v.  Brown,  98  Mass.  545,  562 

Hurley  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mo. 

App.  675,  2132 

Hurniker  v.  Contoocook  Valley  R.  Co.,  29 

N.  H.  146,  1539 

Hursh  v.  First  Division  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  17  Minn.  439,  1560 

Hursh  v.  Hursh,  99  Ind.  500,  776,  777 

Hurst  v.  Burnside,  12  Ore.  520,  1789 

Hurst  v.  Coe,  30  W.  Va.  158,  864 

Hurst  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Mich.  539, 

2146 
Hurst  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  19  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  310,  2452 

Hurt  v.  Hamilton,  25  Kan.  76,  1186,  1189 

Hurt  v.  Hollingsworth,  100  U.  S.  100,  949 

Hurt  v.  Salisbury,  55  Mo.  310,  19,  27,  271 

Hurt  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  39  Minn.  485, 

1836 
Hurtado  v.  California,  110  U.  S.  535,  1091 


Hurtin  v.  Union  Ins.  Co.,  1  Wash.  (U.  S. 

C.  C.)  530,  2428 

Husey  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  Co.,  98  N.  C.  34,  299 
Huskins  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Fed. 

R.  504,  940,  941,  945 

Huss  v.  Stephens,  51  Pa.  St.  282,  552 

Hussey  v.  Coger,  112  N.  Y.  614,  2081,  2082 

Hussey  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  N.  C.  34,  501 
Hussey  v.  The  Saragossa,  3  Woods  (U.  S. 

C.  C.)  380,  2348,  2381,  2404 

Hussner  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  96  N.  Y. 

18,  1502, 1628, 1638 

Huston's  Appeal,  18  Atl.  R.  419,  419,  720,  724 
Huston  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Ohio 

St.  235,  559, 1823 

Huston  v.  Clark,  112  111.  344,  1481 

Huston  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Mo.  App. 

R.  941,  2693 

Hutchiris  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 Minn. 

5,  2151 

Hutchinson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Wis. 

582,  1429, 2406 

Hutchinson  v.  Green,  91  Mo.  367,  853 

Hutchinson  v.  New  Sharon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

Iowa  727,  1570 

Hutchinson  v.  Self,  153  111.  542,  1215 

Hutchinson  v.  Surrey,  etc.,  Assn.,  11  Com. 

B.  689,  20 

Hutchinson  v.  Sutton,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Fed.  R. 

998,  377 

Hutchison  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  634,  501 

Hutchings  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  25  Ga.  61,  2607 
Hutchinson  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Wis. 

477,  1997 

Hutchinson  v.  York,  etc.,  Co.,  5Exch.  343, 

333,  2051,  2063,  2075 
Hutchinson,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Com., 

48  Kan.  70,  1208 

Huttig  Bros.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Denny,  etc.,  Co., 

6  Wash.  122,  1598 

Hutton  v.  City  of  Camden,  10  Vroom 

(N.  J.)  122,s.c.  23  Am.  R.  203,  959 

Hutton  v.  Scarborough,  etc.,  Co.,  4  DeG., 

J.  &  S.  672,  120 

Hutts  v.  Martin,  134  Ind.  587,  687 

Huyett  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  23 

Pa.  St.  373,  1888,  1942 

Hyatt  v.  Allen,  56  N.  Y.  553,  123,  418,  426 

Hyde  v.  New  York,  etc.,  S.  S.  Co.,  17  La. 

Ann.  29,  2208 

Hyde  v.  Stone,  20  How.  170,  2141 

Hyde  v.  Trent,  etc.,  Co.,  5  T.  R.  320,  2265 

Hyde  v.  Trent,  etc.,  Co.,  11  Exch.  618,  2299 
Hyde  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  7  Utah  356,  1969 
Hyde  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  61  Iowa 

441,  2132 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXX1 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S725.] 


Hyde  Park  v.  Oakwood,  etc.,  Assn.,  119 

111.  141,  1381, 1472 

Hyde  Park,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kerber,  5  Bradw. 

(111.)  132,  758 

Hyer  v.  Chamberlain,  46  Fed.  R.  341,  1853 
Hyland  v.  Brazil,  etc.,  Co.,  128  Ind.  335, 

1007,  1056, 1091 
Hyland  v.  Short  Route  R.  Transfer  Co., 

(Ky.)  10  Ky.  L.  R.  900, 11  S.  W.  R.  79.        900 
Hyman  v.  Central  Vt.  R.  Co.,21  N.  Y.  Supp. 

119,  2622 

I 

laege  v.  Bossieux,  15  Gratt.  (Va.)  83,  1605 
lasigi  v.  Chicago.etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  Mass.  46,  147 
Iba  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Mo.  469,  1832 
Idaho,  The,  93  U.  S.  575,  2202,  2214,  2356,  2386 
Ide  v.  Passumpsic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Vt.  297,  626 
Iglehart  v.  Bierce,  36  111.  133,  675 

Ihmsen's  Appeal,  43  Pa.  St.  431,  138 

Illick  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Mich.  632,  2001 
Illidge  v.  Goodwin,  5  C.  &  P.  190,  614 

Illinois  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co.,  33  Fed. 

R.  721,  942 

Illinois,  etc.,Canal  Board,  etc.,v.  Chicago, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  111.  314,  1333, 1381,  1693 

Illinois,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Marseilles,  etc., 

Co.,  6  111.  236,  249 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Able,  59  111.  131, 

2539,  2547 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  42  111.  474, 

2400,  2402,  2411 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  39  111.  205,  1459 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alexander,  20  111. 

23,      .  2442 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arnold,  47  111.  173, 

967,  1845 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ashmead,  58  111. 

487,  2190, 2282 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Axley,  47  111.  App. 

307,  2552 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baches,  55  111.  379,  2296 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnett,  85  111.  313, 

1195,  1201,  1254 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beaird,  24  111.  App. 

322,  2423 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beard,  49  111.  App. 

232,  1740,  1956 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beers,  27  111.  185,  1224 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bentley,  64  111. 

438,  1670 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Billington,  (Ky.) 

30  S.  W.  R.  885,  2485 

Illinois,  etc.,  Co.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bloomington, 

76  111.  447,  276, 1660 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bowles,  71  Miss.  994, 

2043 


Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brelsford,  13  T11T 

App.  251,  2400,  2405 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brookhaven,  etc., 

Co.,  71  Miss.  663,  2253,  2442 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  (Tenn.)  35 

S.  W.  R.  560,  2722 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryant,  70  Miss. 

665.  4n 

Illinois,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Bull,  72  111.  537, 

1837,  1847 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burns,  32  111.  App. 

196,  2715 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  138  111.  453, 

1270,  1385 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  14  111.  314,  48 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  122  111.  473, 

942,  1268,  1376,  1380, 1393, 1684 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Chicago,  141 

111.  586,  907, 1654,  1655, 1664,  1667,  1671 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Decatur, 

147  U.  S.  190,  1099, 1100,  1103,  1105 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Decatur,  154 

111.  173,  1101 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Mattoon, 

141  111.  32,  1108 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  48  111.  402, 

892,2388 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  64  111.  128, 

2280,  2302,  2306 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  72 11L  148, 

2205,2417 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  82 11L  183,      1544 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commissioners  of, 

etc.,  129  111.  417,  1115 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cook,  29  111.  237, 

29,  449 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Copeland,  24 11L 

332,  2225,  2227,  2493,  2607,  2609,  2626 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cowles,  32  111.  116, 

2205,  2227,  223S,  2252 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crider,  91  Tenn. 

489,  973,  1810,  1879,  1885, 1886 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davidson,  64  Fed. 

R.  301,  2550 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Decatur,  126111.  92, 

1101, 1108, 1111 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dick,  91  Ky.  434, 

1748, 1763 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dickerson,  27  111. 

55,  1817 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Downey,  18  111.  259,  302 
Illinois,  etc.,R.  Co.  v.  Fehringer,  82  I1L 

129,  1404 

Hlinpis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Finoigan,  21 11L 

646,  1590,  1880, 1881 


CCXXX11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  663-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frankenberg,  54 


111.  88, 


2227,  2233,  2321 


1903 


Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frazier,  47  111.  505, 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gilbert,  157  111.  354, 

2071 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gillis,  68  111.  317,     1862 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Godfrey,  71  111.  500, 

1741,  1952,  1958,  2711 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goodwin,  94  111. 

262,  1064 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Green,  81  111.  19, 

2550,  2555,  2591 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  72  111.  222, 

1968,  2289,  2406 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hammer,  72  HI. 

347, 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Handy,  63  Miss. 


1764 


609, 


2480,  2535,  2539 


Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  53  111.  App. 

592,  2042 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haynes,  64  Miss. 

604,  2355 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haynes,  63  Miss. 

485,  2407 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hetherington,  83 

HI.  510,  1740,  1761, 1952 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hornberger,  77  111. 

457,  2190, 2282 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Houck,  72  111.  285,  2599 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunter,  70  Miss. 

471,  2089, 2137 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hutchinson,  47  111. 

408,  1787 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Illinois,  146  U.  S. 

387,  1323 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  85  111.  211,  1317,  1322 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irvin,  72  111.  452,  1068 
lUinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jewell,  46  111.  99,  2044 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  34  111.  389, 

2225,  2700 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  67  111. 

312,  2507 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  (Miss.)  16 

So.  R.  300,  2047 

Illinois,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jonte,  13  HI.  App.  424, 

298,  410 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kanouse,  39  HI.  272, 

608,  615,  1860 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kerr,  68  Miss.  14,  2229 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Larson,  152  111. 

326,  1764 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Latham,  72  Miss. 

33,  2462 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Latimer,  128  111. 

163,  2576 


Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayrand,  93  111.  591, 

1528,  1530 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCleUan,  54  IU. 

58,  2190, 2282,  2304 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McClelland,  42  111. 

355,  1926 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKay,  69  Miss. 

139,  1927 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKee,  43  HI.  119, 

1817,  1865 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLean  County,  17 

111.  291,  1069 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meacham,  91  Tenn. 


428, 


1962,  2461,  2462 


Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Middlesworth,  43 

IU.  64,  1862 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  32  111.  App. 

259,  2308, 2696 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mills,  42  HI.  407, 

1888,1936 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minor,  69  Miss.  710, 

2480,2584 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morrison,  19  HI. 

136,  2318, 2325 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy,  52  Til. 

App.  65,  2048 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neer,  31  111.  App. 

126,  2046, 2071 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nowicki,  148  IU.  29, 

1777,  2719 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nunn,  51  IU.  78,  1928 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patterson,  69  IU. 

650,  93  HI.  290,  2046 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pendergrass,  69 

Miss.  425,  2131 

Hlinois,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  49  IU.  App. 

538,  1039 

lUinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  84  IU.  426  927 
lUinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  108  U.  S. 

541,  956, 2486 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  121  IU.  304, 

2675,  2678 
Hlinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  143  IU.  434, 

915,  917,  923,  968 
Hlinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  163  U.  S. 

142,  2642 

lUinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Person,  63  Miss. 

319,  2071 

Hlinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peterson,  68  Miss. 

454,  2403 

lUinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  PhiUips,  49  IU.  234,  2474 
lUinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Price,  72  Miss.  862,  2022 
lUinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quirk,  51  IU.  App. 


607, 


1998,  2047 


lUinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Read,  37  IU.  484, 

2319,  2514,  2516,  2601 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXlli 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-642,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  mS-3161,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 


Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ross,  31  111.  App. 

170,  1990 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rucker,  14  111.  353,  1471 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schwartz,  13  111. 

App.  490,  2695,  2696 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scruggs,  69  Miss. 

418,  2233,  2339,  2400 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simmons,  49  111. 

App.  443,  2416 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Slater,  129  111.  91, 

1677,  1978,  1983 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  19  L.  R.  A. 

577,  888 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  70  Miss.  344,  895 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smyser,  38  111.  354, 

2181,  2183,  2274 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  71  Miss.  253, 

1038,1039 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stone,  20  Fed.  R. 

468,  951, 2645 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sutton,  42  111.  438,  2506 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sutton,  53  111.  397,  2576 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swearingen,  47  111. 

206,  1820 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  24  111.  323,  2631 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tronstine,  64  Miss. 

834,  2236, 2615 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner,  71  Mich. 

402,  2721 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Von  Horn,  18  111. 

257,  1517, 1519, 1526 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wade,  140  U.  S.  65, 

1252 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wall,  53  111.  App. 

588,  1965 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Waters,  41 11L  73, 

2306,  2411,  2415 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Welch,  52  111.  183, 

2001,  2150 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whittemore,  43  111. 

420,  277,  288,  2016,  2018,  2504,  2577 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Willenborg,  117, 

111.  203, 

69,  954,  969,  1314, 1659,  1661,  1721,  1723, 1729 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  27  111.  48, 

1837 
Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winslow,  56  111. 

App.  462,  2072 

Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wren,  43  111.  77,  1853 
Illinois  River  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Zimmer,  20  111. 

654,  23,  24, 159 

Illinois  Steel  Co.  v.  O'Donnell,  156  111.  624,  856 
Illinois  Steel  Co.  v.  Putnam,  68  Fed.  R. 

515,  763,  765,  784,  787 

Illinois  Steel  Co.  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  67  Fed.  R.  561,  883 

Illinois  Tax  Cases,  92  U.  S.  575,  1060 


Ilsley  v.  Stubbs,  9  Mass.  71, 

Ilwaco  Railroad  Co.  v.  Hedrick,  1  Wash. 

446,  1974 

Ilwaco  Railroad,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Oregon,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  57  Fed.  R.  673,  2261,  26&> 

Imboden  v.  Etowah,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  70  Ga. 

86,  876- 

Imhoff  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Wis. 

344,  2480- 

Imlay  v.  Union  Branch  R.  Co.,  26  Conn. 

249,  901,  1417,  1436,  1634 

Imperial  Bank  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

L.  R.  5  Ch.  D.  195,  2391 

Imperial,  etc.,  Association  v.  Coleman, 

L.  R.  6  H.  L.  189,  373 

Imperial,  etc.,  Association  v.  Newry, 

etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  Ir.  R.  2  Eq.  524,  661 

Imperial,  etc.,  Association  v.  Newry, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ir.  Rep.  2  Eq.  1,  754 

Imperial  Coal  Co.  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  2  Interst.  Com.  R.  436,  2681 

Imperial  Coal  Co.  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co., 

2  Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  618,  2668,  2670 

Imperial,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hampson,  L.  R.  23  Ch. 

Div.  1,  36» 

Importing,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Locke,  50  Ala.  332,  86* 
Imperial  Gaslight,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Broadbent, 

7H.L.  Cases  600,  154» 

Imperial  Land  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  11  Eq. 

471,  1240- 

Importing,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Locke,  50  Ala.  332,  88 
Indemaur  v.  Dames,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  274,  1950- 
Independence  Ave.,  Condemnation  of, 

In  re,  128  Mo.  272,  1465 

Independence,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burlington, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa  535, 

2175,  2237,  2249,  2278,  2356,  2377,  2382 

Inderwick  v.  Snell,  2  Macn.  &  Q.  216,  37O 

Indian,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McBroom,  91  Ind. 

Ill,  1907 

Indian,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson,  13  Cal. 

519,  47 

Indian  River,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  Coast 

Transp.  Co.,  28  Fla.  387,  2409- 

Indian  Supplies,  He,  1  Inters.  Com.  R.  22, 

268T 

Indiana  Car  Co.  v.  Parker,  100  Ind.  181, 

2013,  2078,  2084 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adamson,  90  Ind. 

60,  1907 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adamson,  114  Ind. 

282,  1934 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  100  Ind.  409, 

1294, 1449, 1481, 1487 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  113  Ind.  581, 

897,  898, 1037, 1115, 1460, 153& 


ccxxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216L,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  HJ65-27Z6.] 


Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnhart,  115  Ind. 


399, 


1025, 1711,  1712, 1742,  1745,  1950,  1952 


Indiana,  etc. ,  R.  Co.  v.  Bird,  116  Ind.  217,      687 
Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boden,  10  Ind.  96, 

1538,1539 
Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brittingham,  98 


Ind.  294, 


1294, 1371 


1511 


Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cook,  102  Ind.  133, 

1 
Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dailey,  110  Ind.  75, 

2034,2708 
Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dooling,  42  111. 

App.  63,  1880 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eberle,  110  Ind. 

542,  1634 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Foster,  107  Ind. 

430,  885 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gapen,  10  Ind.  292, 

954,  974,  1833 
Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greene,  106  Ind. 


279, 


2063,  2718 


Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hammock,  113 
Ind.  1,  1767 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunter,  8  Ind.  74, 

1422,  1424 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koons,  105  Ind. 
507,  1722 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Larrew,  130  Ind. 
368,  1594 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Leak,  89  Ind.  596,  1836 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McBroom,  114  Ind. 


198, 


1451,  1541,  1542 


Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mundy,  21  Ind.  48, 

2517,  2600 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oakes,  20  Ind.  9,    1012 
Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Overman,  110  Ind. 


538, 


1901,  1902,  1903 


Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Overton,  117  Ind. 


253, 


1853,  1876 


Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Paramore.  31  Ind. 

143,  1895 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parker,  100  Ind. 


181, 


2010,  2712 


Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quick,  109  Ind.  295, 

1832, 1834,  1847 
Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sawyer,  109  Ind. 

342,  1834 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Snyder,  140  Ind. 

647,  2010, 2012 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Snyder,  140  Ind. 

647,  2088 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sprague,  103  U.  S. 

756,  626 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  3  Ind.  421, 

60,  1374,  1375 
Indiana,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stewart,  7  Ind.  App. 


563, 


1794 


1738 


70 

1625 


1621 


Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  115  Ind. 

253, 
Indiana,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  2 

Pen.  &  W.  (Pa.)  184, 
Indianapolis  v.  Bieler,  138  Ind.  30, 
Indianapolis  v.  Consumers'  Gas  Trust  Co., 

140  Ind.  107, 
Indianapolis  v.  Emmelman,  108  Ind.  530, 

1952, 1972,  1973 

Indianapolis  v.  Scott,  72  Ind.  196,  2013 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Belt  R.  Co.,  110 

Ind.  5,  1658 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co,  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  26  Fed.  R.  140,  394 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  105  Ind. 

37,  100,  695, 1114, 1479 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Gravel  Road  Co.  v. 

Christian,  93  Ind.  360,  1465 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Mining  Co.  v.  Herki- 

mer,  46  Ind.  142,  27,  252 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adkins,  23 

Ind.  340,  1846 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  31  Ind. 


394, 


2317,  2339,  2400,  2402 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anthony,  43 


Ind.  183, 


299,2581 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beaver,  41 

Ind.  493,  2552 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bonnell,  42 


Ind.  539, 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boettcher,  131 


1840 


Ind.  82, 


1955,  1987 


1550 


2036 


1876 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brower,  12 

Ind.  374, 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carr,  35  Ind. 

510, 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Case,  15  Ind. 

42, 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Caudle,  60 

Ind.  112,  1863, 1872, 1874 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Christian,  93 

Ind.  360,  1497 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Citizens', 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  127  Ind.  369, 

59,  99,  916, 1382,  1619, 1620, 1626 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clem,  51  Ind. 

591,  1895 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cooper,  6 

Ind.  App.  202,  1989,  2261,  2580,  2583 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cox,  29  Ind. 

360,  2322,2632 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  32  111. 

App.  67,  2434 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ervin,  118  111. 

250,  2434 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flanipan,  77 


111.  365, 


2014,  2016,  2042 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxxxv 


[References  arc  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Forsythe,  4 


Ind.  App.  326, 


2320,  2347,  2697 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Guard,  24  Ind. 

222,  1825 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  88111. 


368, 


1818,  1819,  1845,  2477 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  44 
Ind.  76,  1857 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Harter,  38  Ind. 
557,  1803, 1863 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hartley,  67 


111.439, 


1543,  1632, 1634 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herndon,  81 
111.  143,  2445 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holmes,  101 
Ind.  348,  178 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hood,  66  Ind. 


580, 


1305,  1307,  1309 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Horst,  93 

U.  S.  291, 

1766,  2470,  2512,  2552,  2553,  2561,  2594 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hyde,  122  Ind. 

188,  326 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irish,  26  Ind. 


268, 


1840, 1841 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  102 

Ind.  352,  2076 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Jones,  29  Ind. 

465  (stock  killing  case),  461,  465,  466,  468 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Juntgen,  10 

Bradw.  (111.  App.)  295,  2270 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jurey,  8  111. 

App.  160,  2400 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keely,  23  Ind. 

133,  2126, 2142 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  77 

Ind.  507,  2465 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kercheval, 

16  Ind.  84,  958,  1807, 1810,  1622 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kingsbury, 

101  Ind.  200,  1417,  1628 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kinney,  8 

Ind.  402,  1836 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Leak,  89  Ind. 

596,  1836 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  119 

Ind.  218,  547, 1304 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lindley,  75 

Ind.  426,  1873 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Love,  10  Ind. 

554,  2067, 2705 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKinney,  24 

Ind.  283,  1825, 1833 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLaren,  62 

Ind.  566,  1968 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLin,  82 

Ind.  435,  1739 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  71  111. 

463,  1582 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  16 

Ind.  3,  1876 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morganstern, 

103  111.  149,  555 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  67  111. 


295, 


315,  316,  317 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murray,  72 

111.  128,  2417 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mustard,  34 

Ind.  50,  1879 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neubacher, 

(Ind.  App.)  43  N.  E.  R.  576,  1772 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newson,  54 

Ind.  121,  55, 1501 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Reily,  38 


Ind.  440, 


1583,  1593 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ott,  11  Ind. 

App.  564,  2040 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Paramore,  31 

Ind.  143,  1888,  1907, 1912,  1917,  1937, 1938 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Parker,  29  Ind. 

471,  1810 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Petty,  25  Ind. 

413,  1824 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peyton,  76 

111.  340,  1857 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pitzer,  109 

Ind.  179, 

602,  1646,  1786, 1963, 1964, 1969, 1973,  2576 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pugh,  85  Ind. 

279,  1520 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rayl,  69  Ind. 

424,  547,  1295,  1297, 1304 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reed,  52  Ind. 

357,  1485 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Remmy,  13 

Ind.  518,  2209,  2238,  2697,  2699 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reynolds, 

116  Ind.  356,  547, 1304 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rinard,  46 

Ind.  293,  2451,  2501,  2507 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Risley,50  Ind. 

60,  937 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rutherford, 

29  Ind.  82,  2563 

Indianapolis,  D.  &  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Sands, 

133  Ind.  433,  688 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shimer,  17 

Ind.  295,  1822, 1834, 1846, 1865 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  78  111. 

112,  1762 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  52  Ind. 

428,  1676 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smythe,  45 
Ind.  322,  1534 


CCXXXV1 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  .W-1W2,  Vol.  Til,  pp.  1Z6S-U6U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  3165-2725.] 


Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Solomon,  23 

Ind.  534,  1820 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  37  Ind. 

489,      919,  1007,  1019, 1039, 1623,  1641,  1642, 1667 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  Stephens,  28 

Ind.  429,  1876 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stout,  53  Ind. 

143,  2147 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Strain,  81  111. 

504,  2247,  2403,  2407 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  84 

Ind.  194,  1874 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Townsend,  10 

Ind.  38,  1825 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Toy,  91  111. 

474,  2012,  2050,  2063 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Truitt,  24  Ind. 

162,  1846 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vance,  96 

TJ.  S.  450,  36 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warner,  35 

Ind.  515,  1847 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watson,  114 

Ind.  20,  2005,  2039 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  134 

Ind.  95,  1775 

Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  13 

Ind.  213,  1866 

Indianola  v.  Gulf,  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

56  Tex.  594,  1611 

Indianola,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fryer,  56  Tex. 

609,  449, 468 

Industrial,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Electrical,  etc., 

Co.,  58  Fed.  R.  732,  1598 

Ingalls  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  44  Minn. 

128,  1964 

Ingalls  v.  Bills,  9  Mete.  1, 

2466,  2468,  2473,  2704 

Ingalls  v.  Cole,  47  Me.  530,  268 

Ingalls  v.  Morgan,  10  N.  Y.  178,  322 

Inge  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  DeG., 

M.  &  G.  658,  1298,  1537 

Inge  v.  Police  Jury,  14  La.  Ann.  117,  1449, 1473 
Ingebregsten  v.  Nord,  etc.,  Co.,  (N.  J.)  31 

Atl.  R.  619,  2089 

Inglehart  v.  Bierce,  36  111.  133,  794,  799 

Ingorsoll  v.  Skinner,  1  Den.  (N.  Y.)  540,     1030 
Ingersoll  v.  Stockbridge,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Al- 
len 438,  1893, 1917, 2451 
Ingraham  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Iowa 

249,  1612 

Ingraham  v.Terry ,  11  Humph.  (Tenn.)  572,  867 
Ingwersen  v.  Edgecombe,  42  Neb.  740,  855 
Inhabitants  v.  Port  Reading,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

49  N.  J.  Eq.  11,  1655, 1656,  1665, 1671 


Inhabitants  of  Brunswick,  Appellants,  37 

Me.  446,  1533 

Inhabitants  of  Cambridge  v.  Charlestown, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Mete.  (Mass.)  70,          558, 1667 
Inhabitants  of  Cape  Elizabeth  v.  County 

Comrs.,  64  Me.  456,  137T 

Inhabitants  of  Gushing  v.  Gay,  23  Me.  9,    1531 
Inhabitants  of  Durham  v.  Lewiston,  4  Me. 

140,  1335- 

Inhabitants  of  Greenwich  Tp.  v.  Easton, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  J.  Eq.  217,  1393,  16501 

Inhabitants  of  Lewiston  v.  Fairfield,  47 

Me.  481,  2710= 

Inhabitants  of  Northampton  v.  Smith,  11 

Mete.  390,  986 

Inhabitants  of  Norton  v.  Hodges,  100  Mass. 

241,  212 

Inhabitants  of  Plantation  v.  Hall,  61  Me. 

517,  2227, 2233 

Inhabitants  of  Readington  v.  Dilley,  24 

N.  J.  L.  209,  1524 

Inhabitants  of  Springfield  v.  Connecticut 

River  R.  Co.,  4  Gush.  (Mass.)  63, 

1267,  1374,  1377,  1395,  1612,  1634 
Inhabitants  of  Springfield  v.  Miller,  12 

Mass.  415,  22 

Inhabitants  of  Township  of  Montelair  v. 

N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  J.  Eq.  436,  68 

Inhabitants  of  Trenton  v.  Trenton,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  (N.  J.)  27  Atl.  R.  483,  1624 

Inhabitants  of  Veazie  v.  Penobscot  R.  Co., 

49  Me.  119,  1642, 1669,  1794 

Inhabitants  of  Waldoborough  v.  Knox, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Me.  469,  580 

Inhabitants  of  Watertown  v.  Mayo,  109 

Mass.  315,  1331 

Inhabitants  of  Wayland  v.  County  Com- 
missioners, 4  Gray  (Mass.)  500,  1341 
Inhabitants  of  Woburn  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  109  Mass.  283,  1643 

Inhabitants  of  Worcester  v.  Western  R. 

Co.,  4  Met.  (Mass.)  564,  50,  558,  2165 

Inman  v.  Elberton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 Ga.  663, 

1889, 1896, 1935,  1938 
Inman  v.  South  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129 

U.  S.  128,  2317,  2334,  2335,  2346,  2543 

Inman  Steamship  Co.  v.  Tinker,  94  U.  S. 

238,  1078, 2653 

In  Matter  of  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  19  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  37,  227 

In  Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

N.  Y.  385,  1529 

In  Matter  of  Prospect  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

67  N.  Y.  371,  44S 

Innerarity  v.  Bank,  139  Mass.  332,          322,  367 
Innis  v.  Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76 

Iowa  165,  903 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXV11 


[References  are  to  Page*.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-27  :.-,.] 


In  re  Acker,  66  Fed.  R.  290,  911 

Ah  You,  88  Cal.  99,  1624 

Albany  Street,  11  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

149,  1339 

Alexander  Avenue,  17  N.  Y.  Supp. 

933,  1107 

Allen,  19  Fed.  R.  809,  980 

Ambrose,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  14  Ch.  Div. 

390,  129 

Athenaeum  Society,  4  K.  &  J.  549,  631 
Attorney-General,  2  N.  Y.  Supp.  684,  73 
Ayres,  123  U.  S.  443,  1010, 1133 

Bank  of  Niagara,  6  Paige  (N.  Y.) 

213,  825 

Barry,  42  Fed.  R.  113,  2637 

Barton's  Trust,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  238,  424 

Beine,  42  Fed.  R.  545,  966 

Binghamton  B.  Co.,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

51,  48 

Birmingham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  18 

Ch.  Div.  155,  264,  739 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Interst.  Com. 

R.  69,  2522 

Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   9    Blatch. 

(U.  S.)  101,  865 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

176,  1432, 1516 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  N.  Y.  64,  1691 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  N.  Y.  574, 

108, 1376,  1391,  1663 

Bouch,  L.  R.  29  Chan.  Div.  635,  424 

Bridge  water  Nav.Co.,  3  Ry.  &  Corp- 

L.  J.  591,  869 

Bristol,  etc.,  Bank,  L.  R.  44  Ch.  Div. 

703,  862 

Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  D. 

10,  924, 

British  Provident  L.  &.  F.  Assn.  Co., 

4  DeG.,  J.  &  S.  407,  649 

British  Seamless  Paper-box  Co.,  17 

Ch.  Div.  467,  17 

Broadway, etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Hun  414,  1484 
Broadway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Hun  275,  1479 
Broadway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Hun  7,  1468 
Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  N.  Y.  245, 

73,  74,  83,  94 

Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  434,  74 
Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Hun  355,  1468 
Brosnahan,  18  Fed.  R.  62,  2654 

Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Hun  289,  1472 

Burmeister,  76  N.  Y.  174,  1105 

Burrus,  136  U.  S.  586,  2638 

Charge  to  Grand  Jury,  66  Fed.  Rep. 

146,  2523 

Cambria  Street,  75  Pa.  St.  357,  1104 
Canadian  Pacific  R.  Co.,  32  Atl.  R. 

863,  989 


In  re  Cape  Breton  Co.,  L.  R.  26  Ch.  Div. 

221,  18 

Catherham  R.  Co.,  1  C.  B.  (N.  S.) 

410,  2670 

Cawley,  L.  R.  42  Ch.  Div.  209,  137 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Thomp.  &  C. 

(N.  Y.)  419,  1688,  1690 

Charge  to  Grand  Jury,  62  Fed.  R. 

728,  1047 

Chickering,  56  Vt.  82,  669,  671 

Christian  Jansen  Co.,  128  N.  Y.  550,  803 
City  of  Brooklyn,  143  N.  Y.  596,  1372 
City  of  Buffalo,  139  N.  Y.  422,  1468 

City  of  Buffalo,  68  N.  Y.  167, 

1342,  1393,  1663 

City  of  Chicago,  64  Fed.  R.  897,  930 
Clark,  3  Interst.  Com.  C.  R.  649,  2686 
Clark  v.  Sheldon,  106  N.Y.  104,  1204,  Wr> 
Cohen,  5  Cal.  494,  787 

Columbian  Bank,  147  Pa.  St.  422,  141 
Colvin,  3  Md.  Ch.  Dec.  278,  784,  829 

Commissioners  of  Central  Park,  51 

Barb.  (N.Y.)  277,  1526 

Commissioners  of  Central  Park,  61 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  40,  1533 

Condemnation  for  New  State  House, 

(R.  I.)  33  Atl.  R.  523,  1512,  1514 

Condemnation  of  Independence  Av., 

etc.,  128  Mo.  272,  1465 

Coney  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  451,  1263 

Cooper,  22  N.  Y.  67,  1469 

Cork,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Ch.  App.  748,  514 
Corporation  of  Huddersfield  &  Ja- 

comb,  L.  R.  10  Ch.  92,  1388 

County,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  App. 

288,  340 

County,  etc.,  Loan  Assn.,  43  N.  J.  E. 

588,  319 

County  Palatine  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  L. 

R.  9  Ch.  App.  691,  383 

Debs,  158  U.  S.  564,  910,  2640,  2688 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Doug.  (Mich. ) 

367,  1472 

DexterviUe,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  4  Fed. 

R.873,     •  814 

Directors  of  Binghamton,  etc.,  Co., 

143  N.  Y.  261,  862 

Doolittle,  23  Fed.  R.  544,  810 

Dronefield,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  17  Ch. 

Div.  76,  25* 

Eastern  &  Midland  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  45 

Ch.  Div.  367,  818 

Ebbw  Vale,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  4  Ch. 

Div.  832,  128 

Elevated  R.  R.  Co.,  70  N.  Y.  327,  89 
Empire,  etc.,  Co.,  62  L.  T.  R.  493,  661 


CCXXXV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  arc  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I, pp.  i-us,  Vol.  IT, pp.  itis-imt,  Vol.  in, pp.  nes-sieit,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


In  re  Empress  Eng.  Co.,  L.  R.  16  Ch.  D. 

125,  21, 488 

Era,  etc.,  Co.,  30  L.  J.  Eq.  137,  349 

European,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  8  Eq. 

444,  356 

European,  etc.,  Society,  L.  R.  9  Eq. 

122,  852 

Exchange  Banking  Co.,  L.  R.  21 

Chan.  Div.  519,  437 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  206,  840 
Fifty-Four  First-Mortgage  Bonds, 

15  S.  Car.  304,  748,  781 

Furnam  Street,  17  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

551,  1433 

Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  111.  494,  1370 
General  South  American  Co.,  L.  R. 

2  Ch.  Div.  337,  650,  661 

German  Mining  Co.,  4  DeG.,  M.  &  G. 

19,  366 

Germantown  Avenue,  99  Pa.  St.  479, 

1559 

Gilroy,  85  Hun  424,  1475 

Gold  Co.,  L.  R.  11  Ch.  Div.  701,  130 

Grand  Jury,  62  Fed.  R.  834,  1047,  2688 
Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst. 

Com.  R.  496,  2686,  2696 

Great  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  62  L.  T.  R. 

231,  365 

Greene,  52  Fed.  R.  104,  230,  996,  2662 
Grove  St.,  61  Cal.  438,  1497, 1499 

Hamilton  Ave.,  14  Barb.  405,  48 

Harris,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  C.  B.  N.  S.  693,  914 
Haven,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  20 Ch.  D. 

151,  233 

Hawley,  etc.,  2  De  G.  &  S.  33,  1524 

Higgins,  27  Fed.  R.  443,  809,  810,  911 
Hohorst,  150  U.  S.  653,  884 

Hoylake  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  9  Chan.  App. 

C.  257,  150 

Imperial  Land  Co.,  L.  R.  11  Eq. 

478,  1240 

International  Contract  Co.,  L.  R. 

6  Ch.  App.  525,  383 

Iowa,  etc.,  Co.,  2  McCrary  (U.  S. 

C.  C.)  178,  931 

Jarnecke  Ditch,  69  Fed.  R.  161,  930,  938 
Jaycox,  12  Blatch.  (U.  S.  Cir.)  209,  504 
Johnson,  49  N.  J.  Law  381,  1479 

Jones  &  Eastern  R.  Co.,  3  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  718,  2687 

Kelly  v.  Receiver  of  Green  Bay, 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  5  Fed.  R.  846,  708 

Kensington,  etc..  Turnp.  Co.,  97  Pa. 

St.  260,  1529 

Kernochan,  104  N.  Y.  618,  418 

Kerr,  42  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  119,  2 


In  re  Kings  County  El.  R.  Co.,  105  N.  Y. 

97,  1622 

Kings  Co.  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y.  Supp.  198, 

1424 

Klaus,  67  Wis.  401,  133 

Klaus,  26  Am.  L.  Reg.  (N.  S.)  98,  133 
Le  Blanc,  75  N.  Y.  598,  421 

Lee's  Bank,  29  N.  Y.  9,  93 

Lennon,  150  U.  S.  393,  910 

Lewis,  52  Kan.  660,  757 

Lockport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

38,  1702 

Lockport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  N.  Y.  557,  1687 
London,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  519,  869 
London,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  Div. 

525,  254 

London,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  31  Ch.  D. 

223,  238 

Land  Credit  Co.,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  460,  631 
Long  Branch,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  J. 

Eq.  398,  736,  740,  750 

Long  Island  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  364, 

1286,1468 
Long  Island  R.  Co.,  19  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

37,  225,  226,  237,  277 

Long  Island  R.  Co.,  6  T.  &C.  (N.  Y.) 

298,  1446 

Lord  Gerard  v.  London,  etc.,  L.  R. 

(1894)  2  Q.  B.  915,  1435 

Louisville,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  5  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  466,  2674 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  31,  2676 

Madera,  etc.,  Dist.,  92  Cal.  296,  1149 
Mammoth  Copperopolis,  etc.,  50  L. 

J.  Chan.  11,  438 

Manchester,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  (1893)  2 

Ch.  638,  858 

Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  14  Ch. 

Div.  645,  734,  743,  751,  788 

Manderson,  51  Fed.  R.  501,  1415 

Marks,  6  N.  Y.  Supp.  105,  1347 

Marsailles  Extension  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

7  Ch.  App.  161,  358 

Mayor,  etc.,  of  City  of  Northampton, 

158  Mass.  299,  975, 1671 

Mercantile,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  475,  433 
Merchants'  Ins.  Co.,  3  Biss.  (U.  S. 

C.  C.)  162,  784,  788 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  N.  Y. 

Supp.  708,  1498 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill  N.Y.  588, 

1563 

Millward,  etc.,  Co.,  161  Pa.  St.  157,    481 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Minn. 
481,  1691 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II.  pp.  1,13-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


In  re  Minnetonka  Lake  Improvement,  56 

Minn.  513,    '  1404 

Minor,  69  Fed.  R.  233,  2637 

Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  42  Ch.  Div. 

321,  2312,  2313,  2330 

Montgomery,  48  Fed.  R.  896,  1415 

Morrison,  10  Nat.  Bank  Reg.  105,  151 
Mount  Washington  Road  Co.,  35  N. 

H.  134,  1444 

National  Funds,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  10 

Ch.  Div.  118,  437 

New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  New 

Brunswick  (1  P.  &  B.)  667,  917 

New  Castle,  etc.,  Marine  Ins.  Co.,  19 

Beav.  97,  356 

Newcomb,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  16,  340 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  33  N.  Y.  Supp. 

726,  867 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  How.  Pr. 

123,  1463 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8N.  Y.  Supp. 

290,  1346 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Barb.  85,  1497 
New  York,  etc.  R.  Co.,  67  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  426,  1356,  1369, 1385 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Hun  105, 

1527,  1534 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Hun  (N.Y.) 

149,  1433 

New  York  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  63,  1441 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Hun  194,  1492 
New  York ,  etc. ,  R.  Co. ,  27  Hun  116,  1516 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  269,  1374, 1484 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  639,  1535 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Hun  148, 

1498,  1511 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Hun  220, 

161,  271 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  427,  1628 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Hun  7,      1369 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Hun  625,  1531 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Hun  629,  1351 

•     New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kip,  46 

N.  Y.  546,  538, 1664 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  414, 

599,608 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  N.  Y.  326, 

1356 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Metropoli- 
tan, etc.,  Co.,  63  N.  Y.  574,  1391 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  N.  Y.  60,  1527 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  N.  Y.  407,      64 


In  re  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  Y.  191, 

1500,  1501 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  Y.  327, 

66,  83,  86 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  N.  Y.  248, 

539,  1356, 1374,  1664 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  Y.  279, 

1282, 1285 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  N.  Y.  342, 

1502 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  N.  Y.  12, 

161, 1269 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  N.  Y.  42,  9 
Niagara,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  N.  Y.  319,  1460 
Niagara  Falls,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  108 

N.  Y.  375,  50,  1353,  1354,  1496 

North'd  Ave.  Hotel  Co.,  L.  R.  33 

Ch.  D.  16,  488 

North  Hallenbeagle,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R. 

2  Ch.  321,  219 

Ontario,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Ont.  R.  338, 

1428,  1442 
Opening  Twenty-second  Street,  15 

Phila.  409,  1372 

Orient  Mutual  Ins.  Co.,  21  N.  Y.  S. 

237 ;  66  Hun  (N.  Y.)  633,  824 

Otis,  101  N.  Y.  580,  822 

Oxlade,  North,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  680,  2880 

Pacific  Railway  Com.,  32  Fed.  R.  217,  983 
Palliser,  136  U.  S.  257,  2688 

Palmer  and  London,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

L.  R.  1  C.  P.  588,  2281 

Panama,  N.  Z.  &  A.  Royal  Mail  Co., 

L.  R.  5  Ch.  318,  650 

Passenger  Tariffs,  2  Interst.  Com. 

C.  R.  649, 

Patent,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  83,  564 
Pennsylvania  Co.,  137  U.  S.  451,  929 
Penny,  90  Eng.  C.  L.  660,  1441 

Penny,  7  El.  &  Bl.  660,  1428, 1558 

Petersen  v.  Case,  21  Fed.  R.  885, 

2224,2248 
Petition  of  Kerr,  42  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

119,  10 

Petition  of  Le  Blanc,  14  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  8,  869 

Pfleger,  L.  R.  6  Eq.  426,  1485 

Phelan,  62  Fed.  R.  803,  2688 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Phila.  461, 

1494 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Whart. 

(Pa.)  25,  1633 

Philips,  etc.,  L.  R.  6  Eq.  250,  1485 

Pooley  Hall  Colliery  Co.,  21  L.  T.  R. 

N.  S.  690,  639 


ccxl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1,1,3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-Z7SB.} 


In  re  Poughkeepsie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  151,  1436,  1703 

Prospect  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Hun 

199,  1527 

Prospect  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  N.  Y. 

371,  444,  1272 

Prospect,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

345,  1436 

Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  R.  I.  324, 

1682 
Public  Road  in  Benzinger  Township, 

115  Pa.  St.  436,  1533 

Rahrer,  140  U.  S.  545,  256,  2642,  2650 

Railroad  Commissioners,  83  Me.  273, 

987,  991 

Railroad  School  Tax,  78  Mo.  596,  1057 
Religious  Teachers,  1  Interst.  C.  R. 

21,  2687 

Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Paige 

(N.  Y.)  Ch.  553,  1440 

Republic  Ins.  Co.,  3  Biss.  (U.  S.) 

452,  260 

Rhinebeck,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  N.  Y.  242, 

1506 

Rice,  155  U.  S.  396,  925 

Road,  etc.,  90  Pa.  St.  190,  1475 

Road,  etc.,  103  Pa.  St.  250,  1531 

Road,  etc.,  109  Pa.  St.  119,  1476 

Road,  etc.,  114  Pa.  St.  627,  1479 

Rochester,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  12  N.  Y. 

Supp.  566,  1271 

Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Hun  126,  162 
Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Hun  634,  1493 
Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Hun  617,  1354 
Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  N.  Y. 

119,  1369,  1495 

Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  N.  Y. 

351,  1622 

Rochester  Water  Commissioners,  66 

N.  Y.  413,  1341 

Rohrer,  140  U.  S.  545,  966 

Romford  Canal,  24  Ch.  Div.  85,  641 

Rugheimer,  36  Fed.  R.  369,  1414 

Sanborn,  148  U.  S.  222,  979 

Sankey  Brook  Coal  Co.,  L.  R.  10 

Eq.  381,  649 

Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Hun  287,  1687 
Seattle,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  61  Fed.  R.  541, 

791,  792 

Shakopee,  etc.,  Co.,  37  Minn.  91,  27 
South  Beach,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119  N.  Y. 

141,  1383 

South  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50 

Hun  405,  1501 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  146  N.Y.  352,  1471 
South  London,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  39  Ch. 

Div.  324,  137 


In  re  South  Mountain,  etc.,  Mining  Co.,  7 

Sawyer  (U.  S.)  30,  254 

Spickler,  43  Fed.  R.  653,  966 

Split  Rock  Cable  Road  Co.,  128 

N.  Y.  408,  1368 

State  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  1.  Hem.  &  M. 

457,  267 

Staten  Island  R.  Co.,  41  Hun  392, 

1527,  1534 
Staten  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  422,  165 

St.  George's  Estate,  19  L.  R.  Ir.  566  829 
St.  Lawrence  Steamboat  Co.,  44 

N.  J.  529,  338 

St.  Lawrence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  N.  Y. 

270,  1498 

St.  Paul,  etc.  R.  Co.,  34  Minn.  227, 

1339,  1344,  1371,  1553 
St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Minn.  85, 

37,  878,  1348,  1482 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Minn.  164,  1687 
Stranton,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  16  Eq.  559,  249 
Suburban  Hotel  Co.,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  737,  862 
Swigert,  119  111.  83,  1068 

Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  N.  Y.  1, 

130,242 

Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Hun  311,  1506 
Tariffs,  etc.,  3  Interst.  Com.  Com. 

19,  2677 

Tariffs,  etc.,  2  Interst.  Com.  Com. 

R.  324,  2683 

The  Jarnecke  Ditch,  69  Fed.  R.  161,  937 
Thirty-fourth  St.  R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y. 

343,  1471 

Towanda  Bridge  Co.,  91  Pa.  St.  216, 

1341,  1380 

Tyler,  149  U.  S.  164,  78S,  1070 

Tyson's  Reef  Co.,  3  W.  W.  &  A'B. 

(Viet.  Sup.  Ct.)  Cas.  at  Law  162,    631 
Union,  etc.,  Co.,  22  Wend.  591,  361 

Union  Village,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  457,  1443 

United  States  Rollingstock  Co.,  55 

How.  Pr.  286,  39,  844 

Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

456,  1442 

Vacation  of  Centre  Street,  115  Pa. 

St.  247,  1102 

Van  Antwerp,  56  N.  Y.  261,  1102 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Fed.  R.  217, 

809,810 

Wall  Street,  17  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  617,  1420 
Warren,  11  N.  Y.  Supp.  787,  422 

Washington  St.  Ry.  Co.,  115  N.  Y.  442,  9 
West  of  England  Bank,  L.  R.  14  Ch. 

Div.  317,  347 

Wheeler,  2  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.Y.)  361, 

126,  344,  a50 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxli 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol 

Inslee  v.  Lane,  57  N.  H.  454,  2395 

Instone  v.  Frankfort  Bridge  Co.,  2  Bibb. 

(Ky.)  576,  214,  217 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Boon,  95  U.  S.  117,  2265 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Brame,  95  U.  S.  754,          2125 
Insurance  Co.  v.  Bruce,  105  U.  S.  328, 

1240,  1241 

Insurance  Co.  v.  DeBolt,  16  How.  115,        1234 
Insurance  Co.  v.  Easton,  73  Tex.  167,  2335 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Railroad  Co.,  104  U.  S. 

146,  2225,  2241,  2243,  2244,  2259 

Insurance  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

McCrary  233,  2395,  2396 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Transportation  Co.,  12 

Wall.  194,  2265 

Inter  Mountain  Pub.  Co.  v.  Jack,  5  Mont. 

568,  154 

International,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Walker,  83 

Mich.  386,  154, 169 

International,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Walker,  97 

Mich.  159,  170 

International    Coal  Co.  v.  Cape  Breton 

County,  22  Canada  S.  C.  R.  305,  1 

International  Contract  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R. 

6  Ch.  App.  525,  383 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arias,  (Tex.) 

30  S.  W.  R.  446,  2028,  2048 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  82 

Tex.  516,  1962 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson  Co., 

59  Tex.  654,  457 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benitos,  59 

Tex.  326,  1538 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bost,  2  Tex. 

Ct.  of  App.  (Civ.  Gas.)  334,  1301 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Brazil,  78  Tex. 

314,  2149 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bremond,  53 
*Tex.  96,  454 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cock,  68  Tex. 

713,  312,  2461,  2465,  2561,  2603 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cocke,  64 

Tex.  151,  1803,  1832,  1836,  1881 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.Cooper,  (Tex.) 

32  S.  W.  R.  517,  1991 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cooper,  88 

Tex.  607,  2463 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dawson,  62 

Tex.  260,  527 1 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Douglas,  7 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  554,  1794  j 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunham,  68 

Tex.  231,  609,  1*36,  1838,  2450  i 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Eason,  (Tex.) 

35  S.  W.  R.  208,  1794 

CORP. — xvi 


.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-i7S5.] 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eckford,  71 

Tex.  274,  693 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Folliard,  66 

Tex.  603,  2619 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Garcia,  75 

Tex.  583,  1786 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gilbert,  64 

Tex.  536,  2457 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goldstein,  2 

Tex.  App.  (Civ.  Cases)  206,  2454 

International,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Grand  Trunk, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Me.  92,  2261,  2286,  2430 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  33  S.  W.  R.  127,  1855 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  (Tex. 

C.  App.)  25  S.  W.  R.  52,  1949 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Halloren,  53 

Tex.  46,  _  2468,  2469 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hester,  64 

Tex.  401,  2048 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hogsett,  67 

Tex.  685,  1936 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes,  81 

Tex.  184,  1859 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hynes,  3 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  20,  2416 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irvine,  64 

Tex.  529,  2552 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jordan, 

(Tex.)  10  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  301,  1675 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kernan,  78 

Tex.  294,  2014 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Klaus,  64 

Tex.  293,  1404 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kuehn,  70 

Tex.  582,  693,  2147 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  (Tex.) 

34  S.  W.  R.  160,  1953,  1970 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis, 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.)  23  S.  W.  R.  323,  307,  2412 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McRae,  82 

Tex.  614,  2410 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller, 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.)  28  S.  W.  R.  233,  1989,  2584 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moody,  71 

Tex.  614,  570,  611 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  3 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  416,  2019 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Price,  77 

Tex.  560,  2449 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prince,  77 

Texas  560,  312,  2561 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ragsdale,  67 

Tex.  24,  306 


ccxlii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pv.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


International,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Ritchie,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App. )  26  S.  W.  R.  840,  2416 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robertson, 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.)  27  S.  W.  R.  564,  1796 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ryan,  82  Tex. 

565,  2457 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searight,  8 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  593,  1929 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searight, 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.)  28  S.  W.  R.  39,  1913 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sipole,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  29  S.  W.  R.  686,  2062 

International,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Smith,  1  Tex. 

App.  (Civil  Cases)  484,  2404 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  (Tex.) 

44  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  324,  308 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  75  Tex. 

356,  866,  868,  869 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tabor,  (Tex.) 

33  S.  W.  R.  894,  1955 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thornton,  3 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  197,  612,  613 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Timmermann, 

61  Tex.  660,  1913 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  T.  Tisdale,  74 

Tex.  8,  2228,  2231,  2234,  2238,  2244,  2270 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Underwood, 

62  Tex.  21,  2344 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Underwood, 

67  Tex.  589,  569 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Welsh,  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.)  24  S.  W.  R.  854,  2556 

International,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Wilkes,  68 
Tex.  617,  2488,  2573 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  82 
Tex.  342,  2008 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Receivers  of, 
v.  Wright,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  198,  2401 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.)  28  S.  W.  R.  819,  2291 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  Re,  53 
Fed.  R.  476,  979 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Ala- 
bama, etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  R.  227, 

2667,  2676,  2677 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Ala- 
bama, etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Fed.  R.  715, 

2659,  2667,  2668,  2669,  2673,  2682,  2683 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  At- 
chison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Fed.  R.  295,    2667,  2676 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  At- 
chison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  U.  S.  264,  2657 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Bal- 
timore, etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Fed.  R.  37, 

2647,  2658,  2659,  2666,  2684,  2685 


Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Bal- 
timore, etc.,  R.  Co.,  145  U.  S.  264, 

2657,  2666,  2667,  2670,  2684,  2685,  2687 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Brim- 
son,  154  U.  S.  447,  978,  979,  980,  981 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,  R.,  56  Fed.  R.  925, 

2646,  2658,  2667,  2676,  2680 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,  Co.,  64  Fed.  R.  981,          979,  980 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Int.  Com.  R.  582,    995 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Int.  Com.  R.  332,   2679 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Del- 
aware, etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Fed.  R.  723,  2658 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  De- 
troit, etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Fed.  R.  1005, 

2658,  2669,  2678,  2681 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Le- 
high,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Fed.  R.  784, 

2659,  2669,  2682 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Lie- 
high  Valley  R.  Co.,  49  Fed.  R.  177,  914 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Fed.  R.  409, 

2647,  2657,  2659,  2666,  2667,  2668,  2676 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v. 
Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Fed.  R. 
70,  2659 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Fed.  R.  948,  2657 

Interstate,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fox,  51  Kan. 
715,  1997 

Investment  Co.  v.  Eldridge,  2,.  Pa.  Dist. 
R.  394,  24S 

Investment  Co.  v.  Ohio  R.  Co.,  36  Fed. 
R.  48,  835,  836,  837,  839 

Ionic,  The,  5  Blatch.  (U.  S.)  538,  2609 

lola  v.  Merriman,  46  Kan.  49,  1227 

Iowa  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Fed.  R. 
391,  2656 

Iowa,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  2  McCrary  (U.  S. 
C.  C.)  178,  931 

Iowa,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Carroll  County,  39  Iowa 
151,  1071 

Iowa,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Courtright,  21  Wall.  310, 

1135 

Iowa  Lumber  Co.  v.  Foster,  49  Iowa  25,       141 

Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perkins,  28  Iowa  281, 

163,201 

Ireland  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mo. 
572,  1606 

Ireland  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79 
Mich.  163,  1899,  1943 

Ireland  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Ark. 
105,  1940 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxliii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-Ua,  Vol.  II,  pp.  V3-1Z62,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  126S-S16H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-1725.] 

J 


Irish  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  44  Iowa 

380,  1324, 1491,  1536,  1547 

Irish  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  4  Wash. 

48,  2595 

Irish  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Minn. 

376,  2193,  2227,  2241,  2247 

Iron,  etc.,  Co.,  Re,  19  Ont.  R.  113,  726 

Iron,  eto.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mowery,  36  Ohio  St. 

418,  1789,  2549,  2568,  2593 

Iron,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stansell,  43  Ark.  275,    1582 
Iron,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fink,  41  Ohio  St.  321, 

135, 147,  221 
Iron  R.  Co.  v.  Ironton,  91  Ohio  St.  299,  • 

541,  1372, 1373 
Irvin  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  111.  103, 

2244 

Irvine  v.  Fline,  etc.,  R.  Co..  89  Mich.  416,   2044 
Irving  v.  Houstoun,  4  Paton  Scotch  H.  of 

L.  521,  424 

Irwin  v.  Alley,  158  Mass.  249,  2124,  2138 

Irwin  v.  McKechnie,  58  Minn.  145,  807 

Irwin  v.  Town  of  Ontario,  6  Fed.  R.  49,      1236 
Irwin  v.  Turnp.  Co.,  2  Pen.  &  W.  (Pa.) 

466,  71 

Irzo  v.  Perkins,  10  Fed.  R.  779,  2421 

Isaacs  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  49  Fed.  R. 

797,  1796 

Isaacs  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  47  N.  Y.  122,    2582 
Isaacson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94 

N.  Y.  278,  2613,  2622,  2626,  2627,  2633 

Isabel  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo. 

475,  1736, 1828, 1983,  2002 

Isbell  v.  Brinkman,  70  Ind.  118,  296 

Isbell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  25  Conn.  556, 

364 
Isbell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Conn. 

393,  1864, 1960 

Isham  v.  Buckingham,  49  N.  Y.  216,  145 

Isherwood  v.  Whitmore,  11  M.  &  W.  347,    2375 
Island  City  Bank  v.  Sachtleben,  67  Tex. 

420,  706 

Island,  etc.,  Coasting  Co.  v.  Tolson,  139 

U.  S.  551,  1792 

Ismeale,  The,  14  Fed.  R.  481,  2207 

Ismeale,  The,  14  Fed.  R.  491,  2207 

Isola  v.  Webber,  37  N.  Y.  Supp.  77,  2127 

Isom  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Miss. 

300,  1418, 1419, 1425, 1426, 1550 

Israel  v.  Jewett,  29  Iowa  475,  1426 

Itwin  v.  Bailey,  8  Biss.  523,  394 

Ivens  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Ind. 

27,  1740, 2706 

Ives  v.  Smith,  3  N.  Y.  Supp.  645,  499 

Izard,  Ex  parte,  L.  R.  23  Ch.  Div.  75,  824 


Jackson  v.  Allen,  132  U.  S.  27,  948 

Jackson  v.  Bank  of  Marietta,  9   Leigh 

(Va.)  240,  873 

Jackson  v.  Betts,  9  Cow.  208,  2303 

Jackson  v.  Blodget,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  202,       675 
Jackson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Iowa 

176,  1888, 1895,  1942 

Jackson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Iowa 

451.  1856 

Jackson  v.  Cory,  8  Johns.  385,  552 

Jackson  v.  Crilly,  16  Colo.  103,  2144,  2564 

Jackson  v.  Dines,  13  Colo.  90,  1120 

Jackson  v.  Gould,  74  Me.  564,  932 

Jackson  v.  Grand  Ave.  R.  Co.,  118  Mo. 

199,  285 

Jackson  v.  Hampden,  16  Me.  184,  360 

Jackson  v.  Hathaway,  15  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

«7,  1628 

Jackson  v.  Hill  &  Co.,  L.  R.  13  Q.  B.  D. 

618,  2110 

Jackson  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 

Kan.  761,  2035 

Jackson  v.  Kiel,  13  Colo.  378,  1630, 1632 

Jackson  v.  Lahee,  114  IU.  287,  807 

Jackson  v.  Ludeling,  21  Wall.  616, 

377,  671,  712,  726,  755 

Jackson  v.  McLean,  36  Fed.  R.  213,  2663 

Jackson  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  Mo. 

448,  2031, 2585 

Jackson  v.  Mutual  L.  Ins.  Co.,  3  Woods 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  413,  947 

Jackson  v.  Newark  Plank  Road  Co.,  31 

N.  J.  Law  277,  442 

Jackson  v.  New  York  Central  R.  Co.,  2 

Thomp.  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  653,  370 

Jackson  v.  Nichol,  5  Bing.  N.  Cas.  508,       2444 
Jackson  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Del.  Ch.  180,  1324 

Jackson  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Vt. 

150,  905, 1387, 1424, 1736, 1804, 1824 

Jackson  v.  Sacramento,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

Cal.  268,  2279 

Jackson  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  47  N.  Y. 

274,  2575 

Jackson  v.  Shortridge,  29  Tex.  394,  177 

Jackson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  H.  Co.,  36  Mo. 

App.  170,  1874 

Jackson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Mo. 

526,  1880 

Jackson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Mo. 

422,  2128, 2138 

Jackson  v.  Traer,  64  Iowa  469,  132 

Jackson  v.  Turquand,  L.  R.  4  H.  L.  305,     194 
Jackson  v.  Twenty-third  St.  Ry.  Co.,  88 

N.  Y.  520,  143 


ccxliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  IM-1Z&2,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 


Jackson  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  2 

Woods  (U.  S.)  141,  630 

Jackson  v.  Winn's  Heirs,  4  Littell  (Ky.) 

322,  1371 

Jackson  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Me.  147,      634 
Jackson  Co.  v.  Boylston,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  139 

Mass.  508,  2334 

Jackson,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burlington,  etc.  R. 

R.  Co.,  29  Fed.  R.  474,  715 

Jackson,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pearson,  60  Fed.  R. 

113,  940 

Jackson,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  In  re,  4  Sandf .  Ch. 

(N.  Y.)  559,  77 

Jackson  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cross,  9  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  283,  356 

Jackson  County  Horse  Car  Co.  v.  Inter- 
state, etc.,  Co.,  24  Fed.  R.  306,        56,  59,  1625 
Jackson,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davison,  65  Mich. 

416,  1122, 1123,  1124, 1129, 1130 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  28 

Fla.  631,  1501 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  29 

Fla.  260,  1553 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  33 

Fla.  608,  1466 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Caldwell,  21 

HI.  75,  1520 

Jacksonville  Railway  Co.  v.  City  of  Jack- 
sonville, 114  111.  562,  1108 
Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cox,  91  111. 

500,  1302, 1405 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Galvin,  29 

Fla.  636,  2054 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Garrison,  30 

Fla.  431,  1880 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  33 

Fla.  217,  1809, 1846 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kidker,  21  111. 

131,  1448 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Louisville, 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  150  111.  480,  705 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Louisville, 

etc.,  Co.,  47  111.  App.  414,  574 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peninsular, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Fla.  1, 

1895,  1920, 1924,  1928,  1929,  1930, 1942 
Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prior,  34  Fla. 

271,  973,  1885 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walsh,  106 

111.  253,  1443, 1444,  1517 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wellman,  26 

Fla.  344,  1870,1867 

Jacob  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.)  63  N. 

W.  R.  502,  2547 

Jacobs,  Matter  of,  98  N.  Y.  98,  960 

Jacobs  v.  Peterborough,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Cash.  (Mass.)  223,  1298 


Jacobs  v.  Tutt,  33  Fed.  Rep.  412, 

2612,  2613,  2614,  2628,  2629 

Jacobson  v.  Allen,  20  Blatch.  (U.  S.)  525,  269 
Jacobson  v.  Allen,  12  Fed.  R.  454,  732 

Jacobus  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Minn. 

125,  2472,  2512,  2514, 2554,  2560, 2600 

Jaeger  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Wis. 

130,  1836 

Jaffray  v.  Raab,  72  Iowa  335,  824 

Jager  v.  Dey,  80  Iowa  23,  988,  1354 

Jager  v.  Doherty,  61  Ind.  528,  1146,  1212 

Jamaica,  Village  of,  v.  Long  Island  R. 

Co.,  21  N.  Y.  Supp.  327,  1667 

James. v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Interst. 

Com.  R.  274,  2675 

James  v.  Canadian,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  612,  2683 

James  v.  Cowing,  82  N.  Y.  449,  726 

James  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Interst.  Com.  R.  609,  2679 

James  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  225,  2677 

James  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  2 

C.  P.  634,  1762 

James  v.  Greensboro,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Ind.  379,  25 
James  v.  Griffin,  1  M.  &  W.  20,  2389 

James  v.  Milwaukee,  16  Wall.  (IT.  S.)  159,  1152 
James  v.  Poutiac,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Mich.  91,  106,  696 
James  v.  Railroad  Co.,  6  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

752,  712 

James  v.  Woodruff,  2  Denio,  (N.  Y.)  574,  866 
James,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

3  Interst.  Com.  R.  682,  2679,  2686 

James  Gray  v.  John  Fraser,  12  How.  184,  952 
James  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  3 

Gratt.  (Va.)  270,  1380 

James  River,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Turner,  9  Leigh. 

(Va.)313,  1426 

Jameson  v.  Androscoggin  R.  Co.,  52  Me. 

412,  1472 

Jamestown  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

Wis.  64S,  914,  1010 

Jamieson  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  Co.,  128  Ind. 

555,  958,  966, 1226,  2725 

Jamieson  v.  Springfield,  53  Mo.  224,  1539 

Jamison  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

Iowa  670,  1555,  1556 

Jamison  v.  San  Jose,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Cal. 

593,  2548 

Jammison  v.  Gray,  29  Iowa  537,  1580 

Janes  v.  Reynolds,  2  Tex.  250,  974,  2103 

Janesville  v.  Carpenter,  77  Wis.  288,  959 

Janney  v.  Buell,  55  Ala.  408,  1011,  2131 

Janny  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Minn.)  65  N.  W.  R.  450,  2463,  2705 

Jantzen  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mo. 

171,  1874 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxlv 


[References  are  to  Facie.*.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-WS,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

January  v.  Johnson  County,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.) 

392,  1231 

Jarbolt  v.  Moberly,  103  U.  S.  580,  1232 

Jarden  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Whart.  (Pa.)  502,  1545 

Jardine  v.  Cornell,  50  N.  J.  L.  485, 

1992,  2575,  2584 
Jarmain  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91 

N.  Y.  488,  431 

Jarmy  v.  Duluth  St.  R.  Co.,  55  Minn.  271, 

2586 

Jarnecke  Ditch,  In  re,  69  Fed.  R.  161,         930 
Jarrett  v.  Kennedy,  6  C.  B.  319,  198 

Jarvis  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  N.  Y. 

623,  2479 

Jarvis  v.  Rogers,  13  Mass.  105,  144 

Jasper  v.  Ballou,  103  U.  S.  745,  1172,  1245,  1248 
Jasper  Trust  Co.  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  99  Ala.  416,  2204, 2205,  2383 

Jaudon  v.  National  City  Bank,  8  Blatch. 

(U.S.)  430,  139 

Jaycox,  In  re,  12  Blatch.  (U.  S.  Cir.)  209,    504 
Jayne  v.  Sebewaing  Co.,  (Mich.)  65  N.  W. 

R.  971,  2012,  2057 

Jean  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  9  Ind.  App.  56, 

1405,  1566 
Jebb  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Mich.  160, 

1817 
Jefferis  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Houst.  447,  1898,  1925, 1937 

Jefferson  v.  Burford,  (Ky.)  17  S.  W.  R. 

855,  128,  141 

Jefferson  v.  Driver,  117  U.  S.  272,  932,  939 

Jefferson  v.  Hewitt,  103  Cal.  624,  400 

Jefferson  v.  Hewitt,  95  Cal.  535,  191 

Jefferson  Bank  v.  Skelly,  1  Black  436,        1090 
Jefferson  County  v.  Lewis,  20  Fla.  980, 

1237,  1242 
Jefferson,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hazeur,  7  La. 

Ann.  182,  1389 

Jeffersonville  v.  Patterson,  26  Ind.  15,          635 
Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Avery,  31 

Ind.  277,  1844 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barbour,  89 

Ind.  375,  1305, 1307,  1311,  1312 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bowen,  40 

Ind.  545,  1525 

Jefforsonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cleveland,  2 

Bush  468,  2278,  2351,  2372 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  29 

Ind.  498,  2275 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Downey,  61 

Ind.  287,  1860 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunlap,  29 

Ind.  426,  878, 1829, 1864, 1867 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Esterle,  13 

Bush  (Ky.)  667,  1535, 1629 


III,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S725.] 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gent,  35  Ind. 

39,  2699 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goldsmith, 

47  Ind.  43,  17:36, 1741,  1742, 1947 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hendricks, 

26  Ind.  228,  2142,  2466,  2547,  2549,  2592 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hendricks,  41 

Ind.  48,  461,  2126,  2143 

Jeffersonville,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Huber,  42 

Ind.  173,  1847, 1874 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irvin,  46  Ind. 

180,  2218, 2360 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lyon,  72  Ind. 

107,  1847 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morgan,  38 

Ind.  190,  1840 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Connor,  37 

Ind.  95,  1833 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oyler,  60  Ind. 

383,  1451 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parmalee,  51 

Ind.  42,  2480,  2544 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Riley,  39  Ind. 

568,  407,  2481,  2503,  2506,  2576,  2578 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  38 

Ind.  262,  1821 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swayne,  26 

Ind.  477,  2135,  2141 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sweeney,  32 

Ind.  430,  1833 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tull,  37  Ind. 

341,  1879 

Jeffersonville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Underbill,  48 

Ind.  389,  1803, 1863 

Jeffersonville  R.  Co.  v.  White,  6   Bush 

(Ky.)  251,  2364 

Jeffersonville  Water,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hirer, 

138  Ind.  170,  1598 

Jeffrey  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.)  65 

N.  W.  R.  755,  1794 

Jeffries  v.  Lawrence,  42  Iowa  498, 

1153, 1159, 1165, 1170, 1175, 1200 

Jeffris  v.  Fitching  R.  Co.,  (Wis.)  67  N.  W. 

R.  424,  2377,  2390,  2396 

Jellett  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn. 

265,  2374 

Jemison  v.  Citizens'  Savings  Bank,  122 

N.  Y.  135,  484 

Jemison  v.  Southwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75 

Ga.  444,  1827 

Jenal  v.  Green  Island  Drainage  Co.,  12 

Neb.  163,  1340 

Jencks  v.  Coleman,  2  Sumn.  (U.  S.)  221, 

285,  2451,  2455 

Jenkins  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Iowa 
255,  1311 


ccxlvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-1,!$,  Vol.  II,  pp.  l^S-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,.,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 


Jenkins  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Mo. 

App.  578,  1833 

Jenkins  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  41  Wis. 

112,  2406, 2553 

Jenkins  v.  Gastonia,  etc.,  Co.,  115  N.  C. 

535v  484 

Jenkins  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  39  So. 

Car.  507,  2000 

Jenkins  v.  Stage  Co.,  22  Cal.  537,  885 

Jenkins  v.  Stetler,  118  Ind.  275,  1104 

Jenks  v.  Fulmer,  160  Pa.  St.  527,  2395 

Jenkyns  v.  Usborne,  7  Man.  &  G.  678,  2389 
Jenkyns  v.  Brown,  14  Q.  B.  496,  2216 

Jennings  v.  Bank,  79  Cal.  323,  148 

Jennings  v.  Broughton,  22  L.  J.  (N.  S.) 

Ch.  585,  191, 197 

Jennings  v.  Coal  Co.,  147  U.  S.  147,  1089 

Jennings  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Mo. 

268,  1784,  2227,  2239,  2332,  2340,  2341 

Jennings  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ry.  Co.,  5  N.  Y. 

Supp.  140,  2201 

Jennings  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  52  Hun 

227,  2212, 2225 

Jennings  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  93  Pa.  St. 

337,  1897 

Jennings  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

Fed.  R.  569,  770 

Jennings  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Mo. 

394,  1678 

Jennings  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Mo. 

268,  1738, 1739, 1776 

Jenningv.  Tacoma,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Wash. 

275,  1999, 2022 

Jennison  v.  Walker,  11  Gray  (Mass.)  423,  1304 
Jensen  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Mich. 

176,  1769, 1782 

Jensen  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  6  Utah  253, 

962,  1813 
Jenson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Wis. 

589,  1042 

Jermain  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc,,  R.  Co.,  91 

N.  Y.  483,  123,  418,  419,  421,  442 

Jerman's  Adm'r  v.  Benton,  79  Mo.  148,  268 
Jerome  v.  McCarter,  94  U.  S.  734, 

678,  680,  681,  803,  834,  846 

Jerome  v.  Ross,  7  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  315,  1388 
Jerome  v.  Smith,  48  Vt.  230,  284,  2488,  2504 
Jersey  City,  The,  46  Fed.  R.  134,  2068 

Jersey  City  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  40  N.  J.  Eq. 

417,  1347 

Jersey  City  v.  Jersey  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

N.  J.  Eq.  360,  98,  1601 

Jersey  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co., 

48  N.  J.  Eq.  379,        1557, 1681, 1692, 1695,  1701 
Jersey  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jersey  City, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  61,  108, 1635 


Jersey  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jersey  City, 

etc.,  Horse  R.  Co.,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  61,  1396 

Jervey  v.  The  Carolina,  66  Fed.  R.  1013,  2640 
Jessel  v.  Bath,  L.  R.  2  Exch.  267,  2204, 2207 
Jessup  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  28  Grant's 

Ch.  (U.  C.)  583,  495, 1307 

Jesup  v.  City  Bank,  14  Wis.  331, 

393,  642,  674,  706 
Jesup  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  43  Fed.  R. 

483,  616 

Jetter  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Keyes(N.Y.) 

154,  1745, 1830 

Jetter  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Abb.  Dec. 

458,  1023, 1024 

Jewell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Wis. 

610,  2547 

Jewell  v.  Grand  Trunk  Railway,  55  N.  H. 

84,  408,  2352,  2375 

Jewell  v.  Rock  River,  etc.,  Co.,  101  111.  57, 

157, 158 

Jewell  v.  Weed,  18  Minn.  272,  1149 

Jewett  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Mo. 

App.  547,  2717 

Jewett  v.  Klein,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  550,  2470 

Jewett  v.  Lawrenceburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Ind.  539,  175, 176, 183 

Jewett  v.  Olsen,  18  Ore.  419,  2272,  2385 

Jewett  v.  Stockton,  3  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  492,  1296 
Jewett  v.  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  34  Ohio  St.  601, 

185, 192, 196,  254 

Jewett  v.  Whitcomb,  69  Fed.  R.  417,  942 

Jobbitt  v.  Goundry,  29  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  509,  2423 
Jobe  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Miss. 

734,  1782 

John,  The  Captain,  33  Fed.  R.  927,  2377 

John  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank,  2  Blkf. 

(Ind.)  367,  341 

John  Hancock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Worcester, 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  149  Mass.  214,  625 

JohnT.  Noye  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Raymond,  (Super. 

Ct.  Buff.)  8  Misc.  R.  R.  353,  28  N.  Y. 

693,  873 

Johns  v.  Johns,  23  Ga.  31,  774 

Johns  v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Assn.,  90  Wis. 

332,  2725 

Johnson  v.  Accident  Insurance  Co.,  35 

Fed.  R.  374,  1016 

Johnson  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Miss. 

191,  2317,  2347,  2403,  2410 

Johnson  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  How. 

Prac.  (N.  Y.)  193,  113,  217,  218,  219,  228 

Johnson  v.  Armour,  18  Fed.  R.  490,  2029 

Johnson  v.  Ashland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,71  Wis. 

553,  2027, 2061 

Johnson  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  H. 

569,  1357, 1565 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


ccxlvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-M2,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.. 

Johnson  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  W. 

Va.  570,  1872 

Johnson  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  J. 

Eq.  454,  1423, 1550 

Johnson  v.  Board,  107  Ind.  15,  1197 

Johnson  v.  Boston,  118  Mass.  114,  2106 

Johnson  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  Mass. 

75,  1952,  2458,  2459 

Johnson  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  Mass. 

209,  2030, 2076 

Johnson  v.  Bridge  water,  etc.,  Co.,  14 

Gray  (Mass.)  274,  424 

Johnson  v.  Butler,  31  La.  Ann.  770,  1235 

Johnson  v.  Campbell,  49  111.  316,        1143, 1178 
Johnson  v.  Cayuga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  621,  2435 

Johnson  v.  Central  Vt.  R.  Co.,  56  Vt.  707,    411 
Johnson  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.,  (Va.) 

21  S.  E.  R.  238,  1773 

Johnson  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

W.  Va.  73,  2705 

Johnson's  Admr.  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  91  Va.  171,  2720 

Johnson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Minn. 

425,  1863,  1885,  2074 

Johnson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Minn. 

57,  1906, 1909, 1936 

Johnson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Wis. 

529,  1759 

Johnson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Icwa 

348,  2475, 2582 

Johnson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa 

157,  1834 

Johnson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Iowa 

666,  1897, 1939 

Johnson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Iowa 

248,  2108,  2132,  2133 

Johnson  v.  Chippendal,  2  Sim.  55,  107 

Johnson  v.  Concord  Ry.,  46  N.  H.  213, 

284,  2452,  2482, 2483,  2492,  2499 
Johnson  v.  Corser,  34  Minn.  355,  19,  20 

Johnson  v.  County  of  Stark,  24  111.  75, 

1143,  1178,  1188, 1236 

Johnson  v.  Crow,  87  Pa.  St.  184,  103 

Johnson  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  Co.,  90 

Ga.  810,  308,  2238,  2302 

Johnson  v.  Farnum,  56  Ga.  144,  750 

Johnson  v.  Freeport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  111. 

413,  1432, 1496, 1515,  1517,  1519, 1520 

Johnson  v.  Freeport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  111. 

521,  1393, 1496, 1526, 1553 

Johnson  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)30S.  W.  R.  95,  2046 

Johnson  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ga. 

725,  168, 180, 181, 182 

Johnson  v.  Gibson,  78  Ind.  282,  383 

Johnson  v.  Gorlett,  3  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  569,         387 


III,  pp.  1263-216^,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 

Johnson  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  139,  1767 

Johnson  v.  Hanover,  etc.,  Bank,  88  Ala. 

271,  873 

Johnson  v.  Hobart,  45  Fed.  R.  542,  1472 

Johnson  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y. 

65,  1657,  2070,  2719 

Johnson  v.  Joliet,  23  111.  202,  60 

Joliet  v.  Joliet,  etc.,  Co.,  23  111.  124,  1091, 1465 
Johnson  v.  Kerr,  1  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  25,  2703 
Johnson  v.  Kessler,  76  Iowa  411, 

28, 177, 180, 1207 

Johnson  v.  Lafflin,  103  U.  S.  800,  140, 145 

Johnson  v.  Lanin,  5  Dill.  (U.  S.)  65, 

140,  397,  433 
Johnson  v.  Lake  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86 

Wis.  64,  1741, 1951, 1953,  1967 

Johnson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  Ala. 

241,  2576 

Johnson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Bush 

(Ky.)  231,  9 

Johnson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Ky. 

651,  1786 

Johnson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.) 

60  Am.  &  Eng.  R  Gas.  648,  1732 

Johnson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.) 

13  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  623,  1732, 1739, 1740 
Johnson  v.  Midland  Ry.  Co.,  4  Exch.  366,  2280 
Johnson  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Neb. 

690,  2721 

Johnson  v.  Missouri  Pac.,  ete.,Co.,  96  Mo. 

340,  300, 2012 

Johnson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  N.Y. 

610,  2237,  2249,  2308 

Johnson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  127,  2248 

Johnson  v.  Northern  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(N.  Dak.)  48  N.  W.  R.  227,  1944 

Johnson  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  N. 

Dak.  354,  1936 

Johnson  v.  Oakes,  70  Fed.  R.  566,  2034 

Johnson  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  (R.  I.)  29 

Atl.  R.  594,  1630 

Johnson  v.  Parkersburg,  16  W.  Va.  402, 

1411, 1538 
Johnson  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fla. 

623,  533,  2279,  2280,  2285,  2423,  2424,  2486 

Johnson  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163 

Pa.  127,  2156,  2157 

Johnson  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

Md.  106,  496,  2484,  2492,  2503 

Johnson  v.  Rankin,  70  N.  C.  550,  1335, 1413 
Johnson  v.  Reading,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160  Pa. 

St.  647,  1647 

Johnson  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Va. 

975,  2156 

Johnson  v.  Skillman,  29  Minn.  85,  1325, 


ccxlviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-lM,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1362,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Johnson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Ark. 

758,  1539 

Johnson  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Minn. 

53,  2001 

Johnson  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  31  Minn. 

283,  1753,  1794 

Johnson  v.  State,  88  Ala.  176,  291 

Johnson  v.  State,  98  Ala.  57,  1052 

Johnson  v.  Stoddard,   100  Mass.  306, 

2195,  2198 

Johnson  v.  Tucker,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  398,  751 

Johnson  v.  Towsley,  13  Wall.  72, 

1127,  1135,  1501 
Johnson  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  Co.,  16  Ind.  389, 

163,  253 
Johnson  v.  West  Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70 

Pa.  St.  357,  2548 

Johnson  Co.  v.  Wharton,  152  U.  S.  252,         976 
Johnson  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Minn. 

296,  2466 

Johnston  v.  Canadian,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50 

Fed.  R.  886,  2143,  2706 

Johnston  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Ohio 

St.  336,  2142 

Johnston  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Iowa 

537,  1383,  1389 

Johnston  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,(Ky.) 

30  S.  W.  R.  415,  2717 

Johnston  v.  Jones,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  216,        237,  357 
Johnston  v.  Laflin,  103  U.  S.  800,  145 

Johnston  v.  Rankin,  70  N.  C.  550,  1470 

Johnston,  Town  Council  of,  v.  Providence, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  R.  I.  365,  1650, 1665,  1673 

Johnstone  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  S. 

Car.  55,  2324,  2327,  2338 

Joint  Stock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Brown,  Law  R.  8 

Eq.  Cases  381,  347 

Joliet  v.  Harwood,  86  111.  110,  1589 

Joliet,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  20  111.  221, 

1309, 1807 
Joliet  St.  R.  Co.  v.  McCarthy,  42  111.  App. 

49,  2586 
Joliet,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Veile,  140  111.  59,        2722 
Joliet  Steel  Co.  v.  Shields,  146  111.  603, 

2706,  2708,  2723 
Jolliffe  v.  Brown,  (Wash.)  44  Pac.  R.  149, 

1811, 1883, 1885 
Jolly  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Mich.  370, 

1999,2031 
Jones  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Miss. 

32,  968, 2149 

Jones  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ala.)  18 

50.  R.  30,  2065 
Jones  v.  Americus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Ga.  803, 

1883 
Jones  v.  Arkansas,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Ark.  17, 

245,  376,  725 


Jones  v.  Asheville,  116  N.  Car.  817,  1450 

Jones  v.  Bank,  10  Colo.  464,  737,  760,  779,  785 
Jones  v.  Blun,  145  N.  Y.  333,  78ft 

Jones  v.  Bolles,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  363,  878 

Jones  v.  Bond,  40  Fed.  R.  281,  1827, 1870,  1871 
Jones  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163  Mass.  245,  2431 
Jones  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Pick.  507,  107 

Jones  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  W. 

Va.  514,  1309 

Jones  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  111.  380, 

1443, 1455 
Jones  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Minn. 

279,  2560, 2595 

Jones  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Wis.  585,  1852 
Jones  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Ry.,  89  Ala.  376, 

2233,  2234,  2324 
Jones  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  S.  Car. 

249,  1808 

Jones  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N.  H.)  s.  c. 

30  Ati.  R.  614,  581 

Jones  v.  Cullen,  142  Ind.  335, 

1192, 1207,  1209,  1246,  1544 
Jones  v.  Eastern  Counties,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Nev.  &  Mac.  45,  2285,  2684 

Jones  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  Pa.  St.  629, 

547, 1391 
Jones  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  Pa.  St.  30, 

1411, 1639 
Jones  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  169  Pa.  St.  333, 

1304, 1322,  1639,  1671 
Jones  v.  Festiniog  R.  Co.,  3  L.  R.  Q.  B. 

733,  1563,  1639,  1905 

Jones  v.  Galena,  etc.,  Co.,  16  Iowa  6,  958,  967 
Jones  v.  George,  61  Tex.  345,  2306 

Jones  v.  Goffstown,  39  N.  H.  254,  1524 

Jones  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Up. 

Can.  (Q.  B.)  193,  1990,  2571 

Jones  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  1  Eng.  Ry. 

&  Canal  Cas.  684,  1313 

Jones  v.  Habersham,  107  U.  S.  174,  550 

Jones  v.  Hall,  9  Ind.  App.  458,  1598 

Jones  v.  Hartford  Ins.  Co.,  88  N.  Car.  499,  882 
Jones  v.  Housa tonic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107 

Mass.  261,  1988 

Jones  v.  Hurst,  67  Mo.  568,  1608 

Jones  v.  Jarman,  34  Ark.  323,  261 

Jones  v.  Keen,  115  Mass.  170,  825,  826 

Jones  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Mich. 

573,  2058 

Jones  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Ky. 

610,  2003 

Jones  v.  Malvern,  etc.,  Co.,  58  Ark.  125, 

2009,  2013,  2064 
Jones  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  Little  Rock,  25 

Ark.  301,  911 

Jones  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Mich. 

437,  1901, 1903, 1936 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxlix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Jones  v.  Miller,  (Va.)  23  S.  E.  R.  35,  1450 

Jones  v.  Milton  Turnp.  Co.,  7  Ind.  547, 

237,238,360 

Jones  v.  Morrison,  31  Minn.  140,  127,  440 

Jones  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Ala. 

227,  1316,  1320,  1420,  1445,  1559,  1560 

Jones  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co1.,  92  N.  Y. 

628,  2014 

Jones  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  193,  2618,  2629 

Jones  v.  Old  Dominion,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82 

Va.  140,  2028,  2079 

Jones  v.  Pearle,  1  Strange  556,  2445 

Jones  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  19  D.  C. 

(8  Mackey)  178,  807 

Jones  v.  Priester,  1  Tex.  App.  (Civ.  Cas.) 

326,  2607, 2610 

Jones  v.  Queen,  7  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  570,  1578 

Jones  v.  Railroad  Co.,  107  Mass.  261,  1036 
Jones  v.  Railway  Co.,  53  Ark.  27,  1879 

Jones  v.  Ross,  48  Kan.  474,  874 

Jones  v.  Schall,  45  Mich.  379,  779 

Jones  v.  Seligman,  81  N.  Y.  190, 

684,  1725, 1726,  1730,  1831 
Jones  v.  Sheboygan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Wis. 

306,  1866 

Jones  v.  Sison,  6  Gray  (Mass.)  288,  209 

Jones  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mo.)  28 

S.  W.  R.  883,  2457 

Jones  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  Mo. 

666,  2083, 2510 

Jones  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mo.  92,  1309 
Jones  v.  Sumner,  27  Ind.  510,  1071 

Jones  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  N.Y. 

196,  111,  251,  417,  419,  420,  427,  440,  624 

Jones  v.  United  States,  48  Wis.  385,  1334 

Jones  v.  United  States  137  U.  S.  202,  2725 

Jones  v.  Van  Bochove,  (Mich.)  61  N.  W.  R. 

342,  1303 

Jones  v.  Victoria,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  2  Q.  B. 

D.  314,  364 

Jones  v.  Voorhees,  10  Ohio  145,  2321 

Jones  v.  Walker,  5  Yerger  (Tenn.)  427,  2203 
Jones  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  399,  2167 
Jones  v.  WiUs  Valley  R.  Co.,  30  Ga.  43,  1426 
Jones  v.  Wiltberger,  42  Ga.  575,  268 

Jonesboro  City  v.  Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110 

U.  S.  192,  1161, 1167, 1171, 1231 

Jones  &  Eastern  R.  Co.,  In  re,  3  C.  B.  (N. 

S.)  718,  2687 

Jordan,  Ex  parte,  94  U.  S.  248,  690 

Jordan  v.  American  Express  Co.,  86  Me. 

225,  2347 

Jordan  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Minn.  8,  1971 
Jordan  v.  Fall  River  R.  Co.,  5  Cush.  (Mass.) 

69,  2187,  2605,  2607,  2609,  2613,  2619 

Jordan  v.  Hazard,  10  Ala.  221,  2700 


TIT,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 

Jordan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  165  Mass. 

346,  2592 

Jordan  v.  Overseers,  4  Ohio  295,  2654 

Jordan  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Minn. 

172,  1566 

Jordan  v.  Warren  Insurance  Co.,  1  Story 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  342,  2421,  2426 

Jordan  v.  Wells,  3  Woods  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  527, 

802,2051 

Jordan  v.  Woodward,  40  Me.  317,  1332 

Joseph  v.  Davis,  (Ala.)  10  So.  R.  830,  891 

Joseph  v.  Georgia  R.,  76  Ga.  597,  2236 

Josey  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.Co.,12  Rich. 

Law  (S.  Car.)  134,  555 

Joslin  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50 

Mich.  516,  2076 

Joslyn  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  51  Vt.  92, 

2215,  2216,  2218, 2375 
Jourdan  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  115  N.  Y. 

380,  394,396 

Joy  v.  City  of  St.  Louis,  138  U.  S.  1, 

491,  493,  494,  909,  1314, 1315,  1395 
Joy  v.  Jackson,  etc.,  Plank  Road  Co.,  11 

Mich.  155,  349 

Joy  v.  Manion,  28  Mo.  App.  55,  20 

Joy  v.  Winnisimmet  Co.,  114  Mass.  63,  2704 
Joyner  v.  South  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

26  S.  Car.  49,  2301,  2717 

Judah  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Ind.  333, 

162,  205,  272,  360 
Judd  v.  Bankers',  etc.,  Co.,  31  Fed.  R. 

182,  762 

Judkins  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Me.  417«  2047 
Judson  v.  City  of  Bessemer,  87  Ala.  240,  121& 
Judson  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  (Minn.) 

65  N.  W.  R.  447,  1776 

Judson  v.  Rossie  Galena  R.  Co.,  9  Paige 

598,  107 

Judson  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  4  Allen  520, 

2189,  2243,  2255,  2273,  2277 
Judson  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  6  Allen  (Mass.) 

486,  2323, 2327 

Junction,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City,  88  Pa.  St.  424,  1109 
Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cleneay,  13  Ind. 

161,  626 

Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reeve,  15  Ind. 

236,  171,  355,  $58,  365 

Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ruggles,  7  Ohio 

St.  1,  1288, 1303 

Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Silver,  27  Kan. 

741,  1485 

June  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153  Mass.  79,  1741 
Jungnitsch  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Mich.)  63  N.  W.  R.  296,  2041 

Junior  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  127  Mo. 

79,  2022 


ccl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  11,3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Junod  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  47  Fed.  R. 

290,  2667,  2678,  2689 

Jussen  v.  Board,  etc.,  95  Ind.  567, 

1182, 1194, 1224 

Justice  v.  Lang,  52  N.  Y.  323,  2715 

Justice  v.  Nesquehoning  Valley  R.  Co.,  87 

Pa.  St.  28,  1313, 1329,  1447, 1541, 1559 

Justice  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  130  Ind.  321, 

406,  2082 

Justice  v.  Philadelphia,  169  Pa.  St.  503,     1485 
Justices  of  Campbell  County  v.  Knox- 
ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  598, 

1185,  1216 

Justices  of  Clarke  Co.  Ct.  v.  Paris,  etc., 
Turnpike  Co.,  11  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  143, 

1200, 1201, 1212 


K 


Kaare  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  N.  Y.  369,    2041 
Kaeiser  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  R. 

151,  2645 

Kaes  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  Co.,  6  Mo. 

App.  397,  1825 

Kahl  v.  Love,  37  N.  J.  Law  5,  602,  1996 

Kahn  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  N.  Car. 

638,  2618 

Kahn  v.  St.  Joseph  Bank,  70  Mo.  262,  147 

Kain  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Mo. 

App.  53,  2167 

Kain  v.  Smith,  80  N.  Y.  458, 

804,  811,  812,  819, 2084 
Kaiser  v.  Lawrence  Savings  Bank,  56 

Iowa  104,  24, 271 

Kaiser  v.  Seaton,  62  Iowa  463,  1294 

Kaiser  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.',  R.  Co.,  22  Minn. 

149,  1378 

Kalamazoo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Snavely,  34  Fed. 

R.  823,  932 

Kalamazoo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sootsma,  84  Mich. 

194,  2409, 2672 

Kalbfleisch  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

102  N.  Y.  520,  1923 

Kallman  v.  United  States  Express  Co.,  3 

Kan.  205,  2346, 2347 

Kaminitsky  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  25  S. 

Car.  53,  1041, 1677 

Kanaga  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Mo. 

207,  1541 

Kanawha,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kanawha,  etc.,  Co.,  7 

Blateh.  (U.  S.)  391,  84 

Kane  v.  Baltimore,  15  Md.  240,  1342 

Kane  v.  N.  Y.  El.  R.  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  164, 

12,  1629, 1639 
Kane  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132  N.  Y. 

160,  1767 

Kane  v.  People,  3  Wend.  363,  1020 


Kankakee  County  v.  2Btna  Life  Ins.  Co., 

106  U.  S.  668,  1220 

Kaukakee,  etc.,  Mill  Co.  v.  Kampe,  38  Mo. 

App.  229,  854 

Kankakee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chester,  62  111. 

235,  1528, 1556 

Kankakee,  etc.*  R.  Co.  v.  Fitzgerald,  17 

111.  App.  525,  1309 

Kankakee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Straut,  102  111. 

666,  1524 

Kanne  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

Minn.  423,  1541,  1548,  1551,  1559 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  22  Kan.  285, 

1387, 1725 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  24  Kan.  33, 

1517, 1520 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Atchison  R.  Co., 

112  U.  S.  414,  942, 1127, 1128 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bayles,  19  Colo.  348, 

790,  791,  2225,  2433 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  45  Kan.  716, 

1662, 1702 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brady,  17  Kan.  380, 

1925 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burge,  40  Kan.  734, 

1832 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Butts,  7  Kan.  308,    1888 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cutter,  19  Kan.  83, 

2135,  2151 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cutter,  16  Kan.  568, 

2142 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cuykendall,  42  Kan. 

234,  1634 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Borough,  72  Tex. 

108,  819,  2548,  2595 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunmeyer,  113 U.  S. 

629,  1131,  1132,  1278 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dye,  70  Fed.  R.  24,    2048 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitzsimmons,  22 

Kan.  686,  1974, 1981 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitzsimmons,  18 

Kan.  34,  1587,  1590,  2104 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hopkins,  18  Kan. 

494,  494,  527,  559, 1308, 1539 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kessler,  18  Kan. 

523,  284 

Kansas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Lundin,  3  Colo.  94, 

1563,  2472 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McBratney,  12  Kan. 

1,  1541 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mihlman,  17  Kan. 

224,  1539 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  2  Colo.,  442, 

1796,  2466,  2468,  2472 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montelle,  10  Kan. 

119,  2623 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


cell 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262;  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S725.] 


Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morrison,  34  Kan. 

502,  2610 

Kansas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Mower,  16  Kan.  573, 

958,  967,  973, 1033, 1811, 1813, 1885 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peavey,  29  Kan.  169, 

2148,  2156 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peavey,  31  Kan.  472,  2035 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pointer,  9  Kan. 

620,  1643, 1738,  1749, 1759,  1766, 1953 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reynolds,  17  Kan. 

251,  2263, 2326 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richardson,  25 

Kan.  391,  1753 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Salmon,  14  Kan. 

134,  2016 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sanders,  98  Ala. 

293,  2475 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searle,  11  Colo.  1, 

813,  819 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  40  Kan.  192, 

468,860 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  97  Mo.  457,  1411 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Streeter,  8  Kan. 

133,  1485,  1540 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ward,  4  Colo.  30, 

1736,  1764,  1768 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Waters,  70  Fed.  R. 

28,  2048 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whipple,  39  Kan. 

531,  1955, 1969 

Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  24  Kan.  619, 

604,  819,  820, 1861 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yanz,  16  Kan.  583, 

1033, 1812 

Kansas,  City  of,  v.  Baird,  98  Mo.  215,  1419, 1467 
Kansas,  City  of  ,v.  Butterfield,  89  Mo.  646,  1523 
Kansas,  City  of,  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  18 

Kan.  331,  .  1508 

Kansas,  City  of,  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  84  Mo.  410,  1526 

Kansas,  City  of,  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  102  Mo.  633,        1660, 1661, 1665,  1669,  1702 
Kansas  City  v.  Smart,  128  Mo.  272,  1465 

Kansas  City  v.  Vineyard,  128  Mo.  75,  1465 

Kansas  City  Hotel  Co.  v.  Hunt,  57  Mo.  126, 

154,  225 
Kansas  City  Hotel  Co.  v.  Sauer,  65  Mo. 

279,  859  867 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alderman,  47 

Mo.  349,  1184 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Attorney-Gen- 
eral, 118  TJ.  S.  682,  1118, 1127 
Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ball,  19  Kan. 

535,  1878 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Berry,  53  Kan. 

112,  2465,  2555 


Kansas  City,  etc. ,  R.  Co.  v.  Balson,  33  Kan. 

534,  1862, 1872 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burge,  40  Kan. 

734,  1875, 1885 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burton,  97 

Ala.  240,  1999,  2000,  2119,  2120 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  62 

Mo.  585,      990, 1468, 1473, 1494,  1524,  1526,  1535 
Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cantrell,  70 

Miss.  329,  1869 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cook,  66  Fed. 

R.  115,  1968, 1971 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crocker,  95 

Ala.  412,  2121,  2123 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Daughtry,  138 

U.  S.  298,  883 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doggett,  67 

Miss.  250,  1852, 1870 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dye,  70  Fed. 

R.  24,  2019 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher,  53  Kan. 

512,  1476, 1512 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gough,  35 

Kan.  1,  894 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hammond,  58 

Ark.  324,  2018 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Higdon,  94 

Ala.  286,  2614 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holland,  68 

Miss.  351,  2328,  2340,  2408 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.    Interstate 

Lumber  Co.,  37  Fed.  R.  3,  930 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Justices  of 

Nodaway  County,  47  Mo.  349,  1159 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kansas  City, 

etc.,  Co.,  118  Mo.  599, 

550,  906,  1287,  1692,  1704 
Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spencer,  72 

Miss.  491,  1027 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  36  Kan. 

655,  1962, 2575 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  49 

Kan.  19,  1513,  1534 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kier,  41  Kan. 

661,  1997, 2086 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kirksey,  48 

Ark.  366,  1869, 1966 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kirksey,  60 

Fed.  R.  999,  2066,  2721 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kregelo,  32 

Kan.  608,  1429, 1439,  1442, 1448, 1717 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lackey,  72 

Miss.  881,  1455, 1565 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lilly,  (Miss.) 

8  So.  R.  644,  2192,  2193 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Merrill,  25 

Kan.  421,  1428, 1430,  1431, 14SJ 


cclii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Reference!  a 

[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-12fi2,  Vol 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morrison,  34 

Kan.  502,  2275,  2377,  2607,  2608,  2610 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Murray,  55 

Kan.  336,  2044 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Myers,  (Miss.) 

7  So.  E.  321,  1852 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Owen,  25  Kan. 

419,  1925 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Patten,  (Kan. 

App.)  45  Pac.  E.  108,  2614,  2616,  2617 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  98 

Ala.  159,  2457 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Rich  Tp.,  45 

Kan.  275,  1155,  1192,  1237 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eiley,  33  Kan. 

374,  1405 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Riley,  68  Miss. 

765,  2488 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eodebaugh, 

38  Kan.  45,  2321,  2322,  2483,  2633 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Ryan,  52  Kan. 

637,  2013 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simpson,  30 

Kan.  645,  226:},  2317,  2336,  2399 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  72  Miss. 

677,  1565 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spitlog,  45 

Kan.  68,  1513 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Joseph, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Mo.  457,  898, 1681, 1704 

Kansas  City  R.  Co.  v.  Stoner,  51  Fed.  R. 

209,  1709, 1710,  2570 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Story,  96  Mo. 

611,  1500, 1527 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watson,  91 

Ala.  483,  1856 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weaver,  86 

Mo.  473,  1452 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  Transfer  Co.  v.  Neis- 

wander,  18  Mo.  App.  103,  2279 

Karber  v.  Nellis,  22  Wis.  215,  1529 

Karle  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Mo. 

476,  1745, 2144 

Karnes  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Abb. 

Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  107,  346,  430,  431 

Karrer  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Mich. 

400,  2019 

Karsen  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

Minn.  12,  1925,  1935,  1939 

Karuth's  Case,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  506,  338 

Kasson  v.  Brocker,  47  Wis.  79,  1555 

Kasson  v.  Noltner,  43  Wis.  646,  2200 

Katama  Land  Co.  v.  Jernegan,  126  Mass. 

155,  213 

Kates  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  (Qa.)  23  S.  E. 

E.  186,  2535,  2536,  2538 


re  to  Pages.] 
Ill,  pp.  1263-216/1,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-1725.] 

Kathleen  Mary,  The  Steamer,  8  Benedict 

165,  2372 

Katzenberger  v.  Aberdeen,  121  U.  S.  172, 

1168, 1171,  1172, 1173,  1215,  1233 
Katzenberger  v.  Aberdeen,  16  Fed.  R.  745,  1153 
Katzenberger  v.  Lawo,  90  Tenn.  235, 

10, 1708,  1756,  2476 
Katzenstein  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 

N.  C.  688,  306, 1026- 

Kaufman  v.  Tacoma,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Wash. 

632,  1633 

Kaufman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Christophel,  59  Mo. 

App.  80,  1608 

Kauffman  v.  Maier,  94  Cal.  269,  2058 

Kauffman  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ind.) 

43  N.  E.  R.  446,  1766,  1780,  2718 

Kauffman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,E. 

Co.,  3  Interst.  Com.  R.  400,  2672 

Kavanagh  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Ga. 

271,  900,  1650 

Kay  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Pa. 

St.  269,  ,  1736,  1743, 1749,  1764,  1950,  1982 

Kean  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  61  Md. 

154,  1787,  1792, 1794 

Kean  v.  Johnson,  9  N.  J.  Eq.  401, 

235,  450,  515,  911 

Kearney  v.  Andrews,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  70,  275 

Kearney  v.  Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  9  Cush. 

108,  2129, 2131 

Kearney  v.  Central,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (Pa.)  31 

Atl.  E.  637,  604,  60& 

Kearney  v.  London,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  L.  R.  5 

Q.  B.  411,  1672,  1984 

Kearney  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 

N.  Y.  Supp.  608,  1632 

Kearney,  Township  of,  v.  Ballantine,  54 

N.  J.  Law  194,  1476 

Kearney  v.  Buttles,  1  Ohio  St.  362,  484 

Keating  v.  Cincinnati,  38  Ohio  St.  141,         1406 
Keating  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  Co.,  97  Mich. 

154,  305,  1963,  1964,  2060 

Keating  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y. 

673,  2549 

Keats  v.  National,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Fed.  R. 

940,  2023 

Keefe  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142  Mass. 

251,  1965, 2589 

Keefe  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  60 

N.  W.  R.  503,  1792,  1956 

Keefe  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Minn. 

297,  1974 

Keegan  v.  Western,  etc..  R.  Co.,  8  N.  Y. 

175,  2051 

Keeler  v.  Brooklyn  El.  R.  Co.,  9  Abb.  N. 

Cas.  (N.  Y.)  166,  829 

Keeler  v.  MUledge,  24  N.  J.  L.  142,  2710 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccliii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol. 

Xeeley  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  47  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 

256,  2571 

Keeman  v.  Commissioners  Court,  26  Ala. 

368,  1475 

Keen  v.  Breckenridge,  96  Ind.  69,  731,  799,  802 
Jfeenan  v.  Missouri  Ins.  Co.,  12  Iowa  126,  321 
Keenan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145 

N.  Y.  190,  2077,  2091 

Keene  v.  Van  Reuth,  48  Md.  184,  550,  876 

Keener  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  Co.,  31  Fed.  R. 

126,  8 

Keeney  v.  Globe  Mill  Co.,  39  Conn.  145,  425 
Keeney  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47 

N.  Y.  525,  2286,  2287,  2345 

Keeney  v.  Home  Insurance  Co.,  71  N.  Y. 

396,  785 

Keeney  v.  Oregon  R.  &  N.  Co.,  19  Ore.  291,  1864 
Keese  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 Iowa  78,  1925 
Kehler  v.  Schwenk,  144  Pa.  St.  348,  1979,  2008 
Kehoe  v.  Allen,  92  Mich.  464,  2054 

Kehr  v.  Hall,  117  Ind.  405,  793,  798 

Keiffer,  Ex  parts,  40  Fed.  R.  399,  995 

Keiffer  v.  Ehler,  18  Pa.  St.  388,  1221 

Keim  v.  Union  Ry.  Co.,  90  Mo.  314,  1745 

Keiser  v.  Lovett,  85  Ind.  240,  903 

Keith  v.  Amende,  1  Bush  455,  230,  2205 

Keith  v.  Bingham,  100  Mo.  300,  1102 

Keith  v.  Clark,  97  U.  S.  454,  1133 

Keith  v.  Intercolonial,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Nova 

Sc.  226,  1741 

Keith  v.  Kentucky  Cent.  R.  Co.,  1  Interst. 

Com.  R.  601,  2409 

Keith  v.  Levi,  2  Fed.  R.  743,  931 

Keith  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  Mass. 

175,  2015, 2025 

Keith  v.  Pinkham,  43  Me.  501,  2470,  2554 

Keith  v.  Pullman's  Palace  Car  Co.,  17  Chi- 
cago Legal  News  196,  2535 
Keithsburg  v.  Frick,  34  111.  405,  1143 
Keithsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  79  111. 

290,  560, 1426, 1429,  1438, 1443 

Keitler  v.  State,  4  Greene  (Iowa)  291,  990 
Keliher  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  Co.,  107  Mass. 

411,  1809 

Kellard  v.  Rooke,  L.  R.  19  Q.  B.  D.  585, 

2119,  2120 

Kellard  v.  Rooke,  L.  R.  21  Q.  B.  D.  365,  2106 
Kelleher  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Wis.  584,  1999 

Keller  v.  Corpus  Christi,  50  Tex.  614,  990 

Keller  v.  Johnson,  11  Ind.  337,  194 

Keller  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Minn. 

178,  2544 

Kellerman  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Mo.)  34  S.  W.  R.  41,  2201,  2326,  2336 

Kellett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Mo. 

App.  356,  2492 


III,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  1165-271.1.] 

Kelley  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Me.  163,  2485 
Kelley  v.  Bowker,  11  Gray  428,  2207 

Kelley  v.  Cable  Co.,  7  Mont.  70,      *  2079 

Kelley  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Fed.  R. 

663,  2151 

Kelley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Wis.  74, 

2031 
Kelley  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Mo. 

138,  1025,  1026, 1761 

Kelley  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Fed. 

R.  564,         243,  1153,  1158, 1167, 1215,  1216, 1258 
Kelley  v.  Newburyport,  etc.,  Horse  R.  Co., 

141  Mass.  496,  297,  379,  488,  642,  876 

Kelley  v.  Silver  Spring,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 

R-  I- 112,  2005,  2028 

Kelley  v.  Town  of  Milan,  127  U.  S.  139,  1146 
Kellinger  v.  Forty-second  St.,  etc.,  Co., 

50  N.  Y.  206,  1637 

Kellogg  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Wis. 

223,  1901,  1909,  1923,  1925 

Kellogg  v.  Ely,  15  Ohio  St.  64,  1207 

Kellogg  v.  Freeman,  50  Miss.  127,  889 

Kellogg  v.  Larkin,  3  Pinney  (Wis.)  123,  523 
Kellogg  v.  Malin,  50  Mo.  496,  1387 

Kellogg  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Dill. 

537,  1906, 1910 

Kellogg  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  N.  Y. 

72,  2151 

Kellogg  v.  Robinson,  6  Vt.  276,  561 

Kellogg  v.  Stockwell,  75  111.  68,  256 

Kellogg  v.  Suffolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  N.  Car. 

158,  2191, 2192 

Kellogg  Bridge  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  110  U.  S. 

108,  487 

Kellow  v.  Central  Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68 

Iowa  470,  '  2449,  2470,  2476,  2571 

Kelly,  In  re,  5  Fed.  R.  846, 
Kelly  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  58  Ala. 

489,  618,  638,  650,  735,  738,  742 

Kelly  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Pa.  St.) 

11  Atl.  R.  659,  2068 

Kelly  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  61 

N.  W.  R.  957,  2668 

Kelly  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Mo.  534,  1777 
Kelly  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Mich.  19,  1738 
Kelly  v.  Hendrie,  26  Mich.  255,  1648 

Kelly  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Daly  (N.  Y.) 

291,  307 

Kelly  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  112  N.  Y.  443,  2589 
Kelly  v.  Mayor,  11  N.  Y.  432,  1588 

Kelly  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Mich. 

186,  1737, 1970 

Kelly  v.  People's  Transportation  Co.,  3 

Ore.  189,  489 

Kelly  v.  Receiver,  5  Fed.  R.  846,  708 

Kelly  v.  Southern  Miim.  R.  Co.,  28  Minn. 

98,  1C59,  1675,  1784,  1957 


ccliv 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JAS-U62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2M,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S7S5.] 


Kelly  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  58  Ala.  489,  525,  746 
Kellny  v.  Missouri  Pac.  B.  Co.,  101  Mo.  67, 

*  1955 

Kelner  v.  Bexter,  L.  B.  2  Com.  P.  174, 

19,  21,  488 

Kelsey  v.  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  505,  196 
Keltenbaugh  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  34 

Mo.  App.  147,  1874 

Kemp  v.  Falk,  L.  E.  7  App.  Cas.  573, 

2393,2396 
Kemp  v.  Southeastern  E.  Co.,  L.  E.  7  Ch. 

364,  1391 

Kember  v.  Southern  Ex.  Co.,  22  La.  Ann. 

158,  2208, 2338 

Kemper  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  11  Ohio 

St.  392,  1389 

Kendall  v.  London,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  L.  E.  7 

Exch.  373,  2399,  2404 

Kendall  v.  Missisquoi,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  55  Vt. 

438,  1536, 1537 

KendaU  v.  Post,  8  Ore.  141,  1465 

Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Pet.  524,  930 
Kendig  v.  Chicago  E.  Co.,  79  Mo.  207,  1855 
Kendrick  v.  Towle,  60  Mich.  363,  1906, 1927 
Kenicott  v.  Supervisors,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

452,  626,  681,  1152, 1153, 1239 

Kennardv.  Louisiana,  92  U.  S.  480,  1476 

Kennayde  v.  Pacific  Eailroad  Co.,  45  Mo. 

255,  1011, 1756 

Kenne  v.  Hannibal,  etc. ,  E.  Co. ,  63  Mo.  99,  1912 
Kennebec,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Kendall,  31  Me. 

470,  212,  214,  215,  225,  275,  276,  277 

Kennebec,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Palmer,  34  Me. 

366,  154, 224 

Kennebec,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Portland,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  54  Me.  173,  240,  643 

Kennebec,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Portland,  etc.,  E. 

Co.,  59  Me.  9,  525,  638, 1351 

Kennebec,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Waters,  34  Me. 

369,  173 

Kennedy  v.  American  Ex.  Co.,  22  Ont.  App. 

278,  2354 

Kennedy  v.  Denver,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  10  Colo. 

493,  1968 

Kennedy  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  115  N.  C.  223,  419 
Kennedy  v.  Green,  3  Mylne  &  K.  699,  322 

Kennedy  v.  Indianapolis,  103  U.  S.  599,  1415 
Kennedy  v.  Indianapols,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  3 

Fed.  E.  97,  803 

Kennedy  v.  McLellan,  76  Mich.  598,  271 

Kennedy  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  E.  E.  Co.,  22 

Wis.  581,  1452, 1549 

Kennedy  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  74  Ala. 

430,  2366 

Kennedy  v.  North  Mo.  E.  Co.,  36  Mo.  351,  1748 
Kennedy  v.  Palmer,  6  Gray  316,  1170 


Kennedy  v.  Panama,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  E.  2  Q. 

B.  580,  194 

Kennedy  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  1 

Mon.  (Pa.)  271,  2031 

Kennedy  v.  St.  Louis  E.  Co.,  43  Mo.  App. 

1,  1647 

Kennedy  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  2  Dillon 

(U.  S.)  448, 

740,  745,  749,  754,  818,  834,  838,  1584 
Kennedy  v.  Strong,  14  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  128, 

74,90 
Kenneth  v.  South  Carolina  E.  Co.,  15 

Eich.  (S.  Car.  Law)  284,  2431 

Kennett's  Petition,  24  N.  H.  139,  1400 

Kennett  v.  Plummer,  28  Mo.  142,  1130 

Kenney  v.  Central  B.  Co.,  61  Ga.  590,          2075 
Kenney  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  63  Mo. 

99,  1895 

Kenney  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  70  Mo. 

252,  1910, 1911 

Kenney  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  125  N.Y. 

422,  2319,  2328,  2510,  2603 

Kennicott  v.  Wayne  Co.,  6  Biss.  (U.  S.) 

138,  628 

Kenosha  v.  Lamson,  9  Wall.  477,  632,  1172 

Kenosha,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Marsh,  17  Wis.  13, 

67,349 
Kensington,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.,  In  re,  97 

Pa.  St.  260,  1529 

Kent  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  45  Ohio 

St.  284,  2482 

Kent  v.  Brickmaking  Co.,  17  Law  T. 

(N.  S.)  77,  17 

Kent  v.  Freehold,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  E.  3  Ch. 

App.  493,  200,  253 

Kent  v.  Lake  Superior,  etc.,  Co.,  144  U.  S. 

75,  711 

Kent  v.  Midland  E.  Co.,  L.  B.  10  Q.  B.  1, 

2493,2632 
Kent  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  67 

Miss.  608,  1856 

Kent  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  12  N.  Y.  628, 

971, 1580, 1594 

Kent  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  120  N.  Y.  467,     2595 
Kent  v.  Quicksilver  Mining  Co.,  78  N.  Y. 

159,         118, 119, 120,  276,  277,  278,  280,  502,  510 
Kent,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  London,  etc.,  Co., 

L.  E.  3  Ch.  B.  656,  576 

Kenton  County  Court  v.  Bank  Lick,  etc., 
'     Co.,  10  Bush  (Ky.)  529,  23,  61, 1369, 1372 

Kenton  Furnace,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McAlpin,  5 

Fed.  E.  737,  226,  238,  440,  442 

Kenton  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bowman,  84  Ky.  430, 

148,  150,  306 
Kentucky,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.  v.  Krieger,  93 

Ky.  243,  900 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


cclv 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-USS,  Vol.  II, pp.  US-1S62,  Vol.  ITT,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S7S5.] 


278, 
Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barrow, , 


Kentucky,  etc..  Bridge  Co.  v.  Louisville, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Fed.  R.  567, 

979,  981, 1046,  2172,  2175,  2177,  2237,  2256,  2644 

2646,  2658,  2659,  2674,  2685,  2686 

Kentucky  Improvement  Co.  v.  Slack,  100 

U.  S.  648,  1,  7, 1152 

Kentucky,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Western,  etc., 

Railroad,  8  Baxt.  268,  2193,  2241 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ackley,  87  Ky. 

2051,  2077 
Ky. 

638,  1889 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bourbon  County, 

85  Ky.  98,  1164,  1202,  1209 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gastineau,  83 

Ky.  119,  1973 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jameson,  (Ky.) 

20  S.  W.  R.  258,  2056 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kenney,  82  Ky. 

154,  1314,  1315, 1822 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kenney,  (Ky.)  20 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  458,  561 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lebus,  14  Bush 

518,  1804,  1854,1863 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKinney,  9  Ind. 

App.  213,  2479,  2546,  2591 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quinkert,  2  Ind. 

App.  244,  2599 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  (Ky.)  18 

L.  R.  A.  63,  1763 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Talbot,  78  Ky. 

621,  1870 

Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  79  Ky. 

160,  2463, 2560 

Kentucky  Railroad  Tax  Cases,  115  U.  S. 

321,  1091,  1095,  1336 

Kentucky  Railroad  Tax  Cases,  92  U.  S. 

663,  1059 

Kentucky  Wagon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc., 

R.Co.,(Ky.)32S.  W.  R.  595,      2438,2439,2440 
Kentucky  Wagon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisville, 

etc.,  Co.,  11  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  49,  286 

Kentucky  Wagon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  Law  &  Eq.   Ct.  of  Louis- 
ville, Dec.  20, 1891,  2438 
Kenyon  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  479,  1969 

Keokuk,  The,  9  WaU.  517,  2276 

Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davidson,  13  Mo. 

App.  561,  786 

Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davidson,  95  Mo.  467,   375 
Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Missouri,  152  U.  S. 

301,      96,  458,  459,  463,  703,  719, 1063, 1064, 1067 
Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.  v.  True,  88  111.  608,  2458 

Keokuk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  County  Court  of 
Scotland,  41  Fed.  R.  305,  459 


Keppel's  Adm'r  v.  Petersburg  R.  Co., 

Chase's  Dec.  (U.  S.)  167,         418,  427,  428,  442 
Kerchner  v.  Gettys,  18  S.  Car.  521,  338 

Kern  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Assn.,  140  m.  371,      891 
Kern  v.  Day,  45  La.  71,  146 

Kern  v.  Huidekoper,  103  U.  S.  485,       946,  2141 
Kernochan,  In  re,  10  N.  Y.  618,  422, 425 

Kernochan,  In  re,  104  N.  Y.  618,  418 

Kernochan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co..  128 

N.  Y.  559,  1450 

Kerns  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  62 

N.  W.  R.  692,  .         2034 

Kerp  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Chicago 

Legal  News  101,  742,  746,  763,  775 

Kerr,  In  re,  42  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  119,  2 

Kerr  v.  Corry,  105  Pa.  St.  282,  1236 

Kerr  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  24  TT.C.  C.  P. 

209,  2619, 2620 

Kerr  v.  Moore,  54  Miss.  286,  1605 

Kerr  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  169  Pa.  St. 

95,  2137 

Kerr  v.  South  Park  Commissioner,  117 

U.  S.  379,  1414, 1435 

Kerr  v.  White,  7  Baxt.  (Tenn.)  394,  760 

Kerr  v.  Woolly,  3  Utah  456,  1069 

Kerrison  v.  Stewart,  93  U.  S.  155,  1452 

Kersey  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mo. 

362,  2035 

Kersey  Oil  Co.  v.  Oil  Creek,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  144,  360 

Kersey  Oil  Co.  v.  Oil  Creek,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

12  Phila.  374,  323,  578 

Kershaw  v.  Mathews,  1  Russ.  (Eng.  Ch.) 

362,  777 

Kerwhacker  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Ohio 

St.  172,  1805, 1807, 1852, 1863 

Kesee  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Iowa  78, 

1901 
Kessler  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  N.  Y. 

538,  2628 

Kessler  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Lans. 

62,  2228 

Kessler  v.  Smith,  66  N.  Car.  154,  2126,  2195 
Kestler  v.  Kern,  2  Ind.  App.  Ct.  R.  488,  895 
Ketchum  v.  Duncan,  96  U.  S.  659, 

635,  636,  687,  706 
Ketcham  v.  Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Ind. 

260,  467, 468 

Ketchum  v.  Pacific  Railroad,  4  Dill.  78,  659 
Ketchum  v.  St.  Louis,  101  U.  S.  306, 

659,  660,  705, 1139 
Kettle  River  R.  Co.  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  41 
Minn.  461,  7, 499,  533,  559, 1271, 1315, 1340, 

1353,1366 
Kettlewell  v.  Watson,  L.  R.  21  Ch.  Div. 

685,  322 

Key  City,  The,  14  Wall.  653,  465 


cclvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-lMt,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  £165-2725.] 


Keyes  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Minn. 

290,  1881 

Keys  v.  Board,  etc.,  42  Cal.  252,  1557 

Keyser  y.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  56  Mich. 

559,  1828, 1975,  2002 

Keyser  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Mich. 

390,  1828 

Keyser  v.  Hitz,  133  U.  S.  138,  136 

Keyser  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Iowa 

440,  1878 

Keyser  v.  Rice,  47  Md.  203,  895 

Keystone  Bridge  Co.  v.  McCluney,  8  Mo. 

APP.  496,  115 

Keystone  Bridge  Co.  v.  Newberry,  69  Pa. 

St.  246,  2076 

Keystone,  etc.,  Iron  Co.  v.  Martin,  132  U.  S. 

91,  s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  32,  690 

Kidd  v.  Pearson,  128  U.  S.  1, 

996,  2272,  2650,  2662 

Kidwell  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Gratt. 

(Va.)  676,  1573, 1574,  1575 

Kidwell  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Woods 

(U.  S.)  313,  2086 

KidweUy  Canal  Co.  v.  Raby,  2  Price  93,       156 
Kiebler  v.  Holmes,  58  Mo.  App.  119,  1450 

Kiecher  v.  Killbuck  Turnp.  Co.,  33  Ind. 

333,  1541 

Kiel  v.  Carll,  51  Conn.  440,  1596 

Kieran  v.  Sandars,  6  Ad.  &  El.  515,  2387 

Kiernan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  111. 

188,  1512,  1525 

Kiff  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Kan.  263,  2245 
Kiff  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  117  Mass. 

591,  2272, 2386 

Kihlberg  v.  United  States,  97  U.  S.  398, 

1571,  1573,  1574 

Kilbour  v.  Sunderland,  130  U.  S.  505,  617 

Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S.  168,    979,  983 
Kile  v.  Town  of  Yellowhead,  80  111.  208, 

1529,  1548, 1551 

Killea  v.  Faxon,  125  Mass.  485,  2110 

Killian  v.  Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Ga.  749, 

2450 

Killmer  v.  Hobart,  58  How.  P.  (N.  Y.)  452,    773 
Kilkner  v.  New  York,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  100 

N.  Y.  395,  2424,  2431 

Kilpatrick  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

Am.  St.  R.  741,  1608 

Kilpatrick  v.  Kansas  City  R.  Co.,  38  Neb. 

620,  1604,  1608 

Kilpatrick  v.  Penrose  Ferry  Bridge  Co., 

49  Pa.  St.  118,  371 

Kimball,  The,  3  WalL  (U.  S.)  37,  2447 

Kimball  v.  Adams,  52  Wis.  554,  1447 

Kimball  v.  Atchison,  T.  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,(C. 

C.  U.  S.)  46  Fed.  B.  888,  444,  445 


Kimball  v.  Board,  21  Fed.  R.  145,  1229 

Kimball  v.  Board,  etc.,  46  Cal.  19,  1465 

Kimball  v.  Brander,  6  La.  711,  2205 

Kimball  v.  Cushman,  103  Mass.  194,  303 

Kimball  v.  Goodburn,  32  Mich.  10,  759,  760 
Kimball  v.  Railroad  Co.,  26  Vt.  247,  2697 

Kimball  v.  Reding,  31  N.  H.  352,  138 

Kimball  v.  Rockland,  71  Me.  137,  1590 

Kimball  v.  Rosendale,  42  Wis.  407,  1172, 1197 
Kimball  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Vt. 

247,  2173,  2174,  2281,  2321,  2399 

Kimball  v.  Union  Water  Co.,  44  Cal.  173,  147 
Kimmerle  v.  Dowagiac,  etc.,  Co.,  (Mich.) 

63  N.  W.  R.  529,  826 

Kimmish  v.  Ball,  129  U.  S.  217,  966,  2650,  2651 
Kincaid  v.  Dwinelle,  59  N.  Y.  548, 

107,  258,  267,  785,  859,  861,  862 
Kincaid  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  124  Ind. 

577,  1628 

Kincaid  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Ore.  35, 

2706 
Kindel  v.  Hall,  (Colo.  App.)  44  Pac.  R. 

781,  2027 

Kinealy  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Mo. 

658,  494,  957, 1308 

King's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  714,  216 

King  v.  Ash  well,  12  East  22,  280 

King  v.  Barnes,  109  N.  Y.  267,  2260 

King  v.  Belcher,  30  S.  Car.  381,  1458 

King  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Cush.  112,  2051 
King  v.  Bristol  Dock  Co.,  6  Barn.  &  Cress. 

181,  1667 

King  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mo.  328,  1814 
King  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Mo.  520,  1818 
King  v.  City  of  London,  Skin.  293,  86 

King  v.  City  of  Madison,  17  Ind.  48,  1057, 1058 
King  v.  City  of  Portland,  2  Ore.  146,  1100 

King  v.  Clarke,  1  East  38,  86 

King  v.  Cutts,  24  Wis.  627,  793 

King  v.  Dickenson,  1  Saund.  135,  1011 

King  v.  Follett,  3  Vt.  385,  424 

King  v.  Ford,  9  Ont.  Rep.  643,  1599 

King  v.  Ford  River,  etc.,  Co.,  93  Mich. 

172,  2030 

King  v.  Great  Marlow,  2  East  244,  358 

King  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  69  Miss.  245,  1992 
King  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Iowa  458, 

1455, 1512, 1525 

King  v.  Lennox,  19  Johns.  235,  2280 

King  v.  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  160,  2236 

King  v.  Marshall,  33  Beav.  565,  649 

King  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  New  York,  102 

N.  Y.  171,  1449, 1451 

King  v.  Minneapolis  Un.  R.  Co.,  32  Minn. 

224,  1433,  1514 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S725.] 


King  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  N.  Y. 

181,  1587, 1588, 1589,  1591,  1592,  2676 

King  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  E.  251,  2676 

King  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  N.  Y. 

607,  2714 

Kingv.  Ohio,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  7  Biss.  (U.  S.) 

529,  809, 810 

King  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  2  Fed.  E.  36, 

118, 123 

King  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Chi.  Leg. 
"*   News  219,  118 

'King  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R~.  Co.,  14  Fed.  R.  277, 

2075,2088 
King  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Fed.  R.  413, 

2480,2584 
King  v.  Patterson,  29  N.  J.  L.  504, 

426,  427,  428,  429,  442 
King  v.  Paterson,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  29  N.  J. 

L.  82,  418 

King  v.  Richards,  6  Whart.  (Pa.)  418, 

2214,2386 
King  v.  Severn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Barn.  & 

Aid.  646,  5%,  918, 1136 

King  v.  Shepherd,  3  Story  349,  2305 

King  v.  Southern  Pac.  E.  Co.,  109  Cal.  96,  1920 
King  v.  Talbot,  40  N.  Y.  76,  138 

King  v.  United  States,  59  Fed.  B.  9,  1399 

King  v.  Vance,  46  Ind.  246,  887 

King  v.  Woolbridge,  34  Vt.  565,  2324 

King  v.  Wycombe  E.  Co.,  29  L.  J.  B.  (Ch.) 

734,  1272 

King  Iron  Bridge,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, 

43  Fed.  E.  768,  1575 

Kingman  v.  Denison,  84  Mich.  608,  2390 

Kingman  v.  Holthaus,  59  Fed.  E.  305,         11:36 
Kingsford  v.  Hood,  105  Mass.  495,  2723 

Kinion  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Mo. 

App.  382,  452,  468 

Kinion  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  39 

Mo.  App.  574,  468 

Kings  Co.,  etc.,  Insurance  Co.  v.  Stevens, 

101  N.  Y.  411,  1631 

Kings  County  El.  R.  Co.,  In  Re,  105  N.  Y. 

97,  1622 

Kings  Co.  R.  Co.,  In  re,  12  N.  Y.  Supp. 

198,  1424 

Kingsland  v.  Kings  County,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

31  N.  Y.  Supp.  582,  1450 

Kingsland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Massey,  69  Miss. 

296,  1608 

Kinloch  v.  Craig,  3  T.  R.  119,  2391 

Kinney  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  34  N.  J.  Law 

513,  2601 

CORP. — xvii 


Kinney  v.  Central  B.  Co.,  32  N.  J.  L.  407, 

2319,  2514 

Kinney  v.  Corbin,  132  Pa.  St.  141,  2091 

Kinney  v.  Crocker,  18  Wis.  74, 

732,  802,  804,  812,  813 
Kinney  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Mo. 

243,  1936 

Kinney  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.) 

34  S.  W.  R.  1066,  2584 

Kinnick  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Iowa 

665,  2304,  2402,  2416 

Kinny  v.  Jewett,  90  N.  Y.  267,  2368 

Kinsley  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Fed.  R. 

181,  2284 

Kinsley  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

U.  S.  451,  2541 

Kinsley  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125 

Mass.  54,  2530,  2541,  2621 

Kinsman  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Broadway,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  36  Ohio  St.  239,  1268,  1395,  1621, 1627 
Kip  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Hun  24,  1370 
Kip  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  N.  Y.  227, 

598, 1351 
Kiphart  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Ind. 

App.  122,  1112 

Kipling  v.  Todd,  L.  R.  3  C.  P.  Div.  350,         477 
Kippell  v.  Bailey,  2  Mylne  &  K.  517,  1315 

Kirby  v.  Boylston  Market  Asso.,  14  Gray 

(Mass.)  249,  1023 

Kirby  v.  Citizens'  R.  Co.,  48  Md.  168,  1623 

Kirby  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  76  Pa.  St. 

506,  2111 

Kirby  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  Co.,    18 

L.  T.  N.  S.  658,  309,  2400 

Kirby  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  4  S.  Dak. 

105,  2279 

Kirby  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  4  S.  Dak. 

439,  2321 

Kirk  v.  Bell,  16  Q.  B.  290,  290 

Kirk  v.Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Minn.  161,   2357 
Kirk  v.  Nowill,  1  Term.  R.  118,  215,  280 

Kirkbride  v.  Lafayette  County,  108  U.  S. 

208,  1151 

Kirkendall  v.  Hunt,  4  Kan.  514,  1545 

Kirkland  v.  Dinsmore,  62  N.  Y.  271, 

2263,  2322,  2324 
Kirkland  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Mo. 

466,  1838 

Kirkman  v.  Bowman,  8  Rob.  (La.)  246, 

2203,2206 
Kirkpatrick  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

86  Mo.  341,  2694 

Kirkpatrick  of  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79 

N.  Y.  240,  2050 

Kirkpatrick  v.  Peshine,  24  N.  J.  Eq.  206,      493 


cclviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-Wt,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27Z5.] 


Kirkpatrick  v.   State  Board,   (N.  J.)   29 

Atl.  Rep.  452,  859 

Kirksey  v.  Florida,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Fla.  23,  214,  215 
Kirkwood  v.  Hoxie,  95  Mich.  62,  1608 

Kirst  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Wis. 

489,  2032 

Kirkland  v.  Hotchkiss,  100  U.  S.  491,  1070 

Kirtland  v.  Montgomery,  1  Swan  (Term.) 

452,  2419 

Kirtley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Fed.  R. 

386,  1794,  1959, 1968 

Kisch  v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  34  L.  J.(Ch.)  545, 

191, 197 
Kishacoquillas,  etc.,  T.  R.  Co.  v.  McCona- 

by,  16  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  140,  170 

Riser  v.  State,  89  Ga.  421,  1051 

Kissenger  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.Co.,  56  N.Y. 

538,  1755,  1762 

Kisterbrook's  Appeal,  127  Pa.  601,    115, 117, 149 
Kistlerv.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.Co.,  88  Ind. 

460,  1570, 1572,  1576, 1577 

Kistner  v.  City  of  Indianapolis,  100  Ind. 

210,  1614 

Kitchen  v.  Cape  Girardeau,  etc.,  Co.,  59 

Mo.  514,  290,  319,  476 

Kitchen  v.  Chatham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  New 

Bruns.  215,  886 

Kitchen  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Mo. 

224,  379,  697,  712,  713,  726 

Kittell  v.  Missisquoi  R.  Co.,  56  Vt.  96, 

1536, 1537 

Kittredge  v.  Osgood,  161  Mass.  384,  785 

Klanowski  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  64 

Mich.  279,  2715 

Klauber  v.  American,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Wis. 

21,  2310 

Klaus,  In  re,  26  Am.  L.  Reg.  (N.  S.)  98,       133 
Klaus,  In  re,  67  Wis.  401,  133 

Kleiber  v.  People's  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  Mo. 

240,  1782 

Klein  v.  Alton,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  13  IlL  514 

175,  214 

Klein  v.  Fischer,  30  Mo.  App.  568,  2394 

Klein  v.  Jewett,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  474, 

709,  804,  811,  812,  814,  818,  1748,  1762,  2470,  2550 
Klein  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.Co.,  30  Minn. 

451,  1555, 1556 

Kleineist  v.  Kunhardt,  160  Mass.  230,          2114 
Kleise  v.  Galusha,  78  Iowa  310,  1207 

Klepsch  v.  Donald,  4  Wash.  436,         1567,  2151 
Kley  v.  Healy,  127  N.  Y.  555,  2149 

Kliegel  v.  Wiesel,  84  Wis.  148,  2081 

Kline  v. Central  Pac.  R.  Co..  37  Cal.  400, 

1964,  2575,  2577 

Klix  v.  Nieman,  68  Wis.  271,  1973 

Klochinski  v.  Shores,  etc.,  Co.,  (Wis.)  67 

N.  W.  R.  934,  2708 


Klopp  v.  Creston,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Neb.  808,       882 
Knahtla  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Ore. 

136,  946,  2003,  2707 

Knapp  v.  Grant,  27  Wis.  147,  1171, 1172 

Knapp  v.  Railroad  Co.,  20  WalL  (U.  S.) 

117,  933 

Knapp  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  Co.,  65  Iowa  91, 

178» 
Knapp  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Mo. 

374,  1114,  1599,  1606 

Knapp,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  R.  Co.,  126 

Mo.  26,  1619 

Knauft  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Minn. 

173,  1457 

Knickerbocker,  Matter  of,  19  Barb.  (N.Y.) 

602,  781, 783 

Knickerbocker  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ecclesine, 

42  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  201,  872 

Knight's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  321,        219,  220,  221 
Kneeland  v.  American  L.  &  T.  Co.,  136 

U.  S.  89,  690,  698,  708,  818,  837 

Kneeland  v.  Bass  Foundry,  etc.,  Works, 

140  U.  S.  592,  710,  818 

Kneeland  v.  Lawrence,  140  U.  S.  209, 

626,  628,  657 

Kneeland  v.  Milwaukee,  15  Wis.  454,          1060 
Knell  v.  United  States  &  B.  S.  S.  Co.,  1 

Jones  &  S.  (23  N.  Y.  S.  C.)  423,  2201 

Kness  v.  Hammond,  92  Mich.  372,  1469 

Knevals  v.  Florida  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 

Fed.  R.  224,  647,  686,  1139 

Knight  v.  Carrollton  R.  Co.,  9  La.  Ann. 

284,  62,  512,  1270,  1283,  1386,  1613 

Knight  v.  Cooper,  36  W.  Va.  232,  2071 

Knight  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  N.  Y. 

25,  1859 

Knight  v.  Pontchartrain,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

La.  Ann.  462,  1768,  2547 

Knight  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Me 

234,  2228,  2468,  2481,  2494,  2589. 

Knight  v.  Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  R.  I. 

572,  2181,  2253,  2254,  2255,  2294,  2419,  2427, 

2441,  2693 

Knight  v.  Railroad  Co.,  108  Pa.  St.  250,      2108 
Knight  v  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  111. 

110,  2217 

Knight  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Ind.  402, 

1867 
Knight  v.  West  Jersey  R.  Co.,  108  Pa.  St. 

250,  1023,  2132,  2133 

Knightstown  v.  Musgrove,  116  Ind.  121,      1799 
Knoblauch  v.  City  of  Minneapolis,  56 

Minn.  321,  1476 

Knobloch  v.  Mueller,  123  111.  554,  688 

Knock  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  4  C. 

P.  131,  1409 


TABLE    OP    CASES. 


cclix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  Ul.3-1262,     Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Knopf  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Va. 


769, 


496,  250^ 


Knori  v.  Germantown  E.  Co.,  5  Wharton 

(Pa.)  256,  153J 

Knoth  v.  Barclay,  8  Colo.  300,  1463,  149( 

Knott  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  N.  C.  73, 

2228,  2242,  224 

Knowles  v.  Dabney,  105  Mass.  437,  221 

Knowles  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  N.  C. 


59, 
Knowlton  v.  Ackley,  8  Gush.  93, 


257 

34 


Knowlton  v.  Hoit,  (N.  H.)  30  Atl.  R.  346,    158' 
Knox  v,  Childersburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Ala. 

180,  156 

Knox  v.  Eden,  etc.,  Co.,  (N.  Y.)  42  N.  E.  R. 

1098,  114 

Knox  v.  Lee,  12  Wall.  (U.  S.)  457,  637 

Knox  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Hun 

93,  2044 

Knox  v.  Pioneer,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Term.  546, 

2056,2058 
Knox  v.  The  Ninette,  Crabbe  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

101,  2421 

Knox  County  v.  Aspinwall,24  How.(U.  S.) 

376,  1213 

Knox  County  v.Harshman,  109  U.S.  229,     1229 
Knox  County  v.  Ninth  Nat.  Bank,  147  U.  S. 


91, 


1145, 1202, 1222, 1235, 1247 


Knoxville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Acuff,  92  Tenn. 


26, 


2148 


Knoxville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hicks,  9  Baxt. 

(Tenn.)  442,  702 

Knoxville  Iron  Co.  v.  Wilkins,  etc.,  Co.,  74 

Ga.  493,  854 

Knupfie   v.    Knickerbocker,  etc.,  Co.,  84 

N.  Y.  491,  1025 

Kobe  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  36  Minn. 

518,  1834,  1836,  1838 

Koch  v.  North  Ave.  Ry.  Co.,  75  Md.  222, 

12,  30,  1611 


Koehler,  Ex  parte,  23  Fed.  R.  529, 
Koehler,  Ex  parte,  25  Fed.  R.  73, 


499,  2670 
2676 


Koehler,  Ex  parte,  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

44,  2692 

Koehler,  Ex  parte,  30  Fed.  R.  867, 

997,  1083,  2655,  2662 
Koehler  v.  Black  River,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Black, 

(U.  S.)  715,  243,  373,  641 

Koehler  v.  Hill,  60  Iowa  543,  1202 

Koehler  v.  Iron  Co.,  2  Black.  715,  378 

Koehler  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Hun 

566,  1770 

Koelle  v.  Knecht,  99  111.  396,  561 

Koenig  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Neb. 


699, 


45,  1348 


Koenigs  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 
65  N.  W.  R.  314, 


1845 


Koestenbader  v.  Pierce,  41  Iowa  204,          1424 
Koetter  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y. 

S.  R.  611,  2475 

Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  367, 

938, 1334, 1415,  2638,  2640 

Kohler,  Ex  parte,  31  Fed.  R.  315,  2522 

Kohler  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135 

Pa.  St.  346,  1774,  2550 

Kohn  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  N.  Y. 

859,  1450 

Kohn  v.  McNulta,  147  U.  S.  238, 

2000,  2016,  2028,  2043 
Kohn  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  S.  Car. 

1.  2385,  2386,  2387 

Kollock  v.  Parcher,  52  Wis.  393,  1597 

Kolsti  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Minn.  133, 


1797, 1974 


Koons  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Iowa 
493,  1884 

Koontz  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Ore.  3, 

1934,  1936,  1939,  1940 

Koontz  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Iowa 
224,  2007 

Korrady  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131 
Ind.  261, 


1771,  1772, 1778 


Kortwright  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  Bank,  20 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  90,  147 

Koshkonong  v.  Burton,  104  U.  S.  668, 

633,  1089,  1458 

Krakauer  v.  Locke,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  446,  1601 
Kramer  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Ohio 

St.  140, 

1338,  1341,  1342,  1353,  1424,  1465,  1470,  1477,  1481, 

1523 
Krampe  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Assn.,  59  Mo. 

App.  277,  2007,  2012 

Kraniger  v.  People's,  etc.,  Assn.,  60  Minn. 

94,  400,  484 

Kraus  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

Iowa  338,  1859 

Kraus  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139 


Pa.  St.  272, 


1770 


Krause  v.  Morgan,  (Ohio  St.)  40  N.  E.  R. 

886,  2074,  2145 

Krauss  v.  Wallkill,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Hun 

82,  1784 

Kraut  v.  Frankford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160  Pa. 

St.  327,  1642,  2152 

Krebs  v.  Carlisle  Bank,  2  Wall.  C.  C.  33,     869 
Kreiger  v.  Shelby  R.  R.  Co.,  84  Ky.  66, 

226,  1218 
Kremer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Minn. 


15, 


1325,  1329, 1506 


Kremer  v.  Southern,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Cold.  356, 

1 
Krenzerv.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ind.) 


2276 


43  N.  E.  R.  649, 


1973, 1980 


cclx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1.1,3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  216B-S72B.] 


Krippendorf  v.  Hyde,  110  U.  S.  276,  762 

Krogg  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Ga.  202,   2083 
Krohn  v.  Williamson,  62  Fed.  R.  218,  396 

KrophoUer  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Fed.  R.  302,  687 

Kropholler  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Ry.,  1  Mc- 

Crary  (U.  S.)  299,  724 

Kroy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Iowa  357, 

2039 
Krueger  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill 

Ind.  51,  2086 

Krulder  v.  Ellison,  47  N.  Y.  36, 

2215,  2221,  2360,  2694,  2695 
Krulevitz  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  143  Mass. 

228,  1992 

Kru.se  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Wis. 

568,  2110 

Kru.se  v.  Dusenbury,  19  Weekly  Dig. 

(N.  Y.  C.  P.)  201,  271 

Krutz  v.  Paola  Town  Co.,  20  Kan.  397,  94 

Kucheman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 Iowa 

366,  1436,  1444,  1633,  1634 

Kudix  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Hun 

492,  2017 

Kuehner  v.  City  of  Freeport,  143  111.  92,      1108 
Kuhn  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Iowa 

420,  1806 

Kuhn  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Iowa 

420,  1866 

Kuhn  v.  Freeman,  15  Kan.  423,  1450 

Kuhn  v.  Jewett,  32  N.  J.  Eq.  647,  .1909 

Kulms  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Iowa 

561,  2031, 2046 

Kumber  v.  Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Ohio 

St.  150,  2601 

Kundinger  v.  City  of  Saginaw,  59  Mich. 

355,  1552 

Kunkelman  v.  Rentchler,  15  Brad.  (111.) 

271,  268 

Kunkle  v.  Town  of  Franklin,  13  Minn.  127, 

1172, 1197 

Kuntz  v.  Sumption,  117  Ind.  1,     979,  1091,  1476 
Kupfer  v.  South  Parish,  12  Mass.  185,  353 

Kurtz  v.  Moffit,  115  U.  S.  487,  930 

Kura  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Wis. 

171,  1921 

Kuser  v.  Wright,  (N.  J.)  31  Atl.  R.  397,         486 
Kuter  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Biss.  35, 

2309,  2612 
Kyle  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  U.  C.  C.  P. 

76,*  2701 

Kyle  v.  Malin,  8  Ind.  34,  1103 

Kyle  v.  Texas  &  N.  O.  R.  Co.,  (Tex.)  4 

L.  R.  A.  275,  1365 

Kynaston  v  Mayor,  2  Strange  1051,  237 

Kyne  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Houst. 

(Del.)  185,  1641,  1981 


Lachat  v.  Lutz,  94  Ky.  287,  1948 

Lackawanna,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bates,  56  Fed.  R. 

737,  932 

Lackawanna,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Luzerne 

County,  42  Pa.  St.  424,  1068 

Lackawanna,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chenewith, 

52  Pa.  St.  382,  1829 

Lackawanna,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doak,  52  Pa. 

St.  379,  1898,  1942 

Lackin  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  309,  1882 

Lackland  v.  North  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

31  Mo.  180,  1613 

Laclouch  v.  Towle,  3  Esp.  114,  2387 

La  Conflance,  etc.,  v.  Hall,  137  U.  S.  61,      937 
La  Croix  v.  County  Commissioners,  50 

Conn.  321,  1552 

La  Croix  v.  Lyons,  27  Fed.  R.  403,  949 

La  Crosse,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

Co.,  2  Interst.  Com.  R.  9,  2686 

La  Crosse,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vanderpool,  11 

Wis.  119,  1595 

La  Croy  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132 

N.  Y.  570,  2037 

.  Lacy  v.  Arnett,  33  Pa.  St.  169,  1327 

Ladd  v.  Foster,  31  Fed.  R.  827, 

2151,  2299,  2466,  2470 

Ladd  v.  Harvey,  21  N.  H.  514,  777 

Ladd  v.  New  Bedford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119 

Mass.  412,  2000,  2005,  2116 

Lady  Franklin,  The,  8  Wall.  325,        2203,  2204 
Laethem  v.  Ft.  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100 

Mich.  297,  1646 

Lafarier  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  84  Me. 

286,  2498 
Lafaye  v.  Harris,  13  La.  Ann.  553,  2682 
Lafayette  v.  Cox,  5  Ind.  38,  1216 
Lafayette  v.  Weaver,  92  Ind.  477,  1797 
Lafayette  Co.  v.  Neely,  21  Fed.  R.  738,          823 
Lafayette,  etc.,  Bank  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

Co.,  2  Mo.  App.  299,  486 

Lafayette,  etc.,  Corp.  v.  Ryland,  80  Wis. 

29,  254 

Lafayette  Ins.  Co.  v.  French,  18  How. 

(U.  S.)  404,  880,  1085,  1093 

Lafayette  Plank  Road  Co.  v.  New  Albany, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Ind.  90, 

48,  560,  1037,  1372,  1380, 1381,  1382,  1454,  1563 
Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cheeney,  87  111. 

446,  370 

Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Geiger,  34  Ind. 

185,  3,  1146,  1147,  1209 

Lafayette,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Huffman,  28  Ind. 

287,  1982 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1M-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 


Xiafayette,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Murdock,  68  Ind. 

137, 

560, 1037,  1407, 1420,  1421,  1422,  1442,  1443,  1444 
Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pattison,  41  Ind. 

312,  2431 

Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shriner,  6  Ind. 

1851 

jrette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  6  Ind. 
49,  1454, 1539 

Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winslow,  66  111. 

219,  1517,  1519,  1930 

Lafferty  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Mich. 

433,  1885 

Lafferty  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Mich. 

35,  954 

Lafferty  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Mo. 

291,  1858, 1859 

Lafferty  v.  SchuylkiU,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124 

Pa.  St.  297,  1279, 1389 

Lafflin  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  N.  Y. 

136,  2008,  2478,  2590 

Laffrey  v.  Grummond,  74  Mich.  186, 

2381,  2617,  2623 
Lafitte  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  La. 

Ann.  34,  1992,  2583 

Laflin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Fed.  R. 

859,  1573 

Laflin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Fed.  R. 

415,  1425,  1427, 1525 

Laflin,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sinsheimer,  46  Md.315,    273 
LaFollette  v.  Akin,  36  Ind.  1,  732,  796 

Lagrange,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mays,  29  Mo.  64, 

191, 192 
Lagrange,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rainey,  7  Coldw. 

(Tenn.)  420,  74,  83,  88,  94,  235,  860,  861 

Lahr  v.  Metropolitan  El.  R.  R.  Co.,  104 

N.  Y.  268,  12, 1629,  1639, 1651 

Laidlaw  v.  Morrow,  44  Mich.  547,  889 

Laidlow  v.  Hatch,  75  111.  11,  1570 

Laing  v.  Colder,  8  Pa.  St.  479, 

2321,  2467,  25%,  2633,  2703 
Laird  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  N.  H. 

254,  1894, 1913,  1922,  1932 

Laird  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  N.  H. 

375,  937 

Laird  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  166  Pa. 

St.  4,  2505 

Lake  v.  Argyle,  6  Q.  B.  477,  15 

Lake  v.  Duke  of  ArgyU,  6  Q.  B.  477,  19 

Lake  v.  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Nev.  294,    1382 
Lake  County  v.  Graham,  130  U.  S.  674, 

1227,1228,1233 

Lake  County  v.  Rollins,  130  U.  S.  662,    1228,1233 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Acres,  108  Ind. 

548,  2451, 2578 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bailey,  61  Fed. 

R.  494,  910 


Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co  v.  Board  of  Com- 
missioners, 57  Fed.  R.  945,  1376,  1380 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bowker,  9  Ind. 

App.  428,  1115 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brafford,  (Ind. 

App.)  43  N.  E.  R.  882,  1970,  2717 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R  Co.  v.  City  of  Kokomo, 

130  Ind.  224,  1376, 1654 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Condon,  10  Ind. 

App.  536,  2431 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Craig,  73  Fed. 

R.  642,  2145 

Lake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eckler,  13  Ind.  67,       1582 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Everett,  86  Ind. 

229,  2042 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fix,  88  Ind.  381 

306,  2488 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Griffin,  92  Ind. 

487,  703,  704,  705,  722, 1538,  1542 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hancock,  (Ind. 

App.)  43  N.  E.  R.  659,  2712 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  (Ohio 

St.)  11  Lewis  Am.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  611, 

2366,2368 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kinsey,  87  Ind. 

514,  1423, 1541,  1548, 1549,  1557 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lewder,  7  Ind. 

App.  537,  1985 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mackey,  (Ohio 

St.)  29  L.  R.  A.  757,  1981 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mays,  4  Ind.  App. 

413,  2508 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McHenry,  10 

Ind.  App.  525,  2013 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Michener,  117 

Ind.  465,  898, 1:304 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  9  Ind. 

App.  192,  1933, 1934 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Middlecoff,  150 

111.  27,  1902,  1940 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mugg,  132  Ind. 

168,  2153, 2715 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Norwich,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  138  Mass.  277,  1268 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oakes,  11  111. 

App.  489,  2250,  2251 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Priest,  131  Ind. 

413,  555,  653, 1300,  1315 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  JR.  Co.  v.  Hooker,  13  Ind. 

App.  600,  1833 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rosenberg,  31 

111.  App.  47,  2187,  2416 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott,  132  111. 

429,  1411,  1439,  1632 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stick,  143  Ind. 

449,  1772, 1773,  2721,  2724 


cclxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 

[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  126S-216U,Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-272^.] 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Clark,.41  111. 


Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Town  of  Boswell, 

137  Ind.  336,  564, 1379, 1663 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walters,  9  Ind. 

App.  684,  1111, 1113, 1115, 1116, 1317 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  135  Ind. 

426,  899, 907 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ziebarth,  6  Ind. 

App.  228,  1303 

Lake  Manawa  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Squire,  (Iowa) 

57  N.  W.  R.  307,  180 

Lake  Merced  Water  Co.  v.  Cowles,  31  Cal. 

215,  1278 

Lakenan  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Mo. 

App.  363,  899 

Lake  Ontario,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Curtiss, 

80  N.  Y.  219,  153, 154 

Lake  Ontario,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mason,  16 

N.  Y.  451, 

154, 156,  160, 163,  164,  170,  202,  210,  220,  253 
Lake  Roland  El.  R.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  7  Lewis 

Am.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  619,  1618 

Lake  Roland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  77 

Md.  352,  1615, 1618 

Lake  Roland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKewen,  80 

Md.  593,  1646 

Lake  Roland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Webster,  81 

Md.  529,  1632 

Lake  Shore  Co.  v.  Spangler,  44  Ohio  St. 

471,  2156 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Dunkirk, 

65  Hun  494,  1112,  1115 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dunkirk,  20  N.  Y. 

S-upp.  596,  1112 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bennett,  89 

Ind.  457,  2270,2339,2697 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bodemer,  139 

Dl.  596,  1969,  1970 

Lake  Shore, -etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brazzill,  2  Ohio 

Dec.  691,  2000 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  123  111. 

162,  2465,  2513,  2595,  2603 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  96  111.  125,  1657 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  97  111.  506, 

47, 1371, 1376, 1681, 1688, 1691,  1693, 1701 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  100  111.  21,     1272, 1376, 1437, 1688, 1703 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cincinnati, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Ohio  St.  604, 
539,  971, 1267,  1377,  1434,  1662,  1680, 1681,  1694, 
1700,  1703,  1704,  1705 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cincinnati, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  Ind.  578, 

907, 1292, 1393, 1493, 1494, 1495, 1497, 1681, 1684, 

1687 


App.  343,  1974 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R~Co.  v.  Clemens,  5  111. 

App.  77,  1781 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  EUslej,  85  Pa. 

St.  283,  2446 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  foster,  104  ltd. 

293,  299,  411,  414,  2615,  2616,  2722 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  irantz,  127  Pa. 

St.  297,  1754,  .1776, 1784 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Geiger,  8  Ohio 

C.  C.  41,  1779 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grand  Rapids, 

102  Mich.  374,  1065, 1114 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hodapp,  83  Pa. 

St.  22,  2209,  2309,  2380 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hundt,  140  111. 

525,  2052 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunt,  39  Mich. 

469,  879 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kaste,  11  111. 

App.  536,  6 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knittal,  33  Ohio 

St.  468,  2035 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lavalley,  36 

Ohio  St.  221,  2016 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  25  Mich. 

274, 

1738, 1739, 1766, 1772, 1787,  1790, 1792, 1799, 1969 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCormick,  74 

Ind.  440,  2006,  2011 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mclntosh,  140 

Ind.  261,  1792, 1794,  1799 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  8  Fed.  R.  858,  1266, 1374 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Connor,  115 

111.  254,  2001 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Orvis,  1  Ohio 

Dec.  492,  1748, 1785 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perkins,  25 

Mich.  329,  2173,  2288,  2399 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  46 

Mich.  193,  1133 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peterson, 

(Ind.)  42  N.  E.  R.  480,  1962,1993,1995 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pierce,  47 

Mich.  277,  2453 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pinchin,  112 

Ind.  592,  1781,  2595 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prentice,  147 

U.  S.  101,  1960 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richards,  40 

111.  App.  560,  1584 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rosenzweig, 

113  Pa.  St.  519,  1909,  2453,  2457 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stupak,  108 

Ind.  1,  2034 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stupak,  123 

Ind.  210,  301,  2706 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sunderland,  2 

Bradw.  (111.)  307,  1754, 1772 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ward,  135  111. 

511,  2479, 2590 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warren,  3 

Wyo.  134,  2631 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  11  Ind. 

App.  488,  2048 

Lake  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cunning- 
ham, 155  U.  S.  354,  1122 
Lake  Superior,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cunningham, 

44  Fed.  R.  587,  1129 

Lake  Superior  Iron  Co.  v.  Drexel,  90  N.Y. 

87,  133 

Lake  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Finan,  155 

U.  S.  385,  1122 

Lake  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greve,  17 

Minn.  322,  1436 

Lake  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United 

States,  12  Ct.  of  Claims  35,  6 

Lake  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United 

States,  93  U.  S.  442,  6,  49, 1136 

Lake  View  v.  Rose  Hill  Cemetery,  70  111. 

191,       .  960 

Lake  View  v.  Tate,  130  111.  247,  1624 

Lakin  v.  Willamette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Ore. 

436,  612,  614, 1590 

Lallande  v.  His  Creditors,  42  La.  Ann.  705, 

2331 

Lalor  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  HI.  401,    2079 
Lamar  v.  Micou,  112  U.  S.  452,  l38 

Lamar  Ins.  Co.  v.  Gulick,  102  111.  41,  262 

Lamb  v.  Anderson,  54  Iowa  190,          1190, 1208 
Lamb  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Iowa 

333,  1237 

Lamb  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  N.Y.  271, 

2229,  2245,  2267,  2332 
Lamb  v.  Camden,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  2 

Daly  (N.  Y.)  454,  2267,  2350 

Lamb  v.  Cecil,  25  W.  Va.  288,  853 

Lamb  v.  Stone,  11  Pick.  (Mass.)  527,  890 

Lambert  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  19  L.  T.  N.  S. 

387,  2442 

Lambeth  v.  North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  66  N. 

Car.  494,  2548,  2595 

Lamkins  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  La. 

Ann.  997,  2716 

Lamm  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Minn. 

71,  1326,  1633 

Lamoille,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fairfield,  51  Vt. 

237,  1157,  1175,  1262 

Lamont  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Heisk. 

580,  2276 

LaMont  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Iowa 

193,  1513 


LaMontague  v.  T.  W.  Harvey  Lumber  Co., 

44  Fed.  R.  645,  934 

LaMothe,  etc.,  Co.    v.    National   Tube 

Works,  15  Blatchf.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  432,         949 
LaMotte  v.  Angell,  11  Hawaiian  Rep. 

136,  2420 

Lamphear  v.  Buckingham,  33  Conn.  237, 

804,  2128 

Lamville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fairfleldj  51  Vt.  257,   1140 
Lanark,  City  of,  v.  Dougherty,  153  111. 

163,  2713 

Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gidlow,  L.  R.  7 

H.  L.  Gas.  517,  2431,  2435,  2671 

Lancaster  v.  Amsterdam,  etc.,  Co.,  140 

N.  C.  576,  543 

Lancaster  County  v.  Cheraw,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

28  S.  Car.  134,  179,  509 

Lancaster,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Northwestern,  etc., 

Co.,  2  K.  &  J.  293,  499 

Lancaster  Mills  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Co., 

89  Tenn.  1,  2184,  2276,  2332,  2335 

Lance  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Iowa  636, 

1438,  1442, 1555 

Lancey  v.  Bryant,  30  Me.  466,  366 

Land  v.  Coff man,  50  Mo.  243,  539 

Land  v.  Wilmington  &  W.  R.  Co.,  104  N. 

Car.  48,  2192 

Land  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  N. 

Car.  72,  1539 

Land  Co.  v.  Case,  104  Mo.  572,  17 

Land  Credit  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  460,      631 
Land  Credit  Co.  v.  Fermoy,  L.  R.  5  Ch. 

763,  385 

Land  Credit  Co.  v.  Lord  Fermoy,  L.  R.  8 

Eq.  7,  383 

Land  Grant  Ry.  Co.  v.  Commissioners  of 

Coffey  Co.,  6  Kan.  245,  37,  271 

Land  Grant,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis  County,  6 

Kan.  256,  1159, 1200, 1212 

Landman  v.  Entwistle,  7  Ex.  632,  19 

Landes  v.  Brant,  10  How.  348,  1136 

Landford  v.  Dunkin,  71  Ala.  594,  1202 

Landis  v.  Sea  Isle,  etc.,  Co.,  (N.  J.)  31  Atl. 

R.  755,  239,  374 

Landis  v.  Western  Pa.  R.  R.  Co.,  133  Pa. 

St.  579,  625,  724 

Landowners',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ashford,  16  Ch. 

Div.  411,  641 

Landreaux  v.  Bell,  5  La.  (O.  S.)  434,          2580 
Landrigan  v.  State,  31  Ark.  50,  285,  2672 

Landwerlen  v.  Wheeler,  106  Ind.  523,  159 

Lane  v.  Atlantic  Works,  111  Mass.  136,      1025 
Lane  v.  Boston  &  A.  R.  Co.,  112  Mass.  455, 

2206,  2274,  2702 
Lane  v.  Brainerd,  30  Conn.  565, 

157,  173,  238,  359 
Lane  v.  Cotton,  1  Ld.  Raym.  646,  2.M. 


cclxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol 

Lane  v.  East  Term.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Lea 

(Tenn.)  124,  2506 

Lane  v.  Embden,  72  Me.  354,  1236,  1237 

Lane  v.  Harris,  16  Ga.  217,  269 

Lane  v.  Newdigate,  10  Ves.  192,  915 

Lane  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Gray 

(Mass.)  143,  2446 

Lane  v.  Schomp,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  82,  356,  1246 

Lane  County  v.  Oregon,  7  Wall.  71,    1097,  2688 
Lang  v.  Holiday,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Iowa  469, 

1678,  1751 
Lang  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  154  Pa.  St. 

342,  2343 

Langan  v. '  Francklyn,  29  Abb.  (N.  Y.) 

N.  Gas.  102,  483 

Langan  v.  Francklyn,  20  N.  Y.  Supp.  404,    453 
Langan  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  30 

L.  T.  (N.  S.)  173,  298,  317 

Langan  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  Construction  Co., 

49  Iowa  317,  272 

Langan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Mo. 

392,  1964 

Langdon  v.  Branch,  37  Fed.  R.  449,  526 

Langdon  v.  Hillside,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Fed.  R. 

609,  336, 912 

Langdon  v.  Howells,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  Div. 

337,  2499 

Langdon  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  New  York,  93 

N.  Y.  129,  1403 

Langdon  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Vt. 

228,  337, 845 

Langdon  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Vt. 

593,  818 

Langenberg  v.  Decker,  131  Ind.  471,  979 

Langford  v.  County  Commissioners,  16 

Minn.  375,  1462,  1466,  1470, 1478, 1535 

Langhoff  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

Wis.  489,  1779 

Langhorne  v.  Richmond  City  R.  Co.,  (Va.) 

19  S.  E.  R.  122,  82,  469,  875 

Langhorne  v.  Robinson,  20  Gratt.  661, 

1151, 1177 

Langley  v.  Railroad  Co.,  10  Gray  103,  589 

Langlois  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Barb. 

364,  1831, 2002 

Langsdale  v.  Bonton,  12  Ind.  467,  279,  365 

Langstaff  v.  Stix,  64  Miss.  171,  2394,  2395 

Langston  v.  South  Carolina  R.  R.  Co.,  2 

S.  Car.  248,  634,  635 

Langworthy  v.  Township  of  Green,  95 

Mich.  93,  2713 

Lanier  v.  Gayoso,  etc.,  Inst.,  9  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  506,  7% 

Lanier  v.  Mclntosh,  117  Mo.  508,  683 

Lanigan  v.  Mew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 

N.  Y.  29,  2725 


III,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Laning  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y. 

521,  2025,  2035,  2039,  2063 

Lankershim  Ranch  Land  &  W.  Co.  v. 

Herberger,  82  Cal.  600,  148 

Lanning  v.  Chicago  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  68 

Iowa  502,  1943 

Lansdale  v.  Daniels,  100  U.  S.  113,  1501 

Lansing  v.  Caswell,  4  Paige  519,  1274 

Lansing  v.  County  Treasurer,  1  Dill.  522, 

1261,  1274 

Lansing  v.  Smith,  8  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  151,         1438 
Lanson  v.  Truesdale,  (Minn.)  62  N.  W.  R. 

546,  2034 

Lanterman  v.  Blairstown  R.  Co.,  28  N.  J. 

Eq.  1,  1547 

Lantz  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mo.  228, 

1873 

LaPaul  v.  Truesdale,  44  Minn.  275,    1837, 1838 
LaPierre  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Mich. 

212,  1998,  2009,  2029 

Lapine  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  La. 

Ann.  158,  1857,  1879 

Lapointe  v.  Middlesex  R.  Co.,  144  Mass.  18, 

2558,  2564 
Lapsley  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  50  Fed.  R. 

172,  1678, 1747, 1748, 1750, 1791 

Laramie  County  v.   Albany  County,  992 

U.  S.  307,  1166 

Laredo  Imp.  Co.  v.  Stevenson,  66  Fed.  R. 

633,  170, 225 

Larimer,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Larimer,  etc.,  Co., 

137  Pa.  St.  533,  1622 

Larkin  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Iowa 

492,  1791 

Larkin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mass.) 

44  N.  E.  R.  122,  2113 

Larkin  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Ore.  220, 

2581 
Lamore  v.  Crown  Point  Iron  Co.,  101  N.Y. 

391,  1948 

Lamed  v.  Beal,  65  N.  H.  184,  273 

Larow  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Hun 

11,  2018 

Larrabee  v.  Baldwin,  35  Cal.  155,  266 

Larrison  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Inter- 
state Com.  R.  147,  2487,  2501,  268T 
Larrison  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Inter- 
state Com.  R.  369,  2486 
Larsen  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  19 Ore.  240,    1125 
Larson  v.  Cox,  39  Kan.  631,  946 
Larson  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  91  Iowa  81, 

2109,  2122 
Larson  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.,  110  Mo. 

234,  1566 

Larson  v.  Metropolitan  St.   By.  Co.,  33 

Am.  St,  R.  439,  1406 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Larson  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Minn. 

423,  1999,  2031,  2048 

LaRue  v.  St.  Anthony,  etc.,  Co.,  3  S.  Dak. 

637,  308 

Lary  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Ind.  323, 

602,  1956,  1959 
Lasky  v.  Canadian,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Me.  461, 

2071,  2083,  2084 
La  Societe  Francaise  d'  Epargnes,  etc.,  v. 

Dist.  Court,  53  Cal.  495,  737 

Latch  v.  Rumner  R.  Co.,  27  L.  J.  Ex.  155,   2571 
Latham  v.  Chafee,  7  Fed.  R.  525,  778 

Latham  v.  Rutley,  2  Barn.  &  C.  20,  2699 

Lathrop  v.  Commercial  Bank,  8  Dana  114, 

s.  c.  33  Am.  Dec.  481,  543 

Lathrop  v.  Knapp,  37  Wis.  307,  793,  795 

Lathrop  v.  Knapp,  27  Wis.  215,  794 

Lathrop  v.  Middleton,  23  Cal.  257,  696 

Latimer  v.  Aylesbury,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  L.  R. 

9  Ch.  Div.  385,  737 

Latimer  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  S.  C. 

44,  239,  240,  515 

Latimer  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  Co.,  43  Mo. 

105,  882 

Latremouille  v.  Bennington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

63  Vt,  336,  2035 

Latty  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Iowa 

250,  1832, 1850 

Laubheim  v.  De  Koninglyke,  N.  S.  Co., 

107  N.  Y.  228,  317,  318,  2161 

Laude  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Wis.  640, 

1825, 1846 

Lauderbrun  v.  Duffy,  2  Pa.  St.  398  1360 

Laughlin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Wis. 

204,  2250 

Laughter  v.  Pointer,  5  B.  &  C.  547,  2243 

Lauman  v.  Lebanon  Val.  R.  Co.,  30  Pa.  St. 

42,  100,  449,  452,  862 

Lauman  v.  Railroad  Co.,  30  Pa.  St.  46,          23 
Lauman  v.  Young,  31  Pa.  St.  306, 

1570, 1572, 1573,  1574, 1575,  1577,  1585 
Launtz  v.  People,  113  111.  137,  232 

Lavellee  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Minn. 

222,  2111 

Lavis  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 111.  App. 

636,  2564 

Law  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Iowa  534,     284 
Law  v.  Hatcher,  4  Blkf.  364,  2694 

Lawler  v.  Androscoggin,  etc.,R.  Co.,  62  Me. 

463,  2025,  2076,  2091 

Lawler  v.  Walker,  18  Ohio  151,  475 

Lawless  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136 

Mass.  1,  2043,  2115 

Lawrence's  Appeal,  78  Pa.  St.  365,  1450 

Lawrence  Y.  Aberdein,  5  B.  &  Aid.  107,       2400 
Lawrence  v.  Boston,  119  Mass.  126,  1489 

Lawrence  v.  Fox,  20  N.  Y.  268,  555 


Lawrence  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  16 

Q.  B.  643,  1402,  1456,  1565 

Lawrence  v.  Greenwich,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Paige, 

587,  343,  736,  748 

Lawrence  v.  Ingersoll,  88  Tenn.  52,        232,  358 
Lawrence  v.  McGregor,  Wright  (Ohio) 

193,  2210, 2212 

Lawrence  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42 

Wis.  322,  1872, 1873 

Lawrence  v.  Minturn,  17  How.  (U.  S.)  100, 

2214,  2215,  2221,  2360,  2694 
Lawrence  v.  Morgan's  Louisiana,  etc., 

Co.,  39  La.  Ann.  427, 

99,  100,  717, 1341,  1350,  1356 
Lawrence  v.  Morgans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121 

U.  S.  634,  932 

Lawrence  v.  Nahant,  136  Mass.  477,  1451 

Lawrence  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Conn.  63,  2200,  2323,  2324,  2338 

Lawrence  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  144  Mass. 

1,  2531 

Lawrence  v.  Smith,  57  Iowa  701,  178 

Lawrence  v.  Winona  &  St.  P.  Ry.  Co.,  15 

Minn.  390,  2189 

Lawrence  Iron  Works  v.  Rockbridge  Co., 

47  Fed.  R.  755,  741,  742 

Lawrence  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  35  Ohio  St.  94,    1459 
Lawrence  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  35  Ohio  St. 

168,  1634 

Lawrence  Steamboat  Co.,  In  re,  44  N.  J. 

529,  338 

Lawrenceburgh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Montgomery, 

7  Ind.  474,  2167 

Lawrenceburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  3 

Ind.  253,  1552 

Lawson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Wis. 

447,  2318,  2516,  2562 

Lawson  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Wis. 

597,  1194 

Lawson  v.  SchneUen,  33  Wis.  288,       1191, 1229 
Lawton  v.  Case,  73  Ind.  60,  1598 

Lawton  v.  Blitch,  30  Fed.  R.  641,  948 

Lax  v.  Forty-second  St.,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  46 

N.  Y.  Superior  Ct.  448,  9 

Lea  v.  Johnston,  9  Ired.  (N.  C.)  Law  15,    1347 
Lea  v.  Polk  County  Copper  Co.,  21  How. 

493,  1134, 1135 

Leach  v.  Cargill,  60  Mo.  316,  1104 

Leach  v.  Comrs.  of  Fayetteville,  84  N.  C. 

829,  1259 

Leach  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Hun  377,  2302 
Leach  v.  People,  122  111.  420,  341 

Leach  v.  South  Eastern  R.  Co.,  34  L.  T.  R. 

166,  262tt 

Leader  v.  Northern  R.  Co.,  3  Ont.  R.  92,    2356 
Learoyd  v.  Godfrey,  138  Mass.  116,  1949 


cclxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages,} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-lMS,  Vol.  II,  pp.  MS-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216L,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  £165-2725.] 


Lease  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  lOInd.  App.  47, 

2157,  2158,  2159 
Leary  v.  Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  139  Mass. 

580,  2000,  2058,  2059,  2068 

Leather  Manufacturers'  Nat.  Bank  v. 

Cooper,  120  U.  S.  778,  943 

Leathers  v.  Janney,  41  La.  Ann.  1120,  397 

Leavell  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  116  N. 

Car.  211,  2655 

Leavenworth  v.  Meyer,  50  Kan.  25,  1511 

Leavenworth  v.  Norton,  1  Kan.  432,  1103 

Leavenworth  County  v.  Chicago,  E.  I.  <fe 

P.  E.  Co.,  134  U.  S.  688,  451,  670 

Leavenworth  County  v.  Miller,  7  Kan.  479, 

3, 1140, 1144, 1158 
Leavenworth,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Cook,  18  Kan. 

261,  1888 

Leavenworth,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Commission- 
ers. 18  Kan.  169.  1215,  1237,  1245 
Leavenworth  E.  Co.  v.  County  Court,  42 

Mo.  171,  356 

Leavenworth,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Forbes,  37 

Kan.  445,  1862 

Leavenworth,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Maris,  16  Kan. 

333,  2278,  2614,  2616,  2617 

Leavenworth,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Meyer,  50 

Kan.  25,  1528 

Leavenworth,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Paul,  28  Kan. 

816,  1440 

lieavenworth,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Platte  Coun- 
ty, 42  Mo.  171,  1141 
Leavenworth,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  United 

States,  92  U.  S.  733,  1118,  1127, 1135 

Leavenworth,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Whitaker,  42 

Kan.  634,  1506,  1551 

Leavitt  v.  Eastman,  77  Me.  117,  1476, 1480 

Leavitt  v.  Fisher,  4  Duer  (N.  Y.)  1,  113 

Leavitt  v.  Oxford,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Utah  265, 

334,359 

Leavitt  v.  Pell,  27  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  322,  .165 

Leavitt  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  5 

Ind.  App.  513,  1759,  1986,  2065 

Leazure  v.  Hillegas,  7  Sergt.  &  E.  313,  538,  543 
Le  Bahn  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  80 

Hun  116,  2071 

Lebanon  v.  McCoy,  12  Ind.  App.  500,          2059 
Lebanon  v.  Olcott,  1  N.  H.  339,  1341 

Lebanon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Adair,  85  Ind.  244,       342 
Lebanon  Savings  Bank  v.  Hollenbeck,  29 

Minn.  322,  322 

Lebanon  School  Dist.  v.  Lebanon,  etc., 

Seminary,  (Pa.)  12  Atl.  B.  857,  1419 

Le  Barron  v.  East  Boston  Ferry  Co.,  11 

Allen  (Mass.)  312,  .          2474, 2598, 2704 

Lebbering  v.  Struthers,  157  Pa.  St.  312, 

2021,2080 


Lebeau  v.  General,  etc.,  Co.,  42  L.  J.  C.  P. 

88,  2212 

Lebeau  v.  General,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  E.  8  C.  P. 

88,  2207, 2208 

Leber  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  29 

Minn.  256,  1544 

Le  Blanc,  In  re,  75  N.  Y.  598,  421 

Le  Blanc,  Matter  of,  14  Hun  8,  426 

LeClair  v.  First  Div.,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  20 

Minn.  9,  2039,  2043 

Le  Conteur  v.  London,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  1 

Q.  B.  54,  2621 

Lecoul  v.  Police  Jury,  20  La.  Ann.  308,  1385 
Lecroy  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  10  N.  Y. 

Supp.  382,  2037 

Leddel  v.  Starr,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  159,  759 

Lee,  The  E.  E.,  2  Abb.  (U.  S.)  49,  2621 

Lee  v.  Imbrie,  11  Pac.  E.  270,  176 

Lee  v.  Kimball,  45  Me.  172,  2392 

Lee  v.  King,  99  Ala.  246,  1598 

Lee  v.  Michigan  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  87 

Mich.  574,  301 

Lee  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  66  Iowa 

131,  1814,  1816, 1826 

Lee  v.  Nenchatel,  etc.,  Co.,  58  L.  T.  B.  553,  436 
Lee  v.  North  Western  U.  B.  Co.,  33  Wis. 

222,  1507,  1508,  1555 

Lee  v.  Pembroke  Iron  Co.,  57  Me.  481, 

1401, 1403 
Lee  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  56  How.  Pr. 

373,  394 

Lee  v.  Ealeigh  B.  Co.,  72  N.  Car.  236, 

2399,2407 

Lee  v.  Summers,  2  Ore.  260,  1123 

Lee  v.  TiUotson,  24  Wend.  337,  1480 

Lee  v.  Union  B.  Co.,  12  B.  I.  383,  1646 

Lee  &  Co.'s  Bank,  Matter  of,  21  N.  Y.  9,  93 
Leebrick  v.  Bepublican,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  41 

Kan.  756,  1816 

Leech  v.  Baldwin,  5  Watts  (Pa.)  446,  2420 
Leedom  v.  Plymouth,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Watts 

&  S.  265,  105,  695 

Leeds,  etc.,  Co.,  Re,  1  L.  B.  Ch.  App.  561,  355 
Leep  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  58  Ark.  407,  963 
Lees  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  1  Nev.  & 

Mac.  352,  2670 

Leese  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  24  Neb.  143,  57 
Lefferts  v.  Board,  21  Wis.  697,  1069 

LeForest  v.  Tolman,  117  Mass.  109,  2132 

Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  457,  1058 

Legal  Tender  Cases,  110  U.  S.  421,  1666,  2636 
Legard  v.  Hodges,  1  Ves.  Jr.  477,  659 

Legendre  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Assn.,  45 

La.  Ann.  669,  248 

Legg  v.  Britton,  64  Vt.  652,  2145,  2148 

Legg  v.  Mathieson,  2  Giff.  71,  649 

Leggett  v.  Bank,  24  N.  Y.  283,  148 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[Vol.  I.  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216<l,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-3735.] 

Lehigh  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trone,  28  Pa.  St.  206, 


Iieggett  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  1  N.  J. 

Eq.  451,  391,  555 

Iieggett,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Collier,  89  Iowa  144,  2195 
Leggott  v.  Great  Northern  K.  Co.,  2  Best 

&  S.  759,  2146 

Leggott  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

L.  R.  1 Q.  B.  D.  599,  2146 

Legrand  v.  Hampden,  etc.,  College,  5 

Munf.  (Va.)  324,  554 

Lehew  v.  Brummell,  103  Mo.  546,  2643 

Lehigh  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Ala.  165,  2446 
Lehigh  Bridge  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Coal  Co.,  4 

Rawle  (Pa.)  9,  32,  873 

Lehigh  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co., 

of  N.  J.,  35  N.  J.  Eq.  426.  789,  791 

Lehigh  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central  R.  R.  Co., 

29  N.  J.  Eq.  522,  858 

Lehigh  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co., 

42  N.  J.  Eq.  591,  813 
Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Borough  of  Eastern, 

121  U.  S.  388,  59 

Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central  R.,  of  N.  J., 

43  Hun  546,  753 
Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

35  N.  J.  Eq.  349,  786 

Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  35 

N.  J.  Eq.  379,  654 

Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  35  N.  J. 

Eq.  379,  1352 

Lehigh,  etc.,  Coal  Co.  v.  Chicago,  26  Fed. 

R.  415,  1523 

Lehigh,  etc.,  Coal  Co.  v.  Lear,  (Pa.)  9  Atl. 

R.  267,  1764 

Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hayes,  128  Pa.  St.  294,  2008 
Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Inter  County  St.  R.Co., 

167  Pa.  St.  126,  .        1642 

Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brandtmaier,  113 

Pa.  St.  610,  1737, 1738 

•Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dover,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

43  N.  J.  L.  528,  1377 

Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greiner,  113  Pa.  St. 

600,  2072 

Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  61  Pa.  St.  361, 

2717 
Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lazarus,  28  Pa.  St. 

203,  1443 

Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McFarlan,  43  N.  J. 

Law  605,  1320 

Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKeen,  90  Pa.  St. 

122,  1910 

Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Orange  Water  Co., 

42  N.  J.  Eq.  205,  1656 

Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  145 

U.  S.  192,  995, 1084, 1098,  2655 

Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Snyder,  56  N.  J. 

Law  326,  2071 


1358 
Lehman  v.  City  of  Brooklyn,  29  Barb.  234, 

2050 

Lehman  v.  Knapp,  (La.)  20  So.R.  674,  387 
Lehman  v.  McQuown,  31  Fed.  R.  138,  831 
Lehman  v.  Warner,  61  Ala.  455,  28,  29 

Lehmann  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.Co.,  3  Interst. 

Com.  R.  80,  2676 

Lehmann  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst. 

Com.  R.  548,  2686 

Lehmann  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Interst. 

Com.  R.  706,  2686 

Lehmicke  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Minn. 

464,  1516, 1518, 1520, 1521 

Lehr  v.  Steinway,  118  N.  Y.  556,  2469 

Leigh  v.  Smith,  1  C.  &  P.  638,  2187,  2191 

Leighty  v.  Susquehanna,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Serg. 

&  R.  (Pa.)  434,  160 

Leiman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Wis. 

286,  1790 

Leisse  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Mo.  App. 

105,  1283, 1504, 1507 

Leisy  v.  Hardin,  135  U.  S.  100, 

966,  2637,  2641,  2642,  2656 
Leistritz  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  154  Mass. 

382,  2057 

Leitch  v.  Wells,  48  N.  Y.  586,  1221 

Leland  v.  Hayden,  102  Mass.  512,  423 

Leloup  v.  Port  of  Mobile,  127  U.  S.  640, 

951, 1074, 1078, 1081, 2657 
LeMay  v.  Canadian,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Ont. 

App.  293,  2111 

LeMay  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Mo. 

361,  1958 

Lemke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Wis. 

449,  2277, 2372 

Lemmon  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Iowa 

151,  1816 

Lemon  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Mich. 

618,  1846 

Lemon  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Fed.  R. 

262,  2531, 2535 

Lemont  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Fed. 

R.920,  2385 

Lemont  v.  Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Mackey  (D.  C.)  180,  2574 

Lenawee,  etc.,  Bank  v.  City  of  Adrian,  66 

Mich.  273,  1061 

Lenihan  v.  Hamann,  55  N.  Y.  652,  678 

Lennon,  In  re,  150  U.  S.  393,  910 

Lennon,  Ex  parte,  64  Fed.  R.  320,  910,  942 
Lennon  v.  Mayor,  55  N.  Y.  365,  1610 

Lennon  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Hun 

578,  1775, 1785 

Lennox  v.  Knox,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Me.  322,  1523 
Lenox  v.  Notrebe,  Hempst.  ( N.  S. )  225,  737 


cclxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Par/cs.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  j>p. 


Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2166-27*5.} 


Lenox  v.  United  States  Ins.  Co.,  3  Johns. 

Cas.  178,  2211  j 

Lent  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  N.  Y. 

467,  2475,  2548,  2558 

Lent  v.  Tillson,  72  Cal.  404,          1338,  1479,  1481 
Lent  v.  Tillson,  140  U.  S.  316,  1478 

Leo  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn.  438,  2250 
Leominster  Canal  Co.  v.  Shrewsbury, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  K.  &  J.  654,  355 

Leonard  v.  American  Insurance  Co.,  97 

Ind.  299,  484 

Leonard  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mo. 

App.  293,  2302,  2415 

Leonard  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81 

N.  Y.  48,  2134 

Leonard  v.  Fitchburgh  R.  Co.,  143  Mass. 

307,  2295,  2371,  2402  : 

Leonard  v.  Hendrickson,  18  Pa.  St.  40,        2267  I 
Leonard  v.  Poole,  114  N.  Y.  371,  134 

Leonard  v.  Southern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  21 

Ore.  555,  2714 

Leonard  v.  Spencer,  108  N.  Y.  338,  246 

Leonard  v.  Tidd,  3  Mete.  6,  2283  j 

Leonard  v.  Winslow,  2  Grant  (Pa.)  139,      2443  j 
Lepnick  v.  Gaddis,  26  L.  R.  A.  686,  1984 

Le  Roy  v.  East  Saginaw  Railroad  Co.,  18 

Mich.  233,  1063  ! 

Le  Roy  v.  Globe  Insurance  Co.,  2  Edw. 

Ch.  (N.  Y.)  657,  421,  426,  869,  911  j 

Le  Roy  v.  Mayor,  20  Johns.  430,  1103  j 

Le  Roy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Butts,  40  Kan.  159,  1515 
Le  Roy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawks,  39  Kan.  638, 

1517,  1518 
Le  Roy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ross,  40  Kan.  598, 

1517,  1518 
Le  Roy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sidell,  66  Fed.  R. 

27,  481 

Le  Sage  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  1  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  306,  2237 

Lesan  v.  Maine  Central  R.  Co.,  77  Me.  85, 

1737,  1738,  1753,  1766,  2069  j 
Lesher  v.  Wabash  Navigation  Co.,  14  111. 

85,  1352,  1591 

Lesinsky  v.  Great  Western  Dispatch,  10 

Mo.  App.  134,  2224,  2241,  2248 

Leslie  v.  Lorillard,  110  N.  Y.  536,  577 

Lessard  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  81  Wis. 

189,  2706 

Lesseps  v.  Architects  Co.,  4  La.  Ann.  316, 

215,  221 

Lessieur  v.  Price,  12  How.  59,  1136 

Lester  v.  Houston,  101  N.  Car.  605,  1580 

Lester  v.  Howard  Bank,  33  Md.  558,  5l|f  ' 

Lester  v.  Webb,  1  Allen  34,  398,  642 

Letheraw  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98 

Mo.  74,  1797 

Lett  v.  Morris,  4  Sim.  607,  659 


Leuckhart  v.  Cooper,  3  Bing.  N.  C.  99,       2391 
Levering  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

W.  &  S.  (Pa.)  459,  1541,  1549 

Levering  v.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Mo.  88, 

2263,  2296,  2301,  2324 
Levey  v.  New  York  Cent.  &  H.  R.  R.  Co., 

4  Misc.  R.  415,  482 

Levi  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  1  Fed.  R. 

206,  766 

Levi  v.  Karrick,  13  Iowa  344,  787 

Levi  v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  11  Allen 

(Mass.)  300,  11,  2179 

Levi  v.  Thompson,  4  How.  17,  1136 

Levin  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ala.)  19 

So.  R.  395,  1955 

Leviston  v.  Junction  R.  Co.,  7  Ind.  597,      1539 
Levois  v.  Gale,  17  La.  Ann.  302,  22UT 

Levy  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  La. 

Ann.  615,  2237 

Lewey's  Island  R.  Co.  v.  Bolton,  48  Me. 

451.  212,  218,  219,  220,  35t> 

Lewis,  In  re,  52  Kan.  660,  757 

Lewis  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Md. 

588,  1736,  1780, 1980 

Lewis  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  49  Fed.  R.  708, 

1573,  1574, 1575 
Lewis  v.  City  of  Shreveport,  108  U.  S. 

282,  1158 

Lewis  v.  Clarendon,  5  Dill.  329,  1224 

Lewis  v.  Commissioners,  105  U.  S.  739,       1241 
Lewis  v.  Fisher,  80  Md.  139,  85s 

Lewis  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mich.  55, 

2467,  2704 

Lewis  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  111.  281,.   2384 
Lewis  v.  Germantown,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  16 
Phila.  (Pa.)  608, 

61,  1268,  1350,  1376,  1380, 1655 
Lewis  v.  Glenn,  84  Va.  947,  247,  649 

Lewis  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  3 

Q.  B.  Div.  195,  2315,  2328,  2329 

Lewis  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  5  H.  & 

N.  867,  410,  2341 

Lewis  v.  Hartford  Silk  Mfg.  Co.,  56  Conn. 

25,  642 

Lewis  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  9 

Q.  B.  66,  2549 

Lewis  v.  Ludwick,  6  Colo.  368,  2282 

Lewis  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  Mass. 

267,  2321, 2531,  2535,  2536,  2537,  2538,  2543 

Lewis  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  (N.  J.)  33 

Atl.  R.  932,  1650 

Lewis  v.  Pima  County,  155  U.  S.  54,    1143, 1153 
Lewis  v.  President,  etc.,  145  N.  Y.  508, 

2546,  2548,  'J.V.s 
Lewis  v.  Puget  Sound  R.  Co.,  4  Wash.  188, 

1779- 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxix 


[References  are  to  Pacicn.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  IIT,pp.  126S-Z16L,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27 .'':.] 


Lewis  v.  Seifert,  116  Pa.  St.  628, 

287,  2016,  2019,  2084,  2089 

Lewis  v.  Sharvey,  58  M  inn.  464,  2395 

Lewis  v.  Shreveport,  3  Woods  205,  1158 

Lewis  v.  Shreveport,  108  U.  S.  282,  1153, 1161 
Lewis  v.  Smith,  9  N.  Y.  502,  680 

Lewis  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Mo.  495, 

1998 
Lewis  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (S.  Dak.) 

58  N.  W.  R.  580,  1463,  1468, 1528 

Lewis  v.  Tilton,  64  Iowa  220,  877 

Lewis  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Ga.  225,  2497 
Lewis  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  11  Mete.  .(Mass.) 

509,  2352,2375 

Lewis  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

Rich.  L.  (S.  Car.)  91,  1487, 1488 

Lewiston  v.  Fairfleld,  47  Me.  481,  2710 

Lexington  v.  Butler,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  282, 

632,1239 

Lexington  v.  Headley,  5  Bush  (Ky.)  508,  1104 
Lexington  v.  McQuillan,  9  Dana  (Ky.) 

514,  1100, 1177 

Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Applegate,  8 

Dana  (Ky.)  289,  1342, 1634 

Lexington,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Bridges,  7  B. 

Mon.  (Ky.)  556,  327,  438 

Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chandler,  13 

Mete.  (Mass.)  311,  23, 126,  208,  220 

Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elwell,  8  Allen 

(Mass.)  371,  329,  330 

Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitchburg  R. 

Co.,  14  Gray  (Mass.)  266,  1396 

Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McMurtry,  3  B. 

Mon.  (Ky.)  516,  1489 

Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ormsby,  7  Dana 

276,  898,  1460 

Lexington,  etc.,   Ins.  Co.  v.  Page,  17  B. 

Mon.  (Ky.)  412,  426,  427,  433,  434,  855 

Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Staples,  5  Gray 

(Mass.)  520,  219 

Libby  v.  Ingalls,  124  Mass.  503,  2215,  2216 

Libby  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Me.  34, 

1563,  2470,  2472,  2704 

Libby  v.  Rennie,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  42,  688 

Libby  v.  Tobey,  82  Me.  397,  131, 166,  213,  265 
Liberty,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Watkins,  70  Mo.  13,  269 
License  Tax  Cases,  5  Wall.  462,  964 

Lichtenstein  v.  Gillett,  37  La.  Ann.  522,  772 
Lickbarrow  v.  Mason,  2  T.  R.  63, 

2204,  2217,  2360,  2389,  2394,  2445 
Liddle  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Iowa 

378,  1862 

Liddy  v.  St.  Louis  R.  R.  Co.,  40  Mo.  506,  1025 
Lieber  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  49  Iowa  688,  894 
Lieberman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141 

111.  140,  11 

Lieberman  v.  Hoffman,  102  Pa.  St.  590,        890 


Liebke  v.  Knapp,  79  Mo.  22,  165,  IfiG 

Life  Assn.  v.  Fassett,  102  111.  315,  863 

Ligat  v.  Commonwealth,  19  Pa.  St.  456,     1284 
Liggins  v.  Inge,  7  Bing.  682,  1290 

Light  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  61 . 

N.  W.  R.  38(1.  2071 

Lighthall  Mfg.  Co.,  Matter  of,  47  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  258,  233,  277 

Lightner  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  1 

Lowell  338,  456,  860 

Lightner  v.  City  of  Peoria,  150  111.  80,         1108 
Lillard  v.  Porter,  2  Head  (Tenn.)  177,  246 

Lillis  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mo.  464, 

2461,  2497 
Lillstrom  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  53  Minn. 

464,  1795 

Lilly  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  S.  Car. 

142,  2126 

Limburger  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.)27S.  W.  R.  198,  1637 

Limburger  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 

(Tex.)  30  S.  W.  R.  533,  13,  1636, 1637 

Limekiller  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33 

Kan.  83,  2142 

Limerick  &  C.  Turnp.  Co.'s  Appeal,  80  Pa. 

St.  425,  1405 

Liming  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co.,  81  Iowa 

246,  1946 

Limpus  v.  London  General  Omnibus  Co., 

1  H.  &  C.  526,  1989 

Lin  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,R.  Co.,  10 Mo.  App. 

125,  2628 

Lincoln  v.  Colusa  County,  28  Gal.  662, 

1458,  1494 

Lincoln  v.  Iron  Co.,  103  U.  S.  412,  1242 

Lincoln  County  v.  Lurring,  133  U.  S.  529,    1010 
Lincoln  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  425,  1521 

Lincoln  v.  Smith,  27  Vt.  328,  965 

Lincoln  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Mo.  27, 

1659 
Lincoln    v.  Taunton,  etc.,    Co.,  9   Allen 

(Mass.)  181,  2714 

Lincoln  v.  Wright,  23  Pa.  St.  76,  210 

Lincoln,  etc.,  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  98,  2683 

Lind  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Kan.  a°52,     1720 
Lindell  v.  Benton,  6  Mo.  361,  867 

Lindell  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Mo. 

543,  1454 

Lindeman  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  N.  Y.  St. 

R.  837,  752 

Linden  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Colo.  433,  2127 
Linder  v.  Carpenter,  62  111.  309,  376 

Linderberg  v.  Crescent  Co.,  9  Utah  163,       308 
Lindley  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N. 

Car.  547,  2226,2231,2250 


cclxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  l^eS-SWtt,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Lindsay  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  46  Ga.  447,      295 
Lindsay  v.  Commonwealth,  2  Bay  (S.  Car.) 

38,  1413 

Lindsay  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  17  Jur. 

522,  495 

Lindsey  v.  Hawes,  2  Black  554,  1135 

Lindsay  Petroleum,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hurd, 

L.  R.  5  P.  C.  221,  18 

Lindsay  v.  Winona,etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Minn. 

411,  1923 

Lindsey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa 

407,  2595 

Lindsey  v.  Miller,  6  Pet.  666,  1134 

Lindsey  v.  Rottaken,  32  Ark.  619,        1221, 1237 
Lindsley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Minn. 

539,  2346,  2399,  2403 

Lindvall  v.  Woods,  41  Minn.  212, 

2053,  2079,  2081 

Lineoski  v.  Susquehanna,  etc.,  Co.,  157 

Pa.  St.  153,  2041 

Lindfleld  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Cush.  (Mass.)  562,  599,  608,  1678 

Lininger  v.  Glenn,  33  Neb.  573,  1544 

Ling  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Minn. 

160,  2081 

Linkauf  v.  Lombard,  137  N.  Y.  417,    2720,  2721 
Linn  v.  Patton,  10  W.  Va.  187,  688 

Linneman  v.  Bieber,  33  N.  Y.  Supp.  129, 

1605,  1608 

Linnehan  v.  Rollins,  137  Mass.  123,  2109 

Lin  ton  v.  Sharpsburg,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Grant's 

Gas.  (Pa.)  414,  64 

Linton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Persons,  11  Ind.  App. 

264,  2006,  2013,  2074 

Lipfield  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  S. 

Car.  285,  1895 

Lipfield  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  S. 

Car.  285,  1921,  2266,  2299,  2355 

Lipes  v.  Hand,  104  Ind.  503,  1427, 1465 

L'ippincott  v.  Pana,  92  111.  24, 

1159, 1215,  1217,  1242, 1244 

Lippincott  v.  Shaw  Carriage  Co.,  25  Fed. 

R.  577,  857 

Lippman  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co.,  2  In- 

terst.  Com.  R.414,  2686 

Lippman  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  2  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  584,  2678 

Liquidators,  etc.,  v.  Douglas,  22  Sess. 

Cases  (2d  series)  (Scotch)  447,  382 

Liscomb  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

Lans.  75,  2477,  2589 

List  v.  Wheeling,  7  W.  Va.  501,      • 

1146, 1159, 1170, 1196 

Lister  v.  Lobley,  6  Nev.  &  M.  340,  1490 

Liston  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Iowa 
714,  1826, 1859, 1878 


Litchfield  v.  Ballou,  114  U.  S.  190, 

1226,  1233,  1252 
Litchfield  v.  County  of  Webster,  101  U.  S. 

773,  1097, 1118 

Litchfield  v.  Polk  Co.,  18  Iowa  70,  1071 

Litchfield  v.  Vernon,  41  N.  Y.  123,       1102,  1151 
Litchfield  v.  White,  7  N.  Y.  438,  382 

Litchfield  Bank  v.  Church,  29  Conn.  137, 

796,873 
Litchfield  Bank  v.  Peck,  29  Conn.  384, 

198,  795,  796 
Litchfield,  etc.,  Coal  Co.  v.  Taylor,  81  111. 

590,  2074 

Litt  v.  Cowley,  7  Taunt.  169,  2393 

Littaur  v.  Narragansett,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

Fed.  R.  591,  1769,  1782 

Little  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Me.  239, 

2208,  2309,  2320,  2346,  2381 

Little  v.  Chicago,  46  111.  App.  534,  1108 

Little  v.  Dublin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Ir.  C.  L. 

82,  1454 

Little  v.  Dusenberry,  46  N.  J.  Law  614, 

799,  812,  813,  816,  2108 

Little  v.  Fargo,  43  Hun  233,  2270 

Little  v.  Giles,  118  U.  S.  596,  933,  939 

Little  v.  Hackett,  116  U.  S.  366,          179C,  1798 
Little  v.  Kerr,  44  N.  J.  Eq.  263,  311 

Little  v.  Semple,  8  Mo.  99,  2213 

Little  v.  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Wis.  402, 

1646 

Little  v.  Vanderbilt,26Atl.R.  1025,  790 

Little,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Norton,  24  Pa.  St. 

465,  1968 

Littlefield  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Me. 

248,  1492 

Littlefield  v.  Maxwell,  31  Me.  134,  1319 

Littlejohn  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  148  Mass. 

478,  2450 

Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Collett,  6 

Ohio  St.  182,  '  1425, 1426 

Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commission- 
ers, 31  Ohio  St.  338,  1642, 1665, 1674 
Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dayton,  23 

Ohio  St.  510,  108,  907, 1376,  1377, 1394, 1654 
Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hambleton, 

40  Ohio  St.  496,  596,  613, 1320 

Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Naylor,  2 

Ohio  St.  335,  1283, 1285, 1563 

Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Washburn, 

22  Ohio  St.  324,  2224,  2236 

Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wetmore,  19 

Ohio  St.  110,  302, 1990,  2582,  2583 

Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitacre,  8 

Ohio  St.  590,  1539 

Little  Rock  v.  National  Bank,  98  U.  S. 

308,  1248 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-*725.\ 


Little  Hock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Worthen,  46  Ark. 

312,  1056 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  41  Ark. 

431,  1436, 1441 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barry,  58  Ark. 

198,  2084 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brooks,  39  Ark. 

403,  1036 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cavanesse,  48 

Ark.  106,  2144,  2591 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Conatser, 

(Ark.)  33  S.  W.  R.  1057,  2293,  2701 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Corcoran,  40 

Ark.  375,  2267 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cravens,  57 

Ark.  112,  2320,  2326 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cravens,  7 

Lewis  Am.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  270,  284,  2316 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Daniels,  49 

Ark.  352,  2332,  2429,  2442 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dean,  43  Ark. 

529,  2494, 2497 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Densemann, 

(Ark.)  16  S.  W.  R.  169,  1782 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dick,  52  Ark. 

402,  1868 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  East  Tennes- 
see, etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Fed.  R.  771, 

10J1,  2261,  2658,  2670 
Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  21Interst.  Com.  Com.  R. 

454,  2685 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eubanks,  48 

Ark.  460,  2006,  2148 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Finley,  37 

Ark.  562,  1805, 1806, 1854, 1863 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Glidewell,  39 

Ark.  487,  2168,  2279,  2359 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  32  Ark. 

669,  2199, 2006 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hanniford,  49 

Ark.  291,  984 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harrell,  53 

Ark.  454,  1798 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henson,  39 

Ark.  413,  1871 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holland,  40 

Ark.  336,  1854 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunter,  42 

Ark.  200,  2191,  2615,  2618 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Iredell,  50 

Ark.  388,  946 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  41  Ark. 

157,  1871 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lawton,  55 

Ark.  428,  2545 


Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Leverett,  48 

Ark.  333,  2012 

Little  Rock,  etc.r  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Little  Rock, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Ark.  663,  22,  23 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McGhee,  41 

Ark.  202,  717, 1437 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miles,  40  Ark. 

298,  413,  2510,  2512,  2516,  2561,  2595 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moseley,  56 

Fed.  R.  1009,  2032, 2040,  2088 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Page,  35  Ark. 

304,  378 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pankhurst,  36 

Ark.  371,  1787 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Payne,  33  Ark. 

816,  1870, 1872 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perry,  37  Ark. 

164,  487 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  559,  2659,  2670,  2674,  2685 
Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  59  Fed.  R.  400,  2172,  2685 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  63  Fed.  R.  775,  2669 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Talbot,  39  Ark. 

523,  2317,  2328,  2329,  2347 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Townsend,  41 

Ark.  382,  2006 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Trotter,  37  Ark. 

593,  1852,  1857 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner,  41  Ark. 

161,  1853 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woodruff,  49 

Ark.  381,  1432,  1435, 1512, 1514,  1520,  1526 

Littleton  v.  Fritz,  65  Iowa  488,  903 

Littleton  Nat.  Bank  v.  Portland,  etc.,  Co.. 

58  N.  H.  104,  891 

Littlewood  v.  Mayor,  89  N.  Y.  24,       2140,  2145 
Litzenberger  v.  Jarvis,  etc.,  Trust  Co.,  8 

Utah  15,  707 

Liverpool,  etc.,  Asso.  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  L.  R.  (1891)  1  Q.  B.  Div.  120, 

2668,  2670,  2684 
Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.  v-  Snitter,  17  Fed.  R. 

695,  2370 

Liverpool  Ins.  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  10 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  566,  22 

Liverpool,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phenix  Ins.  Co., 

129  U.  S.  397, 

2173,2307,2312,2313,2318,2321,2329,2334, 2654,2855 
Livesey  v.  Omaha,  etc..  Co..  5  Neb.  50,  28, 169 
Livezey  v.  Philadelphia,  64  Pa.  St.  106, 

2264,2468 

Livingston  v.  Lynch,  4  Johns.  Ch.  573,         515 
Livingston  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  New  York,  8 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  85,  1335 

Livingston  v.  Miller,  48  Hun  232,  2396 


cclxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JUS-126S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  neS-ZWU,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Livingston  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76 

N.  Y.  631,  2255 

Livingston  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5 

Hun  562,  2304 

Livingston  v.  Pettigrew,  7  Lans.  (N.  Y.) 

405,  812, 817 

Livingston  County  v.  Darlington,  101 U.  S. 

407,  1143,  1148,  1178 

Livingston  County  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  128 

U.  S.  102, 

189,  450,  1145,  1199,  1224,  1236,  1244,  1254 
Livingstone  v.  Temperance,  etc.,  Society, 

31  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  541,  255 

L'Herbette  v.  Pittsfield,  etc.,  Bank,  162 

Mass.  137,  591 

Lloyd  v.  Barden,  3  Strob.  343,  2186 

Lloyd  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Fed. 

R.  351,  756,  770,  792 

Lloyd  v.  Northampton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Nev. 

&  Mac.  259,  2681 

Lloyd  v.  Passingham,  16  Ves.  59,  738,  756 

Lloyd  v.  Preston,  146  U.  S.  630,  132,  252 

Lloyd  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  Mo. 

595,  1793 

Lloyd  v.  Wagner,  93  Ky.  644,  636 

League  v.  Taxing  Dist.  of  Brownsville,  36 

Fed.  R.  149,  1258,  1259 

Loan  Assn.  v.  Stonemetz,  29  Pa.  St.  534,      371 
Loan  Assn.  v.  Topeka,  20  Wall.  655, 

961,  1099,  1140, 1164,  1168 
Locke  v.  First  Division,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

Minn.  350,  1732,  1854, 1872 

Locke  v.  North  Eastern  R.  Co.,  3  Nev.  & 

Mac.  44,  2670 

Lockhart  v.  Craig  St.  Ry.  Co.,  139  Pa.  St. 

419,  12, 1620 

Lockhart  v.Lichtenthaler,  46  Pa.  St.  151,    1799 
Lockhart  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co  ,  40 

Fed.  R.  631,  614 

Lockhart  v.  VanAlstyne,  31  Mich.  76, 

120, 121, 122,  124, 125,  251,  417,  418,  433 
Lockie  v.  Mut.  Un.  Tel.  Co.,  103  111.  401, 

1383, 1390 
Lockwood  v.  Mechanics'  Nat.  Bank,  9 

R.  1. 308,  148 

Lockport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  19  Hun 

(N.Y.)38,  1702 

Lockport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  77  N.  Y. 

557,  1494,  1684,  1687 

Lockwood  v.  St.  Louis,  24  Mo.  20,  1102 

Lockwood  v.  Thunder,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Mich. 

536,  353 

Lockwood  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  122  Mo.  86, 

900,  1617, 1619, 1633, 16:!7 

Loder  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Hun  22,       107 
Lodge  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Phila.  (Pa.)  345, 

899, 1284, 1345, 1368, 1369, 1384, 1391 


Loeb,  Ex  parte,  72  Fed.  R.  657,  2650 

Loeb  v.  Ghur,  6  N.  Y.  Supp.  296,  667 

Loeb  v.  Peters,  63  Ala.  243,  2220,  2390 

Loesnitz  v.  Seelinger,  127  Ind.  422,  1192 

Lowenberg  v.  Railway  Co.,  56  Ark.  439, 

2253,2441 
Lofdahl  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 

Wis.  421,  1786, 1981 

Lofton  v.  Vogles,  17  Ind.  105,  2127 

Loftus  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  N.  Y.  455, 

2009,2467 

Logan  v.  Cent.  R.  Co.,  74  Ga.  684,  286 

Logan  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Mo. 

663,  2482,2485 

Logan  v.  North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  116  N.  C. 

940,  603, 2091 

Logan  v.  Stogdale,  123  Ind.  372,  1339 

Logan  v.  Stranahan,  12  U.  C.  Q.  B.  15,        1579 
Logan  v.  Vernon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ind.  552, 

88, 1551 

Logan  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Ga.  553,  867 
Logansport  v.  Dick,  70  Ind.  65,  1589 

Logansport  v.  Justice,  74  Ind.  378,  247 

Logansport,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Buchanan,  52 

Ind.  163,  1420,1421,  142i 

Logwood  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Fed. 

R.  318,  2644 

Lohman  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  39,  166,  624 

Lohman  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Minn. 

174,  1480, 1483, 1536, 1545 

Lohse  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Mo.  App. 

645,  1507 

London  v.  Sample,  etc.,  Co.,  91  Ala.  606,    1500 
London,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  Div. 

522,  254 

London,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  519,    - 
London,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Morphy,  12  Am.  & 

Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  53,  107 

London,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  Re,  L.  R.  24  Ch. 

Div.  149,  199 

London,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  23  N.  Y.-  Supp.  231,  2190 

London,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  68  Hun  598,  2274 

London,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  144  N.  Y.  200,  2185,  2273,  2277 

London,  etc.,  Land  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  31 

Ch.  D.  223,  238 

London,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  7  H  &  N. 

400,  306,  410,  2188,  2352,  2376,  2384 

London,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Evershed,  L.  R.  3 

App.  Cas.  1029,          2424,  2431,  2667,  2669,  2672 
London,   etc..  R.    Co.  v.    Fairclough,   2 

Mann.  &  G.  674,  218 

London,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goodwin,  3  Exch. 

320,  330 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  M3-12G2,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Xiondon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grand  Junction 

Canal  Co.,  1  Eng.  R.  &  Canal  Cas.  224,     1342 
London,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McMichael,  3  Ex. 

855,  486 

London,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Myers,  39  L.  J.  C. 

P.  57,  2428 

London,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  v.  Price,  L.  R.  11 

Q.  B.  Div.  485,  63,  2435 

London,  etc.,  Society  v.  Hagerstown,  etc., 

Bank,  36  Pa.  St.  498,  1996 

Longabaugh  v.  Virginia  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

9  Nev.  271,  1894, 1901,  1936,  1940,  1995 

Lonergan  v.  Illinois,  Cent.  R.Co.,  87  Iowa 

755,  1757,  1986 

Longenecker  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  105 

Pa.  St.  328,  1757,  1763, 1767, 2719 

Longfellow  v.  Quimby,  33  Me.  457,  1931 

Longfellow  v.  Quimby,  29  Me.  196,  1192 

Lonerhorne  v.  Robinson,  20  Gratt.  661,        1140 
Longmore  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  19  C. 

B.  (N.  S.)  183,  2546,  2589 

Longshore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Howell,  26  Ore. 

527,  909 

Longworth  v.  Meriden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

Conn.  451,  1301 

Long  v.  Central  Iowa  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa  657, 

1832 
Long  v.  Commissioners'  Court,  18  Ala.  482, 

1475 
Long  v.  Coronado,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Cal. 

269,  2036, 2073 

Long  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  Co.,  91  Ala.  519,          507 
Long  v.  Girdwood,  150  Pa.  St.  413,  772 

Long  v.  Harrisburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  126  Pa. 

St.  143,  1424 

Long  v.  Home,  1  C.  &  P.  610,  2186 

Long  v.  Morrison,  14  Ind.  595,  2147 

Long  v.  New  London,  9  Biss.  539,        1148, 1150 
Long  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y. 

76,  2199, 2211 

Long  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  147  Pa.  St. 

343,  2267,  2468,  2598,  2615 

Long  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  80  Iowa  92,  2632 
Long  v.  Straus,  107  Ind.  94,  549,  2313 

Long  Branch  Commissioners  v.  West  End 

R.  Co.,  29  N.  J.  Eq.  566,  1313 

Long  Branch,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  24  N.  J. 

Eq.  398,  736,  750 

Long  Dock  Co.  v.  Mallery,  12  N.  J.  Eq. 

431,  745,  754 

Long  Dock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(N.  J.)30Am.  &Eng.  R.  Cas.  431,  1370 

Long  Island  R.  Co.,  In  re,  45  N.  Y.  364, 

1286,1468 

CORP. — xviii 


Long  Island  R.  Co.,  In  re,  6  T.  &  C.(N.Y.) 

298,  1446 

Long  Island  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  19  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  37,     215,  225,  226,  227,  237,  277,  280,  359 
Long  Island  R.  Co.  v.  Bennett,  10  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  91,  1478 

Long  Island  R.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  8  N.  Y.  S. 

805,  1622 

Long  Island  R.  Co.  v.  Silverstone,  19  N.Y. 

Supp.  140,  1657 

Long  Island  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Columbus, 

etc..  R.  Co.,  65  Fed.  R.  455,  631 

Lookout  Mountain  R.  Co.  v.  Houston,  32 

Fed.  R.  711,  945 

Loomis  v.  Davenport  &  St.  P.  R.  R.  Co., 

17  Fed.  R.  301,  654 

Loon,  The,  7  Blatch.  244,  2203 

Loop  v.  Chamberlain,  20  Wis.  135,  1549,  1560 
Lorch  v.  Aultman.  etc.,  Co.,  75  Ind.  162,  784 
Lord  v.  Brooks,  52  N .  H.  72,  430 

Lord  v.  Meadville,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Pa.  St. 

122,  1402,  1407 

Lord  v.  Pueblo,   etc.,  Refining  Co.,  12 

Colo.  390,  2147 

Lord  v.  Steamship  Co.,  102  U.  S.  541, 

994,  995,  2655 

Lord  Belhaven's  Case,  3  DeG.,  J  &  S.  41,  255 
Lord  Gerard  &  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In 

re,  L.  R.  (1894)  2  Q.  B.  915,  1435 

Lorenz  v.  Jacob,  63  Cal.  73,  1337 

Lorie  v.  North  Chicago  Ry.  Co.,  32  Fed. 

R.  270,  13,  1651 

Lorillard  v.  Clyde,  86  N.  Y.  384.  128,  129 

LoriUard  v.  Palmer,  15  John.  14,  2290 

Loring  v.  Aborn,  4  Gush.  (Mass.)  608,  2504 
Loring  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128 

Mo.  349,  2005,  2065,  2072 

Loriiig  v.  Mulcahy,  3  Allen  575,  2283 

Loring  v.  Salisbury  Mills,  125  Mass.  138,  139 
Loring  v.  Worcester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131 

Mass.  469,  1940 

Lorman  v.  Clarke,  2  McLean  568,  2639 

Los  Angeles,  etc.,  Asso.  v.  City  of  Los 

Angeles,  95  Cal.  420,  390 

Losee  v.  Buchanan,  51  N.  Y.  476,  1564 

Lothian  v.  Wood,  55  Cal.  159,  1602 

Lothrop  v.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150 

Mass.  423,  2113 

Lothrop  v.  Stedman,  42  Conn.  583,  90,  868 

Lothrop  v.  Stedman,  13  Blatch.  (U.  S.) 

134,  89 

Lotspeich  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  73  Ala.  306, 

2234,2669 
Lott  v.  Frankford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159  Pa. 

St.  471,  1645 


cclxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-JM2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  216S-2725.] 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Berry,  88  Ky.  222, 


Lott  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  La. 

Ann.  337,  2586 

Lott  v.  Ross,  38  Ala.  156,  1103 

Lottimer  v.  Lord,  4  E.  D.  Smith,  (N.  Y.) 

183,  761 

Loucks  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co  ,  31  Minn. 

526,  1678, 1739, 1749, 1750, 1757 

Loud  v.  Charlestown,  99  Mass.  208,  1071 

Loud  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  5  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  529,  2682 

Loud  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  4  Interst. 

Com.  R.  203,  2436 

Lough  v.  Outerbridge,  143  N.  Y.  271,  2285 

Loughbridge  v.  Harris,  42  Ga.  500,  1339 

Loughlin  v.  State,  105  N.  Y.  159,  2091 

Louis  v.  Brown  Township,  109  U.  S.  162,    1260 
Louisiana  v.  Jumel,  107  U.  S.  711,  1010 

Louisiana  v.  Pilsbury,  105  U.  S.  276,  1168 

Louisiana  v.  Taylor,  105  U.  S.  454,  1170 

Louisiana  v.  Wood,  102  U.  S.  294, 

324,  510,  1227,  1251,  1252 
Louisiana  Nat.  Bank  v.  Laveille,  52  Mo. 

380,  414,  2203,  2204 

Louisiana,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Senecal,  13  La. 

525,  366 

Louisiana  Paper  Co.  v.  Waples,  3  Woods 

(U.  S.)  34,  206,  261 

Louisiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pickett,  25  Mo. 

535,  1465 

Louisville  Banking  Co.  v.  Eisenman,  94 

Ky.  83,  859 

Louisville  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Ky. 

409,  1061 

Louisville  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  Bank,  104 

U.  S.  589,  1159 

Louisville  v.  Savings  Bank,  104  U.  S.,  469, 

1145, 1170 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  5  Interst, 

Com.  Com.  R.  466,  2674 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  1  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  31,  2676 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  78  Ala. 

494,  2009,  2025,  2051 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  85  Ala. 

619,  968 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ballard,  85  Ky. 

307,  2475, 2582 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ballard,  2  Met. 

(Ky.)  177,  1826,  1852, 1863 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Banks,  104  Ala. 
,  508,  2113 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barkhouse,  100 

Ala.  543,  2363,  2382 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belcher,  89  Ky. 

193,  1811 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Berg,  (Ky.)  32  S. 

W.  R.  616,  2126 


1964 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co;  v.  Bigger,  66  Miss. 

319,  2400 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Binion,  (Ala.) 

18  So.  R.  75,  2022 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Binion,  98  Ala. 

570,  2044,  2116,  2117 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bisch,  120  Ind. 

549,  2466,  2553,  2594 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boland,  96  Ala. 

623,  2024 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boney,  117  Ind. 

501,  100,  455,  461,  463,  695,  696,  697, 1110,  1606 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bonhayo,  94  Ky. 

67,  1567 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bowler,  9  Heisk. 

866,  2077 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Breckenridge, 

(Ky.)  34  S.  W.  R.  702,  2487,  2575 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brinley,  (Ky.)  29 

S.  W.  R.  305,  2415 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brooks,  83  Ky. 

129,  2020 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brownlee,  14 

Bush  (Ky.)  590,  2324 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan,  107  Ind. 

51,  1955, 1970 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Buck,  116  Ind. 

566,  307 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Caldwell,  98  Ind. 

245,  61& 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  97 

Ala.  147,  2013,  2014,  2044,  2063,  2116,  2117, 2224 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  7 

Heisk.  253,  2241,  2248,  2271 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Case,  9  Bush 

(Ky.)  728,  1799,  2141 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Caster,  (Miss.) 

5  So.  R.  388,  1851 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cauble,  46  Ind. 

277,  786,  820,  1861 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cavens,  9  Bush 

559,  2076, 2078 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central,  etc., 

Co.,  95  Ky.  50,  1638 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  87  Ky.  223,  1627 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chappell,  Rice 

L.  (S.  C.)  383,  1342,  1353 

Louisville  Gas  Co.  v.  Citizens',  etc.,  Co., 

115  U.  S.  683,  1088 

Louisville,  etc., .  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke,  152 

U.  S.  230,  2140 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cochran,  (Ala.) 

16  So.  R.  797,  1804 


TABLE    OF    CARES. 


cclxxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 
Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Coleman,  86  Ky. 


556,  1764 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Collins,  2  Duv. 

(Ky.)  114,  1792 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

(Ky.)26S.W.  E.  536,  1040 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

(Ky.)  30  S.  W.  E.  616,  957 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

31  S.  W.  E.  476,  585,  2652 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

10  Bush  43,  1056 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

13  Bush  (Ky.)  388,  1020, 1036 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

SO  Ky.  143,  1036, 1761 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v. Connor,  9Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  19,  1025, 1744 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Corps,  124  Ind. 

427,  2034, 2067 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Costello,  9  Ind. 

App.  462,  2545 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Coulton,  86  Ala. 

129,  2117, 2120 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  County  Court,  1 

Sneed  (Tenn.)  637,    1140, 1147, 1199, 1209, 1212 
Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Covington,  2 

Bush  (Ky.)  526,  1290 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Crawford,  89  Ala. 

240,  2072 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Craycraft,  12 

Ind.  App.  203,  2202 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Craycraft,  39  N. 

E.  E.  523,  2421 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Creek,  130  Ind. 

139,  1799 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Cronbach,  12 

Ind.  App.  666,  1646, 1969 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Crown,  etc.,  Co., 

43  111.  App.  228,  2671 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Crunk,  119  Ind. 

542,  2458, 2545 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Dancy,  97  Ala. 

338,  2721 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Davis,  91  Ala. 

487,  2116 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Dies,  91  Tenn. 

177,  2408 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Donnegan,  111 

Ind.  179,  1570, 1573 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Dooley,  78  Ala. 

524,  888, 893 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Douglass,  69  Miss. 

723,  305, 1989, 1991,  2582 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Dryden,  39  Ind. 

893,  1466 


Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Dunkin,  92  Ind. 

601,  1963 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  East  St.  Louis, 

134  111.  656,  1110 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee, 

etc.,  E.  Co.,  60  Fed.  B.  993,  2571 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Echols,  97  Ala. 

556,  2182, 2194 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Ehlert,  87  Ind. 

339,  1907, 1984 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Ellis,  Admx., 

(Ky.)  30  S.  W.  E.  979,  2576 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Etzler,  119  Ind. 

39,  1834 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Falvey,  104  Ind. 

409,  1909, 2713 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Fawley,  110  Ind. 

18,  2016 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Faylor,  126  Ind. 

126,  2149, 2508, 2512,  2515,  2517,  2568,  2569,  2600 
Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Finley,  86  Ky. 

294,  1636 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Flanagan,  113 

Ind.  488,  509.  517,  2191,  2293,  2693 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Fleming,  14  Lea 

(Tenn.)  128,  288,  2018,  2453,  2487,  2488 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Foley,  94  Ky. 

220,  2042 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Frawley,  110 

Ind.  18,  2024 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  French,  69  Miss. 

121,  1762, 1777 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Fnlgham,  91 

Ala.  555,  2199,  2209 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Gaines,  3  Fed. 

B.  266,  1063, 1064 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Gaines,  (Ky.) 

36  S.  W.  E.  174,  2490,  2573 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Ganote,  13  Am. 

&  Eng.  B.  Cas.  519,  1852 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Garrett,  8  Lea 

(Tenn.)  438,  2575 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Gilbert,  88  Tenn. 

430,  2326,2338 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Gilmer,  89  Ala. 

534,  2354 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Gobin,  52 11L 

App.  565,  1982 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Godman,  104 

Ind.  490,  2185,  2191,  2293,  2411,  2693 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Goetz,  79  Ky. 

442,  1737, 1748, 1750, 1766 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Goodbar,  88 

Ind.  213,  1876 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Goodykoontz, 

119  Ind.  Ill,  2138 


cclxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graham,  124 


Ind.  89,  2081 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grant,  99  Ala. 

325,  2317, 2402 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greene,  (Ky.)  19 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  95,  1967 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Guinan,  11  Lea 

(Tenn.)  98,  2506 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hackman,  (Ky.) 

30  S.  W.  R.  407,  1763 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hailey,  94  Tenn. 

383,  2461, 2555 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  87  Ala. 

708,  1986, 1997,  2003,  2014 

Louisville.etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  91  Ala.  112,    2113 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  93  Ind. 

245,  1834 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harrigan,  94  Ind. 

245,  1847 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  9  Lea 

(Tenn. )  180,  2496,  2575,  2633 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hart,  119  Ind. 

273,  1925 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hartwell,  (Ky.) 

36  S.  W.  R.  183,  2222 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawkins,  92 

Ala.  241,  2576 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Head,  80  Ind.          (j 

117,  1644 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hedger,  9  Bush 

(Ky.)  645,  2348,  2398,  2405 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hendricks,  128 

Ind.  462,  2002,  2472,  2599 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herr,  135  Ind. 

591,  2149 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hinder,  (Ky.)  30 

S.  W.  R.  399,  2013 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hixon,  101  Ind. 

337,  1876 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hollerbach,  105 

Ind.  137,  1570,  1586 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holsapple,  12 

Ind.  App.  301,  2546,  2549 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hurt  (Ky.)  13 

S.  W.  R.  275,  1975 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hurt,  101  Ala. 

34,  1955, 2048 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ide,  114  U.  S.  52, 

938,939 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson  (Ala.) 

19  So.  R.  51,  2576 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  92  Ala. 

204,  285, 2576 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  83  Ala. 

376,  2014,  2474,  2596 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  100  Ala. 

263,  2251 


Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  108  Ind. 

551,  2477 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Katzenberger, 

16  Lea  380,  2083,  2535,  2541 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  63  Fed. 

R.  407,  2040,  2088 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keefer,  (Ind. 

Sup.)  44  N.  E.  R.  796,  2601,  2603 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  92  Ind.  371, 

304,  2558,  2562,  2581,  2594 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelsey,  89  Ala. 

287,  1871 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kendall,  138 

Ind.  313,  1991,  2582,  2706 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  161 

U.  S.  677,  2652 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  etc., 

Co.,  95  Ky.  550,  492,  550,  589,  592 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koelle,  104  111. 

455,  561 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kingman,  (Ky.) 

35  S.  W.  R.  264,  2475 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kious,  82  Ind. 

357,  i87:i 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Krey,  (Ky.)  29 

S.  W.  R.  869,  1793 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Krinning,  87 

Ind.  351,  1909,  1910 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Law,  (Ky.)  21 

S.  W.  R.  648,  2043 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  47  111.  App. 

384,  1986 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Letson,  2  How. 

(U.  S.U97,  33,  45,  38,  935 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Liebfried,  (Ky.) 

50  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  202,  1324 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Liebfried,  92 

Ky.  407,  898,  1651 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Logan,  88  Ky. 

232,  285, 2576 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lohges,  6  Ind. 

App.  288,  1969 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Long,  94  Ky. 

410,  2569 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Louisville,  8 

Bush  (Ky.)  415,  1615,  1622,  1641 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Louisville  City 

Ry.  Co.,  2  Duv.  (Ky.)  175,  8, 10,  40, 1289 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lucas,  119  Ind. 

583,  2477,  2478,  2479,  2546,  2589 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mahan,  8  Bush 

(Ky.)  184,  2616,  2617,  2618,  2629 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mahony,  7 

Bush  235,  2152 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manchester 

Mills,  88  Tenn.  653,  2327,  2335 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages,] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-M2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Markee,  103 

Ala.  160,  2118 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mask,  64  Miss. 

738,  2545 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mason,  11  Lea 

116,  2178 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maybin,  66  Miss. 

83,  2573 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCorkle,  12 

Ind.  App.  691,  1939, 1940,  1942 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  McElwain,(Ky.) 

34  S.  W.  R.  236,  2145 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McEwan,  (Ky.) 

31  S.  W.  R.  465,  2585 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGuire,  1J 

Ala.  395,  2446 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McVay,  98  Ind. 

391,  293,  296,  310,  313,  315,  316,  402,  403 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Melton,  2  Lea 

(Tenn.)  262,  1760,  1855 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meyer,  78  Ala. 

597,  2227,  2234,  2324,  2363 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Milam,  9  Lea 

(Tenn.)  223,  1762 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  12  Ind. 

App.  414,  1617 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  141  Ind. 

533,  2088, 2151 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Milton,  14  B. 

Mon.  75,  1806, 1852 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mississippi,  133 

TJ.  S.  587,  995,  2644,  2655 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Mississippi,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  92  Tenn.  681,  493,  494,  1396 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  (Ky.) 

29  S.  W.  R.  860,  1945 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montgomery, 

(Ky.)  32  S.  W.  R.  738,  1874 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mothershed,  97 

Ala.  261,  2123 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy,  9  Bush 

(Ky.)  522,  1982 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nashville,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  1  Interst.  Com.  Com.  64,  2645 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Natchez,  etc., 

Co.,  67  Miss.  399,  1937,  2701 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholai,  4  Ind. 

App.  119,  2262,  2633 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nitsche,  126  Ind. 

229,  1902, 1904,  1909, 1910 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oden,  80  Ala.  38, 

2278,  2327,  2336,  2337 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Odill,  (Tenn.)  33 

S.  W.  R.  611,  2237,  2249,  2271,  2306 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Orr,  84  Ind.  50, 

2703,  2705 


Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Orr,  91  Ky.  109, 

703, 1638,  2124,  2153, 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Owens,  93  Ky. 

201,  2338 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Palmer,  13  Ind. 

App.  161,  1934 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Palmes,  109  U.  S. 

244,  702, 1066 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Park, 96  Ky.  580,   2470 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pearson,  97  Ala. 

211,  2106, 2714 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pedigo,  108  Ind. 

481,  2470, 2477 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  112  Ind. 

59,  1643,  1645,  1737,  1739, 1787, 1795 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  (Miss.) 

12  So.  R.  835,  1868 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Popp,  (Ky.)27 

S.  W.  R.  992,  1962, 1977 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Porter,  97  Ind. 

267,  1842,  1844 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Power,  119  Ind. 

269,  559, 1313 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pritchard,  131 

Ind.  564,  1665, 1795 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Queen  City,  etc., 

Co.,  (Ky.)  35  S.  W.  R.  626,  2270,  2287 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quinn,  (Ind. 

App.)  43  N.  E.  R.  240,  2067 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quinn,  14  Lea 

(Tenn.)  65,  1560 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Com- 
mission, 19  Fed.  R.  679, 

951,  982,  984,  985, 1014,  2636,  2645,  2661 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reese,  85  Ala. 

497,  1835, 1838, 1889,  1897, 1898 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Renicker,  8  Ind. 

App.  404,  2065 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richards,  100 

Ala.  265,  1773 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richardson,  100 

Ala.  232,  2133 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richardson,  66 

Ind.  43,  1889 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ricketts,  96  Ky. 

44,  2550 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ritter,  85  Ky. 

368,  2599 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roberts,  13  Ind. 

App.  692,  1933, 1941 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roehling,  11  111. 

App.  264,  934 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rush,  127  Ind. 

545,  2151 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ryan,  64  Miss. 

399,  1435,  1507, 1508 


cclxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


\_Jtejerences  are  10  ±nges.\ 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1265-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 
nicTrilln   nt/v.    P..  C\e\.   v.  SnnrJprs.  Sfi  TCv.  Trfiiiisvillft.  nt/v.  P.  f!o.  v.  Stpnhnns  13  Tnd. 


Louisville,  etc., 

259, 
Louisville,  etc. 

Ind.  265, 
Louisville,  etc., 

1  So.  R.  511, 
Louisville,  etc., 

Ind.  16, 
Louisville,  etc., 

264, 
Louisville,  etc., 

35  Am.  &  Eng 
Louisville,  etc. 

App.  654, 
Louisville,  etc., 

Ind.  297, 
Louisville,    etc. 

Ala.  178, 
Louisville,  etc., 

1, 

Louisville,  etc., 

119, 
Louisville,  etc., 

575, 
Louisville,  etc., 

353, 
Louisville,  etc., 

435, 
Louisville,  etc., 

111.  App.  225, 
Louisville,  etc., 

17, 
Louisville,  etc., 

460, 
Louisville,  etc., 

22  Am.  &  Eng. 
Louisville,  etc., 

97, 
Louisville,  etc. 

Tenn.  343, 
Louisville,  etc., 

App.  179, 
Louisville,  etc., 

(Tenn.)  663, 
Louisville,  etc., 

(Tenn.)  523, 
Louisville,  etc., 

443, 
Louisville,  etc., 

177, 
Louisville,  etc., 

App.  377, 
Louisville,  etc., 

662, 
Louisville,  etc., 

App.  183, 


E.  Co.  v.  Sanders,  86  Ky. 

2141,  2143 
E.  Co.  v.  Sandford,  117 

2003,  2067,  2708 
E.  Co.  v.  Saucier,  (Miss.) 

884 
E.  Co.  v.  Schmidt,  134 

1985 
E.  Co.  v.  Schmidt,  81  Ind. 

1987 

E.  Co.  v.  Schuster,  (Ky.) 
.  E.  Gas.  407,  1748 

,  E.  Co.  v.  Sears,  11  Ind. 

1973,  1978,  1982 
E.  Co.  v.  Shanklin,  94 

1833 
,  B.    Co.  v.  Sherrod,   84 

497,  2321,  2327,  2336,  2338 
B.  Co.  v.  Sickings,  5  Bush 

2563 
E.  Co.  v.  Smith,  91  Ind. 

1642,  1659,  1871 
B.  Co.  v.  Smith,  58  Ind. 

1858 
E.  Co.  v.  Smith,  121  Ind. 

313,  315,  409 
E.  Co.  v.  Snyder,  117  Ind. 

1909,  2472,  2474,  2563,  2599 
E.  Co.  v.  Southworth,  38 

752 
B.  Co.  v.  Sowell,  90  Tenn. 

2326,  2327,  2337 
B.  Co.  v.  Spain,  61  Ind. 

1841,  1873 

B.  Co.  v.  Spalding,  (Ky.) 
E.  Cas.  418,  2388 

E.  Co.  v.  Spencer,  149  111. 

1930 
,  E.  Co.  v.  Stacker,  86 

2548 
E.  Co.  v.  Stanger,  7  Ind. 

1987 
E.  Co.  v.  State,  8  Heisk. 

1058,  1179 
E.  Co.  v.  State,  3  Head 

1020,  1036,  1038,  1111,  1666 
B.  Co.  v.  State,  122  Ind. 

1110,  1114,  1115 
B.  Co.  v.  State,  25  Ind. 

46,  536 
B.  Co.  v.  State,  8  Ind. 

1115 
B.  Co.  v.  State,  66  Miss. 

2644 
E.  Co.  v.  Steele,  6  Ind. 

2341 


Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Stephens,  13  Ind. 

App.  145,  1773 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Stephens,  (Ky.) 

29  S.  W.  B.  14,  1317 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  87  Ind. 

198,  1902 
Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Stommel,  126 

Ind.  35,  1761,  1772, 1777, 1799 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Stutts,  105  Ala. 

368,  2113 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Stutts,  (Ala.) 

17  So.  E.  29,  2019, 2034, 2071 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  81  Ky. 

624,  1788, 1964,  2574,  2576 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Sumner,  106 Ind. 

55,  170,  494,  527,  530,  1280, 1281, 1308, 1824 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  106  Ind. 

10,  1844, 1859 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  107 

Ind.  442, 

2027,  2l56,  2468,  2469,  2509,  2512,  2517,  2518,  2716 
Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  18  B. 

Mon.  ( Ky.)  735,  1323,  1425, 1426 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Touart,  97  Ala. 

514,  2311,  2328,  2347 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Trammell,  93 

Ala.  350,  1970,  2151 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Treadway,  142 

Ind.  475,  2261,  2460,  2591 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Utz,  133  Ind. 

265,  468, 2037 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Wainscott,  3 

Bush  (Ky.)  149,  •  1853 

Louisville,  etc.,E.  Co.  v.  Wangelin,  132 

U.  S.  599,  938 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Ward,  61  Fed. 

B.  927,  2088 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Warren  County, 

5  Bush  243,  1059 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Watson,  90  Ala. 

68,  2038 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Weams,  80  Ky. 

420,  2179 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Weaver,  9  Lea 

(Tenn.)  38,  2494,  2622,  2623,  2624,  2626,  2627 
Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Webb,  90  Ala. 

185,  1755, 1782,  1784,  1792 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  White,  94  Ind. 

257,  1821 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Whitman,  79 

Ala.  328,  2577 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Widma*i,  10  Ind. 

App.  92,  2343 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Williams,  69 

Miss.  631,  1966,  1967, 1976 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Williams,  95  Ky. 

199,  2014 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  T,  pp.  jf-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol. 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  138  TJ.  S. 

501,  690,  827,  858 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  88Tenn. 

316,  2019, 2461 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  119 

Ind.  352,  2199,  2209,  2211 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  132 

Ind.  517,  2283,  2284,  2424,  2431 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wolfe,  80  Ky. 

82,  2479 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Wolfe,  128  Ind. 

347,  2578 

Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wood,  113  Ind. 

544,  2545, 2578 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Woods,  (Ala.) 

17  So.  R.  41,  2044,  2071 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  115  Ind. 

378,  2003,2021 

Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Wynn,  88  Tenn. 

320,  2317,  239^8,  2403 

Louisville  Safety  Vault  Co.  v.  Louisville 

&  N.  B.  E.  Co.,  (Ky.)  14  L.  E.  A.  579,          32 
Louisville  Transfer  Co.  v.  Obst,  (Ky.) 

February,  1875,  1105 

Louisville  Trust  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 

B.  .Co.,  75  Fed.  R.  433,  42 

Louisville,  etc.,  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Ballard, 

2  Mete.  (Ky.)  165,  1803 

Louisville,  etc.,  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Meri- 

wether,  5  B.  Monr.  (Ky.)  13,  209,  220 

Louisville,  etc.,  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Nash- 
ville, etc.,  Turnpike  Co.,  2  Swan  (Tenn.) 
282,  1283 

Louk  v.  Woods,  15  111.  256,  146$ 

Lounsbury  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  49  Iowa 

255,  1602, 1606 

Lovelandv.  Burke,  120  Mass.  139,       2358,2359 
Love  joy  v.  Boston,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  125  Mass. 

79,  1999, 2068 

Lovell  v.  De  Bardelaben,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Ala. 

13,  1979 

Lovell  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  L.  J. 

Q.  B.  476,  2620 

Levering  v.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Mo.  88,       2295 
Lovett  v.  German  Befonned  Church,  12 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  67,  845 

Lovett  v.  Hobbs,  2  Shower  127,          2191,  2282 
Lovett  v.  Salem,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Allen 

(Mass.)  557,  1964,  1981 

Low  v.  Central  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  52  Cal. 

53,  620 

Low  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  N.  H.  557, 

1433, 1437 
Low  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  H. 

370,  20,  21, 156,  367 

Low  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  111.  324, 

538, 1355, 1559, 1664 


III.  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Low  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Me. 

313,  1949 

Low  v.  Railroad  Co.,  63  N.  H.  557,  1435 

Low  v.  Rees  Printing  Co.,  41  Nejb.  127,  2103 
Low  v.  Studabaker,  110  Ind.  57,  180, 188, 192 
jowe  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  56 

N.  W.  R.  519,  2153 

Lowe  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 

Ga.  85,  2304 

Lowe  v.  Edgefield,  etc.,  R .  Co.,  1  Head 

(Tenn.)  659,  167, 171 

Lowe  v.  Lowe,  1  Tenn.  Ch.  515,  823 

Lowe  v.  Moss,  12  111.  477,  2305 

Lowell  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Pick.  24,  1589 
Lowell  v.  Boston,  111  Mass.  454,  1140 

Lowell,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Inhabitants  of  Win- 
chester, 8  Allen  109,  124 
Lowell  Wire  Fence  Co.  v.  Sargent,  8  Allen 

189,  2178, 2244 

Lowenburg  v.  Jones,  56  Miss.  688,  2242 

Lower  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Iowa 

563,  57,  505, 1351, 1364, 1527 

Lowndes  v.  Garnett,  etc.,  Co.,  33  L.  J.  Ch. 

418,  374 

Lowne  v.  American  Fire  Insurance  Co.,  6 

Paige  (N.  Y.)  482,  426 

Lowney  v.  New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 

Me.  479,  1894, 1937 

Lowery  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  N.  Y. 

158,  1984, 2052 

Lowry  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Fed.  R. 

942 
Lowry  v.  Commercial,  etc.,  Bank,  etc., 

Taney's  Dec.  (U.  S.)  310,  139 

Lowry  v.  Francis,  2  Yerg.  534,  1133 

Lowry  v.  Inman,  46  N.  Y.  119,  270 

Lowry  v.  Parsons,  52  Ga.  356,  270 

Lowry  v.  Rainwater,  70  Mo.  152,  965 

Lowten  v.  Mayor,  2  Merivale  393,  107 

Lowther  v.  Carlton,  2  Atk.  242,  322 

Loyd  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Mo.  509, 

2548,2713 
Lozier  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  465,  1542, 1560 

Lubbock  v.  Inglis,  1  Stark.  83,  2364 

Lubrano  v.  Atlantic  Mills,  (R.  I.)  32  Atl. 

R.  205,  2146 

Luby  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  Co.,  17  N.  Y. 

131,  308 

Lucas  v.  Board  of  Commissioners,  44  Ind. 

524,  1204 

Lucas  v.  Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.)  45 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  520,  1813, 1814 

Lucas  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Wis. 

41,  2465, 2554 

Lucas  v.  New  Bedford,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  6 
Gray  64,  2458,  2545 


cclxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1263,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-3715.] 


Lucas  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  21  Barb. 

245.  2142 

Lucas  v.  State,  96  Ala.  51,  1054 

Lucas  v.  White  Line  Transfer  Co.,  70 

Iowa  541,  505,  620 

Lucas  County  v.  Hunt,  5  Ohio  St.  488,  1070 
Lucco  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Hun 

612,  2042 

Luce  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  67  Iowa  75, 

2112,  2122 

Lucker  v.  Commonwealth,  4  Bush  440,-  2710 
Lucker  v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  62  Fed.  R.  769,  945 
Lucker  v.  Phoenix,  etc.,  Co.,  66  Fed.  R. 

161,  947 

Luckie  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  76  Mo. 

639,  1833 

Lucky,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Abraham,  26  Ore.  282,  394 
Lucy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn  )  65 

N.  W.  B.  944,  2585 

Ludlow  v.  Hudson  Biver  E.  Co.,  6  Lans. 

(N.  Y.)  128,  1301,  1302, 1406 

Ludlow  v.  Hurd,  1  Dis.  (Ohio)  552, 

647,  650,  654,  695 
Ludlow  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  12 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  440,  1310 

Ludwig  v.  Gorsuch,  154  Pa.  St.  413,  1996 

Luebke  v.  Berlin,  etc.,  Works,  88  Wis.  442, 

2024 

Luke  v.  Lyde,  2  Burr.  882,  2427 

Luker  v.  Dennis,  7  Ch.  Div.  227,  493 

Luling  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Ins.  Co  ,  45  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  510,  442 

Luling  v.  Eacine,  1  Biss.  314,  1246 

Lumbard  v.  Aldrich,  8  N.  H.  31,  64,  274,  543 
Lumsden's  Case,  L.  E.  4  Ch.  App.  C.  31,  136 
Lumsden  v.  Milwaukee,  8  Wis.  485,  1470 

Lund  v.  Wheaton,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Minn.  36, 

145,  146 
Lung  Chung  v.  Northern  Pac.  Ey.  Co.,  19 

Fed.  R.  254,  881,  2141 

Lundy  v.  Central  Pac.  E.  Co.,  66  Cal.  191, 

2493,  2497,  2498 
Lunt  v.  London,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  L.  B.  1  Q.  B. 

277,  1752,  1754, 1783 

Lunt  v.  Lunt,  71  Me.  377,  675 

Lupton  v.  Stephenson,  11  Ir.  Eq.  484,  781 

Lusby  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  41  Fed.  E. 

181,  2466,  2553,  2554 

Luse  v.  Isthmus,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  6  Ore.  125, 

393,  394,  555,  641 

Lushington  v.  Sewell,  1  Sim.  435,  46 

Lusted  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  71  Wis. 

391,  2150 

Luther  v.  Saylor,  8  Mo.  App.  424,  1594 

.Luther  v.  Winnisimmet  Co.,  9  Cush. 

(Mass.)  171,  1405 


Lutz  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (N.  Mex.) 

16  L.  E.  A.  819,  2720 

Lux  v.  Haggin,  69  Cal.  255,  1546 

Luxton  v.  North  Eiver  Bridge  Co.,  147 

U.  S.  337,  1414 

Lycoming  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Wright,  55  Vt. 

526,  771, 798 

Lyde  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  36  Beav.  10, 

540,  557 

Lydian  Monarch,  The,  23  Fed.  R.  298,        2337 
Lydick  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  17  W. 

Va.  427,  495, 1314 

Lydney,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bird,  L.  E.  33  Ch. 

Div.  85,  17, 18 

Lygo  v.  Newbold,  9  Exch.  302,  2458 

Lyle  v.  McKeesport,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  131  Pa. 

St.  437,  1272, 1382 

Lyles  v.  Lescher,  108  Ind.  382,  552 

Lyman  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  4  Cush. 

(Mass.)  288,  69, 1892,  2717 

Lyman  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N.  H.)  45 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  163,  1738, 1766 

Lyman  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  59  Vt. 

167,  732,  801,  804,  812 

Lyman  v.  White  River,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Aik. 

(Vt.)  255,  290 

Lynam  v.  Anderson,  9  Neb.  367,  1104 

Lynam  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  114  Mass.  83, 

1645, 1648,  1649 

Lynch  v.  Allyn,  160  Mass.  248,  2105,  2115 

Lynch,  Ex  parte,  2  Hill  45,  1258 

Lynch  v.  Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  159  Mass. 

536,  2033,  2113,  2122 

Lynch  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  8  Ind.  App. 

516,  2033, 2040 

Lynch  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  57  Wis.  430, 

1224 

Lynch  v.  Forbes,  161  Mass.  302,  1384 

Lynch  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  90 

N.  Y.  77,  304,  1992,  2508,  2634 

Lynch  v.  Nurdin,  1  Q.  B.  29,  1973 

Lynch  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  Ill  Mo. 

601,  1742, 1953 

Lynch  v.  The  Economy,  27  Wis.  69,  1027 

Lynchburg  v.  Slaughter,  75  Va.  57,  1157 

Lynde  v.  County,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.)  6, 

630, 1238,  1239 
Lyndeborough  Glass  Co.  v.  Massachusetts 

Glass  Co.,  Ill  Mass.  315,  354 

Lyndon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lyndon,  etc.,  Inst., 

63  Vt.  581,  390 

Lyndsay  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  27 

Vt.  643,  1872,  2275 

Lyng  v.  Michigan,  1*5  U.  S.  161,  966,  1078 

Lynn  v.  Mount  Savage,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  34  Md. 
603,  559, 131G 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-W,  Vol.  II,  pp.  J^S-1262.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2715.] 


Lynn  v.  Southern  Pac.  E.  Co.,  103  Cal.  7, 

2556,2586 
Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

114  Mass.  88,  1377,  1564, 1714 

Lyon  v.  American  Screw  Co.,  16  R.  I.  472, 

248,915 

Lyon  v.  City  of  Brooklyn,  28  Barb.  609,      1103 
Lyon  v.  Fishmonger's  Co.,  L.  R.  1  App. 

Cas.  662,  1303 

Lyon  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Wis. 

538,  1421, 1423,  1446,  1456,  1475 

Lyon  v.  Jerome,  26  Wend.  485,  355, 1352 

Lyon  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  142  N.  Y.  298,   2713 
Lyon  v.  McDonald,  78  Tex.  71,  1387, 1507 

Lyon  v.  Mells,  5  East  428,  2295 

Lyon  v.  New  York,  S.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  14 

Daly  (N.  Y.)  489,  673,685 

Lyons  v.  Hill,  46  N.  H.  49,  2375 

Lyons  v.  Hoffnung,  L.  R.  15  App.  Cas.  391,    2395 
Lyons  v.  Munson,  99  U.  S.  684,  1239 

Lyons  v.  Orange,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  32  Md.  18,    23 
Lyons  v.  People,  68  111.  271,  1052 

Lyons-Thomas  Hardware  Co.  v.  Perry 

Stove  Co.,  83  Tox.  143,  854 

Lytle  v.  State,  22  How.  193,  1135 

Lyttle  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Mich. 

289,  2026,  2039,  2072 


Me 

McAboy's  Appeal,  107  Pa.  St.  548,  1271 

McAbsher  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 

N.  Car.  398,  2211 

McAleer  v.  Clay  County,  42  Fed.  R.  665,      1260 
McAlister  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Mo. 

351,  2272,  2385,  2386, 2408,  2411 

McAlliUey  v.  Horton,  75  Ala.  491,  1559 

McAllister  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 

Iowa  395,  1967, 1968 

McAllister  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

Ind.  11,  191, 192 

McAllister  v.  Plant,  54  Miss.  106, 

105,  639,  640,  658 

McAlpin  v.  Jones,  10  La.  Ann.  552,         773,  799 
McAlpin  v.  Powell,  70  N.  Y.  126,  1973 

McAndrew  v.  Whitlock,  52  N.  Y.  40,  2368 

McAndrews  v.  Burns,  39  N.  J.  Law  117,      2084 
McAndrews  v.  Tippett,  39  N.  J.  Law  105, 

1581,  1586 

McArthur  v.  Kelly,  5  Ohio  139,  1418 

McArthur  v.  McEachin,  64  N.  Car.  454,       1454 
McArthur  v.  Morgan,  49  Conn.  347,  1533 

McArthur  v.  Sears,  21  Wend.  190, 

2264,  2268,  2269 
McArthur  v.  Times  Printing  Co.,  48  Minn. 

319,  21 


McAulay  v.  Western  Vt.  R.  Co.,  33  Vt.  311, 

1328,  1329, 1541, 1553 
McAuley  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  111. 

348,  30,  84,  444,  1349 

McAvity  v.  Lincoln  Pulp,  etc.,  Co.,  82  Me. 

504,  130, 132,  325 

McAvoy  v.  Long,  13  HI.  147,  1575 

McCabe  v.  Board,  etc.,  46  Ind.  380,  279 

McCabe  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Wis. 

531,  1949 

McBeath  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Mo. 

App.  445,  2348,  2405 

McBride  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  19 

Ore.  64,  1774, 1776,  2718 

McBride  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  Wyo.  247,  2078 
McBrien  v.  Shanly,  24  U.  C.  C.  P.  28,  1583 

McBryde  v.  Montesano,  7  Wash.  69,  1176 

McCafferty  v.  Spuyten,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  N.  Y. 

178,  1587,  1589, 1590, 1820 

McCaffrey  v.  Smith,  41  Hun  (N.  Y.)  117,  162» 
McCaig  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Hun  599,  1889 
McCall  v.  Byram,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Conn.  428, 

359,  362,  365,  640 

McCall  v.  California,  136  U.  S.  104, 

995, 1078, 1084,  2637,  2641,  2556,  2657 
McCall  v.  Chamberlain,  13  Wis.  637, 

608, 1808, 1825 

McCall  v.  People,  136  U.  S.  104,  45 

McCallie  v.  Chattanooga,  3  Head  (Tenn.) 

317,  1148, 1150 

McCallie  v.  Walton,  37  Ga.  611,  853 

McCallion  v.  Hibernia,  etc.,  Society,  70 

Cal.  163,  25,  26 

McCalmont  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

7  Fed.  R.  386,  s.  c.  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

163,  621,  643,  786 

McCampbell  v.  Cunard,  etc.,  Co.,  144 

N.  Y.  552,  2089 

McCance  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  H.  & 

N.  477,  2309,  2339,  2543 

McCandless'  Appeal,  70  Pa.  St.  210,  1353, 1563 
McCandless  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

S.  Car.  103,  582, 1891, 1894 

McCann  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Md. 

202,  2331 

McCann  v.  City  of  Waltham,  163  Mass. 

344,  2106 

McCann  v.  Eddy,  (Mo.)  33  S.  W.  R.  71, 

2236,2653 

McCann  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  112  Ind.  354,  127 
McCann  v.  Kings  County  R.  Co.,  19  N.  Y. 

Supp.  668,  1592 

McCardle,  Ex  parte,  7  Wall.  506,  1552 

McCarn  v.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 

Tex.  352,  2226 


cclxxxii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1,1,3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S7S5.] 


McCartney  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 

111.  611,  30,  80, 1282 

McCartney  v.  Evanston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 

111.  611,  1611 

McCarthy  v.  Boston,  etc.,R.  Co.,  (Mass.) 

42  N.  E.  R.  568,  2008 

McCarthy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Kan. 

46,  2132,  2134,  2145 

McCarthy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

Iowa  432,  2508 

McCarthy  v.  Lavasche,  89  111.  270,  261 

McCarthy  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

Ala.  193,  2250,  2262,  2311 

McCarthy  v.  Metropolitan  Board,  etc., 

L.  R.  8  C.  P.  119,  1631 

McCarthy  v.  Muir,  50  111.  App.  510,  308 

McCarthy  v.  Peake,  18  How.  Pr.  138,  762,  763 
McCarty's  Appeal,  110  Pa.  St.  379,  795 

McCarty  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  Co.,  79  Tex.  33,  2340 
McCarty  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Pa. 

St.  247,  2279 

McCarty  v.  Selinsgrove,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 

Leg.  Intel.  410,  207 

McCarty  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Minn. 

278,  563, 1301 

McCarty  v.  State,  37  Miss.  411,  1050 

McCaslin  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

Mich.  553,  2595,  2707 

McCaslin  v.  State,  99  Ind.  428,  1133 

McCauley  v.  Brooks,  16  Cal.  11,  1488 

McCauley  v.  Davidson,  13  Minn.  162,  2214 
McCauley  v.  Keller,  130  Pa.  St.  53,  1572,  1574 
McCauley  v.  Norcross,  155  Mass.  584,  2120 

McCawley  v.  Furness  B.  Co.,  L.  R.  8  Q.  B. 

57,  2511,  2515,  2601 

McCay  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  34  W.  Va.  65, 2490 
McCharles  v.  Horn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Utah 

470,  2035,  2036,  2041 

McChesney  v.  Panama  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y. 

S.  148,  2084 

McClain  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  116  N.  Y. 

459,  1645,  1649 

McClain  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Iowa 

646,  1309 

McClaren  v.  Franciscus,  43  Mo.  452,  134 

McClaren  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83 

Ind.  319,  1952 

McClarney  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68 

Wis.  277,  2001 

McClary  v.  Hartwell,  25  Mich.  139,  1531 

McClary  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Neb. 

44,  2470, 2597 

McClean  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Iowa 

568,  1519, 1520 

McCleUan  v.  Kellogg,  17  111.  4,  1321 

McClellan  v.  Scott,  24  Wis.  81,  196 


McClellan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

Mo.  295,  1328 

McClellan  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58 

Minn.  104,  1890, 1913 

McClelland  v.  Bishop,  42  Ohio  St.  113,  667 
McClelland  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94 

Ind.  276,  1788,  2574 

McClelland  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  1 

L.  R.  A.  299,  626, 632 

McClelland  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  110 

N.  Y.  469,  627,  633 

McClelland  v.  Whitely,  15  Fed.  R.  322,  157 
McClenaghan  v.  Brock,  5  Rich.  Law  17, 

302,  302,  305,  2470 

McClinch  v.  Sturgis,  72  Me.  288,  28,  272 

McClinton  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 

Pa.  St.  404,  1455, 1544, 1549,  1559 

McCloherty  v.  Gale,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Ont.  App. 

117,  2057 

McCluer  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 

Gray  (Mass.)  124,  509,  612, 1920 

McClune  v.  Burlington  C.  R.  &  N.  Ri  Co., 

52  Iowa  600,  2209 

McClung  v.  Dearborne,  134  Pa.  St.  396,  300 
McClung  v.  Livesay,  7  W.  Va.  329,  1070 

McClure  v.  Missouri  River,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

9  Kan.  373,  494,  531,  539, 1308 

McClure  v.  People's,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  90  Pa. 

St.  269,  155,  177,  452 

McClure  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

Md.  532,  2484,  2491,  2492,  2497,  2498,  2504,  2577 
McClure  v.  Township  of  Oxford,  94  U.  S. 

429,  633, 1217, 1225, 1234 

McClures  v.  Hammond,  1  Bay  (S.  Car.) 

99,  2264 

McComb  v.  Barcelona,  etc.,  Assn.,  134 

N.  Y.  598,  158 

McComb  v.  Bell,  2  Minn.  256,  1102 

McComb  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Fed. 

R.  426,  321 

McComb  v.  Credit  Mobilier,  etc.,  13  Phil. 

Rep.  468,  206 

McCombs  v.  Stewart,  40  Ohio  St.  647,  1387 
McConiha  v.  Guthrie,  21  W.  Va.  134,  1272 
McConnell  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Va. 

248,  2224,  2225,  2228,  2229,  2233 

McConnell  v.  Pedigo,  92  Ky.  465,  2672 

McConnell  v.  Pedigo,  5  Am.  R.  &  Corp.  R. 

715,  2672 

McCool  v.  Smith,  1  Black  459,  2670 

McCord  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  13  Ind. 

220,  225 

McCord,  etc.,Co.  v.  Glenn,  6  Utah  139,  876 
McCorkle  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Iowa 

555,  2517 

McConnick  v.  Evans,  33  111.  327,  1458 

McCormick  v.  Gas  Co.,  48  Kan.  614,  154 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  US- 1262.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166.  Vol  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.]' 


McCormick  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  181,  2626,  2628 

McCormick  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

70  Mo.  359,  1405 

McCormick  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

57  Mo.  433,  1453, 1456, 1564 

McCormick  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Mo.  App.  640,  1838 

McCormick,  etc.,  Co.  v.Walthers,  134  U.S. 

41,  881 

McCosker  v.  Brady,  1  Barb.  Ch.  ( N. Y. )  329,  830 
McCosker  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  84  N.  Y. 

77,  2078, 2079 

McCourt  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Ir. 

Rep.  C.  L.  107,  2186,  2187 

McCoun  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

50  N.  Y.  176,  1026 

McCoy  v.  Briant,  53  Cal.  247,  1153 

McCoy  v.  California,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Cal. 

532,  1804, 1864, 1865,  1872,  1873 

McCoy  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Am. 

Law  Reg.  (N.  S.)  725,  914,  2430 

McCoy  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Fed. 

R.  3,  881,  921,  2284 

McCoy  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.,  (U.  S.  C. 

C.)  6  Am.  &  Eng.  Ry.  Cases  621,  4 

McCoy  v.  Erie  &  W.  T.  Co.,  42  Md.  498, 

2201,2209 

McCoy  v.  Farmer,  65  Mo.  244,  565,  865,  869 
McCoy  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  44  Iowa 

424,  2399,2403 

McCoy  v.  Washington  Co  ,  3  Wall.  Jr. 

(U.  S.)  381,  632 

McCranie  v.  Wood,  24  La.  Ann.  406,  2269 

McCray  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  32  S.  W.  R.  548,  2044 

McCracken  v.  Halsey  Fire  Engine  Co.,  57 

Mich.  361,  325 

McCracken  v.  Hayward,  2  How.  (U.  S.) 

608,  1487 

McCray  v.  Junction  R.  R  Co.,  9  Ind.  358, 

70,450 

McCracken  v.  Robison,  57  Fed.  R.  375,  483 
McCrea  v.  Johnson,  104  Cal.  224,  1605 

McCrea  v.  Port  Royal  R.  Co.,  3  S.  Car.  381, 

1343 

McCready  v.  Holmes,  6  Am.  L.  Reg.  229,  2206 
McCready  v.  Rumsey,  6  Duer  (N.  Y.)  574,  149 
McCrory  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Fed. 

R.  531,  1781, 1800 

McCrow  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  6 

Q.  B.  612,  2609 

McCue  v.  KnoxviUe,  146  Pa.  St.  439,  2152 

McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 

316,  58 

McCulloch  v.  McDonald,  91  Ind.  240,          2364 


McCullough  v.  Annapolis  R.  Co.  4  Gill 

(Md.)  58,  275 

McCullough  v.  Hellwig,  66  Md.  269,  2446 

McCullough  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316, 

2636,2643 
McCullough  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Co.,  29 

N.  J.  Eq.  217,  781,  782,  829 

McCullough  v.  Moss,  5  Denio  (N.  Y.)  567, 

246,  334,  347,  393,  484 

McCullough  v.  Norwood,  58  N.  Y.  562,          867 
McCullough  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

Minn.  12,  1406 

McCullough  v.  Wabash  W.  R.  Co.,  34  Mo. 

App.  23,  2183,  2210,  2297 

McCully  v.  Clarke,  40  Pa.  St.  399,  1746 

McCully  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Pa. 

St.  25,  199 

McCurdy's  Appeal,  65  Pa.  St.  290, 

640,  641,  642 

McCurdy  v.  Bowes,  88  Ind.  583,  842,  843 

McCurdy  v.  Myers,  44  Pa.  St.  535,  862 

McDaniel  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 Iowa 

412,  2312,  2330,  2405,  2407,  2654 

McDaniel  v.  Gate  City  Co.,  79  Ga.  58,         1030 
McDaniel  v.  Highland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ala. 

64,  2060,  2558,  2564 

McDaniels  v.  McDaniels,  40  Vt.  363,  1472 

McDaniels  v.  Flower  Brook,  etc.,  Co.,  22 

Vt.  274,  238,  364 

McDaniels  v.  People,  118  111.  301,  1054 

McDermott  v.  Atchison.etc.,  R.Co.,(Kan.) 

43  Pac.  R.  248,  2022 

McDermott  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

Mo.  285,  2085 

McDermott  v.  Kentucky  Cent.  R.  Co.,  93 

Ky.  408,  1973, 1976 

McDonald  v.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

Tenn.  281,  785, 1600 

McDonald  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Iowa 

124,  2477,  2546,  2589,  2592 

McDonald  v.  Haughton,  70  N.  C.  393,  376 

McDonald  v.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

86  Tex.  1,  1967, 1986 

McDonald  v.  Hovey,  110  U.  S.  619,  2670 

McDonald  v.  Mass.,  etc.,  Hospital,  120 

Mass.  432,  317,  318,  2161 

McDonald  v.  McDonald,  96  Ky.  209,  2137 

McDonald  v.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Ala.)  20  So.  R.  317,  2547 

McDonald  v.  Salem,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Fed.  R. 

577,  1016 

McDonald  v.  Southern  CaL  Ry.  Co.,  101 

Cal  206,  1301 

McDonald  v.  State,  81  Ala.  279,  968 

McDonald  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

N.  Y.  497,  2194,2241,2242,2247 


cclxxxiv 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


[References  arc  to  Payes.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pj..  }'ol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 


McDoneU  v.  Canada,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  U.  C. 

Q.  B.  313,  1586 

McDonell  v.  Rifle  Boom  Co.,  71  Mich.  61,  159 
McDonnell  v.  Grand  Canal  Co.,  3  Ir.  Cb. 

R.  578,  243 

McDonnell  v.  Pittsfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 

Mass.  564,  1809, 1826 

McDougall  v.  Covert,  18  Up.  Can.  C.  P.119,  294 
McDougall  v.  Gardiner,  L.  R.  1  Cb.  D.  13,  875 
McDowell  v.  Chicago  Steel  Works,  124  111. 

491,  165 

McDowell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Barb.  195,  1818 

McDowell  v.  Rutherford  Ry.  Const.  Co., 

96  N.  Car.  514,  1180, 1201 

McDuffee  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  52 

.N.  H.  430,    38,  2166,  2279,  2423,  2430,  2433,  2486 
McDugan  v.  New  York, etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  N. Y. 

Supp.  135,  2006,  2017,  2040 

McEacben  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150 Mass. 

515,  1972,  1975 

McEacheran  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co., 

101  Mich.  264,  2233 

McElhenny,  Appeal  of,  61  Pa.  St.  188,  17,  375 
McElhenny,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Binz,  80  Tex.  1, 

707,  708,  709,  759 

McElligott  v.  Randolph,  61  Conn.  157,  2057 
McElrath  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Pa. 

St.  189,  39,  626,  687 

McElrath  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Pa. 

St.  37,  668 

McElroy  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Gush. 

400,  614, 2472 

McElroy  v.  Railroad  Co.,  7  Phila.  (Pa.)  206, 

2503 

McElwaine  v.  Hosey,  135  Ind.  481,  732,  734, 1600 
McElwee  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Trowbridge,  68  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  28,  874 

McEniry  v.  Waterford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Ir. 

C.  L.  R.  312,  2075 

McEntee  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  45  N.  Y. 

34,  2214,  2359,  2362,  2383 

McEwen  v.  Hoopes,  (Pa.  St.)  34  Atl.  R. 

623,  2720 

McEwen  v.  Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33 

Ind.  368,  2221,  2360,  2375 

McFadden  v.  Johnson,  72  Pa.  St.  335,  1449,1543 
McFadden  v.  May's  Landing,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

49  N.  J.  176,  666,  670,  699 

McFadden  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Mo. 

343,    2178,  2320,  2327,  2329,  2333,  2336,  2399, 2700 
McFarland  v.  Wheeler,  26  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

467,  2443 

McFarlane   v.    Caledonian,   etc.,    Co.,  6 

Macph.  ( Sc.  Ct.  of  Sessions,  3d  Ser. )  102,    333 
McFee  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  La. 

Ann.  790,  2046.  2472 


McFerron  v.  Alloway,  14  Bush  (Ky.)  580,  1151 
McGahey  v.  Virginia,  135  U.  S.  662,  1168 

McGaw  v.  Adams,  14  How.  Pr.  461,  2397 

McGaw  v.  Ocean  Ins.  Co.,  23  Pick.  (Mass.) 

405,  2421, 2427 

McGee's  Appeal,  114  Pa.  St.  470,  1631 

McGee  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  Mass. 

44,  2076 

McGeary  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  Mass. 

363,  1982 

McGee  v.  Mathis,  4  Wall.  143,  1063 

McGee  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Mo.  208, 

2549,  2554,  2546,  2603 
McGeorge  v.  Big  Stone,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Fed. 

R.  262,  741,  743 

McGhee  v.  Gaines,  (Ky.)  32  S.  W.  R.  602, 

1851, 1872, 1875 

McGhee  v.  Guyn,  (Ky.)  32  S.  W.  R.  915,  1841 
McGhee  v.  Mathis,  21  Ark.  40,  1100 

McGhee  v.  White,  66  Fed.  R.  502,  1767 

j  McGibbon  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  11 

Ont.  Rep.  307,  1900 

McGiffin  v.  Palmer,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  10  Q. 

B.  D.  5,  2115 

McGill  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  152  Pa. 

St.  331,  1760 

McGill  v.  Rowand,  3  Pa.  St.  451,  2608,  2631 
McGinley  v.  Levering,  152  Pa.  St.  366,  2081 
McGinnis  v.  Canada,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.,  49 

Mich.  466,  2006,  2024 

McGinnis  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  21  Mo. 

App.  399,  2490 

McGilvray  v.  West  End  St.  R.  Co.,  164 

Mass.  122,  1990 

McGonigle  v.  Allegheny  City,  44  Pa.  St. 

118,  1102 

McGonigle  v.  Kane,  20  Colo.  292,  2070 

McGourkey  v.  Toledo,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  146 

U.  S.  536,  651,  657,  689,  691 

McGovern  v.  Bockius,  10  Phila.  (Pa.)  438, 

1574 
McGovern  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  6 

N.  Y.  Supp.  838,  1997 

McGovern  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67 

N.  Y.  417,  1784, 1789 

McGowan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Wis.) 

64  N.  W.  R.  891,  2045 

McGowan  v.  Myers,  66  Iowa  99,  807 

McGowan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

Mo.  528,  293,  296 

McGowan  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95 

N.  C.  417,  1019 

McGowen  v.  Morgan's  Louisiana,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  732,  287,  2506,  L'573 

McGrail  v  Kalamazoo,  94  Mich.  52,  2714 

McGrath  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  N.Y 

Supp  365,  2558 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


cclxxxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  7,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  77, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  Uf>3-21(H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-21 ::>.] 


McGrath  v.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Ga.  312,    1649 
McGrath  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mich. 

555,  1834, 1835 

McGrath  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

R.  I.  357,  2048 

McGrath  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 

N.  Y.  468,  1752, 1801 

McGrath  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

N.  Y.  522,  1745.  1753, 1758 

McGrath  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Fed.  R. 

555,  2032, 2033 

McGraw  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

W.  Va.  361,  2264,  2268,  2351,  2354,  2355 

McGraw  v.  Bayard,  96  111.  146,  1606, 1609 

McGraw  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Coldw. 

(Tenu.)  434,  891 

McGregor  v.  Dover  &  Deal  R.  Co.,  18  Q.  B. 

618,  513 

McGregor  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  J.  L. 

89,  2431 

McGregor  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  J.  L. 

115,  41 

McGregor  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  33  N.  J.  Eq. 

181,  123, 869 

McGregor  v.  Hudson,  (Tex.  Ct.  App.)  30 

S.  W.  R.  489,  295 

McGregor  v.  Kilgore,  6  Ohio  358,  2213 

McGregor,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Brown,  39  Iowa 

655,  1097 

McGucken  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77 

Hun  69,  2019,  2561 

McGuiganv.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95 

N.  Car.  428,  2651 

McGuinn  v.  Forbes,  37  Fed.  R.  639,     2585,  2644 
McGuire  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Fed. 

R.  54,  1981 

McGuire  v.  Spence,  91  N.  Y.  303,  1973 

McGuire  v.  Steamship  Golden  Gate,  1 

McAllister,  104,  2174 

McGuire  v.  "Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 

La.  Ann.  1543,  1645, 1793 

McHale  v.  Easton,  etc.,  Co.,  169  Pa.  416,    1617 
McHenry  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

Fed.  R.  114,  830 

McHenry  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Harr.  (Del.)  448,  2268,  2299 

McHugh  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Wis. 

75,  1888 

Mcllhenry  v.  Binz,  80  Tex,  1, 

662, 707,  708,  709,  759 

Mcllrath  v.  Snure,  22  Minn.  391,  795 

Mcllvain  v.  Hestonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5 

Phila.  13,  535,  1598 

Mclntire  v.  State,  5  Blckf.  384,  1426 

Mclntire  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  N.  C. 

278.  1011, 1454,  1465, 1547 


Mclntosh  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

2  DeG.  &  S.  758,  1577 

Mclntosh  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Mo. 

App.  281,  2024 

Mclntyre  v.  Easton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  N.  J. 

Eq.  425,  1450,  1483, 1488,  1556 

Mclntyre  v.  Marine,  93  Ind.  193,  1479 

Mclntyre  v.  Roeschlaub,  37  Fed.  R.  556,  1127 
Mclntyre  Poor  School  v.  Zanesville  Canal, 

etc.,  Co.,  9  Ohio  203,  235 

McKaig  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Fed. 

R.288,  2089 

McKay  v.  Beard,  20  S.  Car.  156,  23 

McKay  v.  Lasher,  121  N.  Y.  477,  2715 

McKay  v.  New  York  Cent.  Railroad,  50 

Hun  563,  2241,  2242,  2319 

McKay  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  34  W.  Va.  65, 

2487 
McKean  v.  Mclvor,  L.  R.  6  Exch.  36, 

2364,2383 

McKee  v.  Garcelon,  60  Me.  105,  2218 

McKee  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Iowa 

616,  1999,  2001,  2040 

McKee  v.  Owen,  15  Mich.  115,  2621 

McKee  v.  St.  Louis,  17  Mo.  184,  1492 

McKee  v.  Vernon  County,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.) 

210,  630,  1245,  1249 

McKeen  v.  Delaware  Canal  Co.,  49  Pa.  St. 

424,  1403 

McKeesport,  Borough  of,  v.  McKeesport  R. 

Co.,  158  Pa.  St.  447,  1641 

McKeever  v.  Market  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 

Cal.  294,  1764 

McKelvey  v.  Crockett,  18  Nev.  238,  260,  891 
McKelway  v.  Seymour,  29  N.  J.  L.  321,  1307 
McKenua  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 

Mass.  55,  1645 

McKenzie  v.  McLeod,  10  Bing.  85,  303 

McKenzie  v.  Wooley,  39  La.  Ann.  944,  1141 
McKeon  v.  Citizens',  etc.,  Co.,  42  Mo.  79, 

303,2582 

McKeon  v.  Soe,  14  La.  Ann.  453,  2370 

McKernan  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  22  Jones 

&  S.  (N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.)  354,          282,  285, 1989 
McKernan  v.  Neff,  43  Ind.  503,  679 

McKigue  v.  City  of  Jane.sville,  68  Wis.  50, 

2152 

McKim  v.  Hibbard,  Exr.,  112  Mass.  422,  138 
McKim  v.  Odom,  3  Bland  Ch.  407,  107 

McKimble  v.  Boston,  <ftc.,  R.  Co,,  139 

Mass.  542,  2460,  2480 

McKinlay  v.  Morrish,  21  How.  343,  2301 

McKinley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Iowa 

76,  1834 

McKinley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. ,44  Iowa 

314,  2580, 2583 


cclxxxvi 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1,13-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216^,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165- J:  .>.'.  | 


McKinney  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  87  Wis. 

282,  1768,  1775 

McKinney  v.  I.  C.  E.  Co.,  6  Iowa  By. 

Com.  557,  1040 

McKinney  v.  Jewett,  90  N.  Y.  267,  2262 

McKinney  v.  Monongahela,  etc.,  Co.,  14 

Pa.  St.  65,  1465 

McKinney  v.  Neil,  1  McLean  (U.  S.  C.  C  ) 

540,  2467,  2471,  2553 

McKissick  v.  People,  16  Pa.  St.  140,  1310 

McKissock  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  73 

Mo.  456,  1872 

McKittrick  v.  Arkansas  Cent.  By.  Co  ,  152 

U.  S.  473,  619,  620, 1133, 1139 

McKnight  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,44  Minn. 

141,  .          2110 

McKnight  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  43  Iowa 

406,  1 

McKome  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  51 

Mich.  601,          1952, 1964,  2459,  2479,  2546,  2591 
McKonkey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  40 

Iowa  205,  1850 

McKune  v.  Southern,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  66  Cal. 

302,  2084 

McKusick  v.  Seymour,  48  Minn.  172, 

107,  426,  433 
McLane  v.  Placerville,  etc.,  Co.,  66  Cal. 

606,  346,  658,  683,  684,  697,  699,  745,  818 

McLaren  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  100 

Ala.  506,  2547 

McLaren  v.  Canada,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  32  U.  C. 

C.  P.  324,  1923 

McLaren  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  23  Wis. 

138,  2223 

McLaren  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  83 

Ind.  319,  1741, 1968 

McLaren  v.  Williston,  48  Minn.  299,  2043 

McLarin  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  85  Ga. 

504,  2456 

McLaughlin  v.  Charlotte  B.  Co.,  5  Eich. 

(S.  Car.)  Law  583,  11332,  1539, 1634 

McLaughlin   v.  Detroit,  etc.,    E.  Co.,  8 

Mich.  99,  120, 157,  322,  368,  435 

McLaughlin  v.  Municipality,  5  LP.  Ann. 

504,  1504 

McLean  v.  Fleming,  L.  E.  2  H.  L.  Sc.  128, 

2204,2206 
McLean  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  159  Pa. 

St   112  429 

McLean  V.  Presley,  56  Ala.  211,  667 

McLellan   v.  County  Commissioners,  21 

Me.  390,  1466 

McLellan  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  Works,  56  Mich. 

579,  486 

McLendon  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  54  Ga. 

293,  1449, 1487 


McLendon  v.   Commissioners   of   Anson 

County,  71  N.  C.  38,  ]..> 

McLeod  v.  Burroughs,  9  Ga.  213,  48 

McLeod  v.  Ginther,  80  Ky.  399,  20S1 

McMah'an  v.  Morrison,  79  Am.  Dec.  424,        45"> 
McMahan  v.  Morrison,  16  Ind.  172, 

463,  860,  1065 
McMahon  v.  Board,  etc.,  46  Cal.  214,  1257 
McMahon  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  5 

Ind.  413,  1425 

McMahon  v.  Davidson,  12  Minn.  357,          2278 
McMahon  v.  Macy,  51  N.  Y.  155,  259,  269 

McMahon  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  20 

N.  Y.  463,  1572, 1574,  1576, 1577 

McMahon  v.  Northern,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  39  Me. 

438,  1647, 1780, 1983 

MaMahon  v.  Second  Ave.  E.  Co.,  75  N.  Y. 

231,  1641,  1642 

McManus  v.  Crickett,  1  East  106,          302, 1989 
McManus  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  51  Minn. 

30,  1184 

McManus  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  2 

H.  &  N.  693,  2398 

McManus  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  4 

H.  &  N.  327,  2280 

McManus  v.  McDonough,  107  111.  95,  1466 

McMarshall  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  80 

Iowa  757,  1959 

McMaster  v.  Illinois  Central  B.  Co.,  65 

Miss.  264,  2115,  2134 

McMasters  v.  Pennsylvania  E.  Co.,  69  Pa. 

St.  374,  2359,  2368,  2370 

McMasters  v.  Eeed,  1  Grant  Gas.  (Pa.)  36, 

619 
McMicken  v.  Cincinnati,  4  Ohio  St.  394, 

1470, 1479 

McMicken  v.  United  States,  97  U.  S.  204,    1130 
McMillan  v.  Baker,  20  Kan.  50,  1545 

McMillan  v.  Federal,  etc.,  E.  Co., '(Pa.)  33 

Atl.  E.  560,  2573 

McMillan  v.  Maysville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  15 

B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  218,  170, 184,  527 

McMillan  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  16 

Mich.  79,  612/2227,  2278,  2322,  2323,  2324, 

2327,  2346,  2368 
McMillan  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  20 

Barb.  449,  2002 

McMillen  v.  Anderson,  95  U.  S.  37,  1478 

McMiunville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Huggins,  3 

Baxt.  (Tenn.)  177,  791 

McMorran  v.  Grand  Trunk  E.  Co.,  2 

luterst.  Com.  Com.  E.  25,  2678 

McMullen  v.  Carnegie,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  158 

Pa.  St.  518,  2015 

McMullen  v.  Northern  Pacific  E.  Co.,  57 

Fed.  E.  16,  945 

McMullen  v.  Eitchie,  64  Fed.  253,  325 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages,] 

[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-M2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  us-nez.  Vol.  in,  pp.  lees-gist,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


McMullen  v.  State,  105  Ind.  334,  1531 

McMurray  v.  Brown,  91  U.  S.  257,  1607 

McMurray  v.  Morgan,  134  U.  S.  150,       628,  656 
McMurtry  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  67 

Miss.  601,  2720 

McMurtry  v.  Montgomery,  etc.,  Co.,  86 

Ky.  206,  377,  679 

McNally  v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  389, 

2722 

McNamamee  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  (Mo.) 

37  S.  W.  R.  119,  2703 

McNamara  v.  Estes,  22  Iowa  246,  1104 

McNamara  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 

(Minn.)  63  N.  W.  R.  726,  1961,  2461,  2554 

McNamara  v.  Harrisop.  81  Iowa  486,  1576 

McNamara  v.  Logan,  100  Ala.  187,  2117 

McNamara  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 

Minn.  388,  1553 

McNamara  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

N.  Y.  Supp.  497,  1770 

McNamara  v.  Slavens,  76  Mo.  329,  2148 

McNarra  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Railway  Co., 

41  Wis.  69,  1912, 1927 

McNeal  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131  Pa. 

St.  184,  1778 

McNeal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Howland,  etc.,  Co.,  99 

N.  Car.  202,  946 

McNeeley  v.  Woodruff,  13  N.  J.  Law  352, 

142,  229,  236 
McNees  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  22  Mo. 

App.  224,  2433 

McNeil  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Hun 

24,  2029, 2044 

McNeil  v.  Tenth  Nat.  Bank,  46  N.  Y.  325, 

113,  116, 137, 144 

McNeil,  Ex  parte,  13  Wall.  236,  952 

McNulta  v.  Ensch,  31 IU.  App.  100,  2549 

McNulta  v.  Lockridge,  137  IU.  270, 

812,  813,  819 

McNulta  v.  Lochridge,  141  TJ.  S.  327,  806 

McPadden  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 

N.  Y.  478,  2466,  2473,  2567 

McPeak  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  Mo. 

617,  2549 

McPeak  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Hun 

107,  1782 

McPhee  v.  Scully,  163  Mass.  216,         2034,  2120 
McPheeters  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

Mo.  22,  1832 

McPherson  v  Foster,  43  Iowa  48, 

1163, 1176, 1227, 1246 

McPherson  v.  Holdridge,  24  IU.  38,  1511 

McPherson  v.  Nichols,  48  Kan.  430,  2710 

McPike  v.  Pen,  51  Mo.  63,  1209 

McQuaid  v.  Portland,  etc.,  RaUway  Co., 

18  Ore.  237,  1628,  1633, 1636, 1637,  1639 


McQueen  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Kan. 

689,  2035,  2601 

McQuesten  v.  Sanford,  40  Me.  117,  2631 

McQuilken  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  64  Cal. 

463,  2590 

McQuUlen  v.  Hatton,  42  Ohio  St.  202, 

1337, 1339, 1340, 1344 
McRae  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Coi,  88  N. 

Car.  526,  2452,  2484,  2503 

McRae  v.  RusseU,  12  Ired.  (N.  C.)  224,         160 
McReady  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Strob. 

356,  1888 

McReynolds  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101 

IU.  152,  1431, 1511, 1519, 1529 

McSpeden  v.  New  York,  7  Bosw.  (N.  Y. 

Superior  Ct.)  601,  504 

McTighe  v.  Macon  Const.  Co.,  94  Ga.  306, 

651,  668, 687 

McTwiggan  v.  Hunter,  18  R.  I.  776,  1069 

McTyler  v.  Steele,  26  Ala.  487,  2199 

McVeety  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Minn. 

268,  2555 

McVey  v.  lUinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  (Miss.)  19 

So.  R.  209,  2131 

McWhorter  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 

Fla.  417,  912,  978, 1010, 1014 

McWhorter  v.  People,  65  IU.  290,  1179 

Me  Williams  v.  Morgan,  61  IU.  89,  1317 


M 


Maas  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  83  N.  Y. 

223,  630, 632 

Maberry  v.  WeUman,  26  Fla.  344  1879 

Mabry  v.  Harrison,  44  Tex.  286,  822 

Macalester  v.  Maryland,  114  U.  S.  598,  660 
Macauly  v.  Robinson,  18  La.  Ann.  619,  216,  218 
Macawley  v.  Furness  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  8  Q.  B. 

57,  2543 

Macdonald  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  47  Minn. 

67,  849 

MacdougaU  v.  Jersey,  etc.,  Co..  2  H.  & 

MiUer  528,  28,  435,  436 

Macedon,  etc.,  Plank  Co.  v.  Snediker,  13 

Barb.  317,  184 

MacFarlane  v.  North  British,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  Ry.  &  C.  T.  Gas.  269,  2687 

MacGregor  v.  Dover,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Q.  B. 

618,  579 

Machin  v.  Alaska,  etc.,  Co.,  100  Mich.  276,  2023 
Mack's  Appeal,  (Pa.)  7  Atl.  R.  481,  175 

Mack  v.  DeBardeleben,  etc.,  Co.,  90*Ala. 

396,  230,  236,  239 

Mack  v.  Jones,  31  Fed.  R.  189,  773 


cclxxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  MS-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vaughn,  48  Ga.  464, 


Mackall  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.,  94  U.  S. 

308,  550 

Mackay  v.  Central  R.  Co  ,  14  Blatch.  65,  2134 
Mackay  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  Y. 

75,  1748 

Mackenzie  v.  Wooley,  39  La.  Ann.  944, 

1152, 1164, 1180 
Mackereth  v.  Glasgow,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

8  Exch.  149,  881 

Mackey  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Mackey 

(D.  C.)  282,  2472 

Mackey  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  NY. 

75,  1762 

Mackey  v.Vicksburgh,  64  Miss.  777,  1973,  1981 
Mackie  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  54  Iowa  405, 

1797,  1834,  1841, 1S44, 1845, 1883 
Mac-kin  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  Mass. 

201,  2009,  2015.  2088 

Mackintosh  v.   Flint,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  32 

Fed.  R.  350,  121, 142,  348,  697,  724 

Macklin  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Abb. 

Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  229,  2322,  2621,  2630 

Maclaren  v.  Stainton,  L.  R.  11  Eq.  382,  424 
Mackoy  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Fed. 

R.  236,  2471 

Mackoy  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Mc- 

Crary  (U.  S.)  538,  2470 

MacLeod  v.  Graven,  73  Fed.  R.  627,  2550,  2592 
Macloonv.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Interst. 

Com.  R.  711,  2436,  2669 

Macloon  v.  Smith,  49  Wis.  200,  665 

Macomber  v.  Nichols,  34  Mich.  212,  1639 

Macon  v.  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Ga.  221,  56 
Macon  v.  Patty,  57  Miss.  378,  1113 

Macon  County  v.  Huidekoper,  99  U.  S. 

592,  1229 

Macon  County  v.  Shores,  97  U.  S.  272, 

117«,  1237,  1239 

Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baber,  42  Ga.  300,  1877 
Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  18  Ga.  679,  1750 
Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  13  Ga.  68,  1335 
Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gibson,  85  Ga.  1, 

68,  92,  479, 1175,  1263 
Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Georgia  R.  R.  Co., 

83  Ga.  103,  666,  682,  684 

Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Johnson,  38  Ga.  409,  2454 
Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayes,  49  Ga.  355, 

602,  1591,  2450 
Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McConnell,  27  Ga. 

481,  1928 

Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meador,65Ga.  705,  2394 
Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parker,  9  Ga.  377, 

696, 1114 

Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Riggs,  87  Ga.  158,  1383 
Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vason,  57  Ga.  314, 

203,  205,  208,  209,  212,  216,  217,  477 


1807 
Macrow  v  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  6 

Q.  B.  612,  2604,  2608,  2612 

MacVeagh  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

N.  Mex.  205,  2396 

Macy  v.  City  of  Indianapolis,  17  Ind.  267,  1891 
Macy  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Minn. 

200,  2088 

Marcy  v.  Clark,  17  Mass.  330,  134 

Madan  v.  Sherard,  73  N.  Y.  329,  2325,  2632 

Madden  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

W.  Va.  610,  2089 

Maddox  v.  Graham,  2  Mete.  (Ky.)  56, 

1219, 1258 
Madison  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo. 

App.  599,  1728, 1734 

Madison  v.  Smith,  83  Ind.  502,  1155 

Madison  County  v.  Brown,  67  Miss.  684,  1203 
Madison  County  v.  Paxton,  57  Miss.  701,  1211 
Madison  County  v.  People,  58  111.  456, 

1169, 1178 
Madison  County  v.  Priestly,  42  Fed.  R. 

817,  1234 

Madison,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Watertown,  etc.,  Co., 

5  Wis.  173,  476 

Madera,  etc.,  Dist.,  In  re,  92  Cal.  296,  1149 
Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herod,  10  Ind.  2,  1879 
Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Norwich,  etc., 

Society,  24  Ind.  457,          298,  402,  485,  486,  620 
Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  6  Ind. 

379,  190 

Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taffe,  37  Ind.  361, 

2712 
Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whiteneck,  8  Ind. 

217,  954, 974 

Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitesel,  11  Ind. 

55,  2694 

Madison  Township  v.  Gallagher,  159  111. 

105,  1340 

Mad  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barber,  5  Ohio 

St.  541,  407,  2065,  2028,  3035 

Mad  River  R.  Co.  v.  Fulton,  20  Ohio  318, 

2607,2631 

Madry  v.  Cox,  73  Tex.  538,  1152 

Magee  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Iowa 

249,  2068 

Magee  v.  North  Pacific  R.  Co.,  78  Cal. 

430,  2002 

Maghee  v.  Camden  &  A.  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y. 

514,  2201,  2237,  2245,  2297 

Magee  v.  Carpenter,  4  Ala.  469,  659 

Magee  v.  City  of  Brooklyn,  144  N.  Y.  265,  1449 
Magee  v.  Cowperthwaite,  10  Ala.  966,  826 
Magee  v.  North  Pacific  R.  Co.,  78  Cal. 

430,  1831 

Magee  v.  O'Neill,  19  S.  Car.  170,  524 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxxix 


[References  are  to 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  l-lt#,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Magee  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Co.,  46  Fed.  R. 

734,  2576 

Mager  v.  Grima,  8  How.  (U.  S.)  490,  1621 

Maegett  v.  Roberts,  108  N.  Car.  174,  1027 

Magill  v.  Kauffman,  4  Serg.  &  Rawle(Pa.) 

317,  246 

Magniac  v.  Thomson,  15  How.  281,  1226 

Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  56  N.  Y.  168,       2263,  2267 
Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  62  N.  Y.  35, 

2208,  2309,  2323,  2338,  2339 

Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  70  N.  Y.  410,  2308 

Magoffin  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Mo. 

540,  2456 

Magoon  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Vt.  177, 

1780,  1781 

Magruder  v.  Gage,  33  Md.  344,  2195 

Maguire  v.  Fitchburg  Railroad  Co.,  146 
rMass.  379,  2124 

Jtfaguire  v.  Middlesex,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 

Mass.  239,  2557 

Mahady  v.  Bushwick,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  N.Y. 

148,  1636 

Mahan  v.  Wood,  44  Cal.  462,  70 

Mahany  v.  Kephart,  15  W.  Va.  609,  886 

Maharjah,  The,  40  Fed.  R.  784,  2008 

Mahaska,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Des  Moines  Valley 

R.  Co.,  28  Iowa  437,  101, 1280, 1282 

Maher  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mo.  267, 

185,1850 
Maher  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158  Mass. 

36,  2124 

Mahon  v.  Blake,  125  Mass.  477,    2309,  2353, 2380 
Mahon  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y. 

658,  1407,  1534,  1563 

Mahone  v.  Manchester,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  Ill 

Mass.  72,  34 

Mahoney  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Me. 

68,  605,  609,  2450 

Mahoney  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Mich. 

612,  2453, 2487 

Mahoney  v.  Spring  Valley  Water  Works, 

52  Cal.  159,  1350 

Mahoney  Mining  Co.  v.  Anglo-Californian 

Bank,  104  U.  S.  192,  642 

Maignan  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 

La.  Ann.  333,  2273,  2372 

Main  v.  Mills,  6  Biss.  (U  S.)  98,  427,  433 

Maine  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  Co.,  142  U.  S. 

217,  1077,  1079,  1081,  2657 

Maine  Central  R.  Co.  v.  State  of  Maine,  96 

U.  S.  499,  469,  1090 

Maish  v.  Bird,  59  Iowa  307,  774 

Majestic,  The,  60  Fed  R.  624,      2614,  2632, 2633 
Malcolm  v.  Allen,  49  N.  Y.  448,  664 

Malcom  v.  Fuller,  152  Mass.  160, 

2081,  2113,  2120 

CORP  — xix 


in,  pp.  nes-neit,  Vol.  iv,  pp.  siss-ims.] 

Malcom  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  N. 

Car.  63,  2475,  2555 

Malecek  v.  Tower  Grove,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Mo.  17,  2581 

Maleck  v.  Tower  Grove  R.  Co.,  57  Mo.  17,    307 
Mali  v.  Lord,  39  N.  Y.  381,  1991 

Mallard  v.  Ninth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  7  N.  Y.  Supp. 

666,  1646 

Mallett  v.  Simpson,  94  N.  Car.  37,  557 

Mallett  v    Uncle  Sam,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Nev. 

188,  341 

Malone  v.  Boston  R.  Co.,  12  Gray  (Mass.) 

388,  2322, 2633 

Malone  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Iowa 

326,  2122 

Malone  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Iowa 

417,  2112, 2121 

Malone  v.  Hathaway,  64  N.  Y.  38,       2084,  2091 
Malone  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  157 

Pa.  St.  430,  1574 

Malone  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Fed. 

R.  625,  940,  941 

Malone  v.  Toledo,  34  Ohio  St.  541,  1388 

Malone  v.  Toledo,  28  Ohio  St.  643,  1386 

Mallory  v.  LaCrosse,  etc.,  Co.,  80  Wis.  170, 

1598 
Mallory  v.  Mallory  Wheeler  Co.,  61  Conn. 

135,  17 

Mallory  v.  Tioga  R.  Co.,  39  Barb.  488, 

2168,  2173,  2175 
Mallory  v.  West  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  J.  & 

S.  (N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.)  174,  665,  667 

Maloney  v.  Malcolm,  31  Mo.  45,  1581 

Maloy  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ga.)  22 

S.  E.  R.  588,  2118 

Maloy  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Mo.  270, 

1786 

Mjiltby's  Case,  1  Dow.  294,  328 

Maltby  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Minn. 

108,  1653,  1666,  1673 

Maltby  v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

16  Md.  422,  154 

Mammoth  Copperopolis,  etc.,  In  re,  50 

L.  J.  Chan.  11,  438 

Manahzan  v.  Steinway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125 

N.  Y.  760,  1980 

Manchester  v.  Milne,  1  Abbot  Admr.  115,    2206 
Manchester,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  60  Am.  &  Eng. 

R.  R.  Cas.  541,  858 

Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  14 

Ch.  Div.  645,  734,  751,  788 

Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  L.  R. 

8App.  Cas.  703,  2315,2327 

Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Concord,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  66  N.  H.  100, 

467, 498,  499,  503,  591,  2663,  2664 


ccxc 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I, pp.  1~M$,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1282,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-2725.] 


Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Denaby,  etc., 

Co.,  L.  R.  13  Q.  B.  Div.  674,  2668 

Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisk,  33  N.  H. 

297,  319,  355,  2441 

Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fullarton,  14 

Com.  B.  N.  S.  54,  1987 

Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keene,  62  N.  H. 

81,  1200,  1552 

Manchester  Locomotive  Works  v.  Trues- 

dale,  44  Minn.  115,  709 

Mandelv.  Swan  Land,  etc.,  Co.,  154111. 

177,  215, 216 

Manderson,  In  re,  51  Fed.  R.  504,  1415 

Mangam  v.  Brooklyn  R.  Co.,  38  N.  Y.  455, 

1647,  1785, 1979, 1981 
Manhattan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Forty-second,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  139  N.  Y.  146,  395,  396 

Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stroub,  68  Hun 

90,  1510 

Manhattan  Trust  Co.  v.  Sioux  City,  etc., 

Ry.  Co.,  68  Fed.  R.  72,  657 

Manheim,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Arndt,  31  Pa.  St.  317,      70 
Maney  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  111.  App. 

105,  2148 

Manion  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ky. 

491,  1506 

Manistee  Lumber  Co.  v.  Union  Nat.  Bank, 

143  111.  490,  19 

Manistee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fowler,  73  Mich. 

217,  1500 

Manley  v.  St.  Helens,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Hurl. 

&  N.  840,  1661,  1673 

Manlove  v.  Burger,  38  Ind.  211,  785,  793 

Manly  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  N. 

Car.  655,  1785 

Mann  v.  Belt  R.  Co.,  128  Ind.  138, 

1772, 1774, 1775,  2724 

Mann  v.  Birchard,  40  Vt.  326,        410,  2304,  2345 
Mann  v.  Burt,  35  Kan.  10,  1582 

Mann  v.  Butler,  2  Barb.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  362,        94 
Mann  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  55  Vt. 

484,  1794 

Mann  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Mo.  347, 

1729, 1796 

Mann  v.  Cooke,  20  Conn.  178,  130,  170,  216 

Mann  v.  Corrigan,  28  Kan.  194,  1594 

Mann  v.  Glauber,  96  Ga.  795,  2195 

Mann  v.  Oriental,  etc.,  Works,  11  R.  1. 152,  2059 
Mann  v.  Pentz,  3  N.  Y.  415,  107,  202,  262 

Mann  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Pa. 

St.)  34  Atl.  R.  572,  2558 

Mann,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dupre,  54  Fed.  R.  646, 

2531,  2535,  2536,  2587 

Mann,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dupre,  21  L.  R.  A.  289,  2526 
Manning  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.) 

63  N.  W.  R.  312,  2001,  2040 

Manning  v.  Insurance  Co.,  100  U.  S.  698,    2715 


Manning  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95 

Ala.  392,  283,  287,  2573 

Manning  <v.  Mathews,  66  Iowa  575,  1224 

Manning  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  29 

Fed.  R.  838,  627,  634,  685 

Manning  v.  Quicksilver  Min.  Co.,  24  Hun 

360,  123 

Mannsell  v.  Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Hem. 

&  Miller  130,  512 

Manser  v.  Eastern  Counties  R.  Co.,  3  L. 

T.  R.  (N.  S.)  585,  2012 

Mansfield  v.  FuUer,  50  Mo.  338,  1259 

Mansfield  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

N.  Y.  205,  1570 

Mansfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  26  Ohio 

St.  223,  171, 183,  452,  454,  456 

Mansfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  23  Mich. 

519,  539, 1345,  1356, 1521,  1536 

Mansfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Drinker,  30  Mich. 

124,  446, 451 

Mansfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pettis,  26  Ohio 

St.  259,  453 

Mansfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stout,  26  Ohio 

St.  241,  171,  449,  454 

Mansfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swan,  111  U.  S. 

379,  936, 948 

Mansfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Veeder,  17  Ohio 

385,  1572,  1574, 1577 

Manson  v.  Eddy,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  148, 

2002,  2046 

Manson  v.  State,  24  Ohio  St.  590,  1054 

Mantel  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Minn. 

62,  1777 

Manufacturers',  etc.,  Loan  Co.  v.  Odd 

Fellows  Hall  Assn.,  48  Pa.  St.  446,  329 

Manufacturers'  Sav.  Bank  v.  Big  Muddy 

Iron  Co.,  97  Mo.  38,  380 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Morrissey,  40  Ohio 

St.  148,  2039 

Manville  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Ohio 

St.  417,  2051,  2457,  2601 

Manville  v.  Edgar,  8  Mo.  App.  324,  270 

Manville  v.  Karst,  16  Fed.  R.  173,  268 

Manwell  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Iowa  662, 

1824, 1865, 1878, 1881, 1883, 1884, 1885 
Manz  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  West.  R. 

472,  1884 

Manzoni  v.  Douglas,  6  L.  R.  Q.  B.  D.  145,  1768 
Maples  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Conn. 

557,  2488 

Marble  Co.  v.  Harvey,  92  Tenn.  115,  507 

Marble  Co.  v.  Ripley,  10  Wall.  (U.  S.)  339, 

1299 

Marbury  v.  Ehlen,  72  Md.  206,  139 

Marbury  v.  Kentucky  Union  Land  Co.,  62 

Fed.  R.  335,  620 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXC1 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-VS,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  7265-2764,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-2725.] 


Marcean  v.  Stanley,  5  Colo.  App.  335,  1608 
March  v.  Eastern  E.  Co.,  40  N.  H.  548, 

38,  437,  508,  669,  911 
March  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  43  N.  H.  515, 

418,  419,  430,  442 
March  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  N.  H. 

372,  1438, 1455, 1512 

March  v.  Walker,  48  Tex.  372,  2147 

Marchand  v.  Town  of  Maple  Grove,  48 

Minn.  281,  1322 

Marckwald  v.  Oceanic,  etc.,  Co.,  11  Hun 

462,  2308 

Marcott  v.  Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47 

Mich.  1,  1759, 1760 

Marcott  v.  Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

Mich.  99,  1827 

Marcum  v.  Smith,  26  Mo.  App.  460,  2721 

Marcy  v.  Township  of  Oswego,  92  U.  S. 

637,  1231,  1239,  1240,  1243, 1245 

Marden  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159  Mass. 

393,  1981 

Maricopa.etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arizona,  156  U.  S. 

347,  1063, 1127 

Marie  v.  Garrison,  83  N.  Y.  14,  697,  720,  725 
Marietta,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  10 

Ohio  St.  57,  69,  70,  234,  235 

Marietta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Western  U.  Tel. 

Co.,  38  Ohio  St.  24,  63 

Marine  Bank  v.  Wright,  48  N.  Y.  1, 

2216,  2217,  2219 
Marine,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  643,  1614, 1638 

Mariner's  Bank  v.  Sewall,  50  Me.  220,  863 
Marion  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59. Iowa 

428,  311,  1962 

Marion,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hodge,  9  Ind.  163,  476 
Marion,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Morris,  37  Ind.  424,  257 
Marion  County  v.  Harvey  County,  26 

Kan.  181,  1187 

Marion,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shaffer,  9  Ind.  App. 

486,  2557 

Marion,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ward,  9  Ind.  123,  1500 
Mark  v.  State,  97  N.  Y.  572,  1458 

Markel  v.  Evans,  47  Ind.  326,  674 

Market  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Cp.,  51 

Cal.  583,  1377, 1714 

Market  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Union,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  10  PhUa.  (Pa.)  43,  1682 

Markham  v.  Brown,  8  N.  H.  523,  282 

Markoe  v.  Wakeman,  107  IU.  251,  1296 

Markwood  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  65  Fed. 

R.  817,  37 

Marks  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Ind.  440,  1583,  1593 

Marks  v.  Petersburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Va.  1, 

1786, 1778 
Marks  v.  Purdue  University,  37  Ind.  155,    1149 


Marland  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123 

Pa.  St.  487,  1775 

Marlborough  Branch  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Arnold, 

9  Gray  (Mass.)  159,  156,  163,  204,  234 

Marlborough,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  2  Conn. 

579,  204,  234,  349,  350,  578 

Marling  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67 

Iowa  331,  1551 

Marlor  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  166 

Pa.  St.  524,  1371 

Marlor  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Fed.  R. 

867,  684 

Marlor  v.  Texas,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  21  Fed.  R. 

383,  623 

Maroney  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 

Mass.  153,  288, 2542 

Marquette  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Iowa 

562,  285, 2575 

Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kirk  wood,  45 

Mich.  51,  2246,  2250,  2256 

Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Probate  Judge, 

53  Mich.  217,  1529, 1531,  1532,  1533, 1535 

Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spear,  44  Mich. 
'169,  1927 

Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taft,  28  Mich. 

289,  310, 313,  314,  316 

Marr  v.  Bank,  4  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  471,  862,  870 
Marr  v.  Littlewood,  2  Myl.  &  Cr.  455,  759,  825  , 
Marriott  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  499,  2672 

Mars  v.  President  of  Delaware,  etc.,R. 

Co.,  54  Hun  625,  2569 

Marseilles  Land  Co.  v.  Aldrich,  86  HI. 

504,  911 

Marseilles  Extension  R.  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R. 

7  Ch.  App.  161,  358 

Marsh,  Matter  of,  71  N.  Y.  315,  1494, 1495 

Marsh  v.  Burroughs,  1  Woods  463, 

202,  203,  209,  212,  258,  262,  263 
Marsh  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  79  Iowa  332,  410 
Marsh  v.  Chickering,  101  N.  Y.  396,  2011,  2039 
Marsh  v.  Fairbury,  etc.,  Co.,  64  111.  414, 

527,  529, 1280 
Marsh  v.  Fulton  County,  10  Wall.  676, 

1153, 1158,  1164,  1167,  1216, 1217, 1224, 1225, 1251 
Marsh  v.  Holley,  42  Conn.  453,  1296 

Marsh  v.  Home,  5  Barn.  &  Cress.  322,  2347 
Marsh  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  McCrary 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  236,  2253 

Marsh  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  9  Fed.  R.  873,  2443 
Marshal  v.  Town  of  Elgin,  8  Fed.  R.  783,  629 
Marshall  v.  American  Express  Co.,  7  Wis. 

1,  2375 

Marshall  v.  Baltimore  R.  Co.,  16  How. 

(U.  S.)  314,  34,  522,  935,  2640, 

Marshall  v.  Bank,  85  Va.  676,  387 


CCXC11 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[TV.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27S5.] 


Marshall  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145  Mass. 

164,  2502, 2574 

Marshall  v.  Clark,  22  Tex.  317,  1010 

Marshall  v.  Golden  Fleece,  etc.,  Co.,  16 

Nev.  156,  221 

Marshall  v.  Harris,  55  Iowa  182,  269 

Marshall  v.  Holmes,  141  U.  S.  589,  935,  946 
Marshall  v.  Silliman,  61  111.  218,  1148, 1173 
Marshall  v.  Western  R.  R.  Co.,  92  N.  Car. 

322,  4, 717 

Marshall  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  C.  B.  (73 

E.  C.  L. )  655,  2630,  2698, 2700 

Marshall  County  v.  Cook,  38  111.  44,  1223 

Marshall  Foundry  Co.  v.  Killian,  99  N. 

Car.  501,  165 

Marsteller  v.  Mills,  143  N.  Y.  398,  864 

Marty  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Minn. 

108,  1771 

Marvin  v.  Maysville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Fed. 

R.  436,  2141 

Martin,  Ex  parte,  13  Ark.  198,  1413 

Martin  v.  American  Express  Co.,  19  Wis. 

336,  2245 

Martin  v.  Atchison,  2  Idaho  590,  799 

Martin  v.  BaUou,  13  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  119,  1306 
Martin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Fed. 

R.  125,  .  2159 

Martin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  151 

U.  S.  673,  43,  936, 937,  944,  947,  948 

Martin  v.  California,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Gal, 

645,  2008 

Martin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Fed.  R. 

384,  2081 

Martin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2Interst. 

Com.  Com.  25,  2677 

Martin  v.  Clover,  17  N.  Y.  638,  664 

Martin  v.  Continental  Pass.  R.  Co.,  14 

Phila.  (Pa.)  10,  351 

Martin  v.  Deetz.  102  Cal.  55,  27 

Martin  v.  Dix,  52  Miss.  53,  1149, 1335 

Martin  v.  Fewell,  79  Mo.  401,  271 

Martin  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

C.  B.  179,  2069,  2479 

Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  2653 

Martin  v.  Land,  etc.,  Bank,  5  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  167,'  664 

Martin  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Ark.) 

34  S.  W.  R.  545,  1775 

Martin  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  L.  J. 

Ch.  795,  1487 

Martin  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1 

Eq.  Cas.  145,  1487 

Martin  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Ky. 

612,  2000 

Martin  v.  Marks,  97  U.  S.  345,  1123 

Martin  v.  Martin,  14  Ore.  165,  825 


Martin  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  Brooklyn,  1  Hill 

(N.  Y.)  545,  1505 

Martin  v.  McLaughlin,  9  Colo.  153,  2445 

Martin  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Bush 

(Ky.)  116,  886 

Martin  v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.  19,  1203 

Martin  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  Assn.,  2  Cold. 

(Tenn.)  418,  2*4,  27S 

Martin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  J. 

Eq.  109,  789,  790,  834, 1314,  2519,  2520,  2521 

Martin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Hun 

181,  1901 

Martin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Conn. 

331,  1894, 1933 

Martha  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  103  N.  Y. 

626,  308 

Martin  v.  Noble,  29  Ind.  216,  679 

Martin  v.  O'Brien,  34  Miss.  21,  48 

Martin  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8 

Fla.  370,  71,173,184,527 

Martin  v.  People,  87  111.  524,  1162 

Martin  v.  Railroad  Co.,  151  U.  S.  673,  34 

Martin  v.  Railway  Co.,  55  Ark.  510,  2202 

Martin  v.  Rushton,  42  Ala.  289,  1528 

Martin  v.  Somerville,  etc.,  Co.,  27  How. 

Pr.  161,  725 

Martin  v.  Southern,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  1,  2674 

Martin  v.  Stewart,  73  Wis.  553,  1866 

Martin,  The  D.  R.,  11  Blatch.  233,  2261 

Martin  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.)  26  S. 

W.  R.  1052,  1944 

Martin  v.  Towle,  59  N.  H.  31,  1796 

Martin  v.  Tyler,  4  N.  Dak.  278,  1423, 1465 

Martin  v.  Ward,  60  Ark.  510,  684 

Martin  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Wis. 

437,  1899,  1943 

Martin  v.  Webb,  110  U.  S.  7,  395 

Martin  v.  Zellerbach,  38  Cal.  300,  324 

Martindale  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

60  Mo.  508,  494,  551,  2485 

Martinsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  March,  114 

U.  S.  549,  1570, 1571, 1572, 1573,  1574,  1575, 1577 
Martinsville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bridges,  6 

Ind.  400,  1497 

Marvin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Wis.)  47 

N.  W.  R.  1123,  1910 

Marvin  v.  Maysville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Fed. 

R.  436,  2142 

Marvin  v.  Wilber,  52  N.  Y.  270,  295 

Marye  v.  Hart,  76  Cal.  291,  667 

Marye  v.  Railroad  Co.,  127  U.  S.  117,  1074 

Marx  v.  The  Brittannia,  34  Fed.  R.  906,  2343 
Maryland  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Neubeur,  62  Md. 

391,  1794 

Maryland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Spilman,  76  Md. 

337,  1608 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXC111 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  H6S-S7S5.] 


Mary  Lee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chambliss,  97 

Ala.  171,  19%,  2059 

Marysville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson,  93  Cal. 

538,  154 

Mase  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  57  Fed.  R. 

283,  2081 

Maslin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  W.Va. 

180,  2265,  2317,  2399,  2400,  2510,  2516 

Mason  v.  Beebee,  44  Fed.  R.  556,  895 

Mason  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  373,  62,  1276, 1369 

Mason  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Wis.  151, 

1958 

Mason  v.  Decker,  72  N.  Y.  595,  133 

Mason  v.  Germaine,  1  Mont.  263,  1605 

Mason  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  31  U.  C. 

Q.  B.  73,  2215,  2219 

Mason  v.  Eennebec,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Me. 

215,  1454,  1456, 1539 

Mason  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Biss. 

(U.  S.)  239,  1387 

Mason  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  L.  J.  R. 

(Ch.)  483,  1272 

Mason  v.  Messenger,  17  Iowa  261,  1477 

Mason  v.  Missouri  P.  R.  Co.,  25  Mo.  App. 

473,  2181,  2296,  2297,  2403,  2406 

Mason  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Kan.  83, 

1739,  1966,  2461 

Mason  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  52  Me. 
'    82,  659 

Mason  v.  Pewabic  Min.  Co.,  25  Fed.  R. 

882,  245,  722,  867 

Mason  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  N. 

Car.  482,  2014,  2020,  2043,  2078 

Mason  v.  Shawneetown,  77  111.  533,  1145 

Mason  v.  Stokes  Bay  Pier,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

L.  J.  Ch.  110,  1537 

Mason  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Me.  82,    669,  706 
Mason  City,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mason,  23  W.  Va. 

211,  1545 

Masonic   Temple   Assn.    v.  Channell,  43 

Miun.  353,  169,  175 

Massaker  v.  Mackerley,  9  N.  J.  Eq.  440,      664 
Massachusetts,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cane  Creek 

T.p.,  45  Fed.  R.  336,  1176 

Massachusetts,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  13  Fed.  R.  857,  711 

Massachusetts,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Township  of 

Cherokee,  42  Fed.  R.  750,  1257, 1262 

Massachusetts   Genl.  Hospital  v.  State 

Mut.  L.  A.  Co.,  4  Gray  (Mass.)  227,  93 

Massachusetts    Iron   Co.    v.    Hooper,    7 

Cush.  (Mass.)  183,  148 

Massachusetts,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  121  Mass.  124, 

13V7, 1660, 1662,  1700,  1703, 1704,  1706 


Massachusetts,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitchburg, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  Mass.  318,  2421 

Masser  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Iowa 

602,  1976, 1980 

Massey  v.  Citizens  Assn.,  22  Kan.  624,  28 

Massey  v.  Papin,  24  How.  362,  1136 

Massing  v.  Ames,  37  Wis.  645,  1104 

Massoth  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  N.Y. 

524,  1745,  1761 

Masters  v.  Electric,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  455,  862 

Masters  v.  McHolland,  12  Kan.  17,  1511 

Masters  v.  Rossie,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Sandf.  Ch. 

301,  263 

Masterson  v.  Macon  City,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 

88  Ga.  436,  2547 

Masterson  v.  Mayor  of  Brooklyn,  7  Hill 

61,  1584 

Masterson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 

N.  Y.  247,  1642, 1665,  1790,  1799 

Matchett  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132 

Ind.  334,  2067 

Mateer  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Mo. 

320,  2014, 2150 

Mather  v.  American  Ex.  Co.,  138  Mass.  55,  2178 
Mather  v.  Eureka  Mower  Co.,  118  N.  Y. 

629,  374 

Mather  v.  Rillston,  156  U.  S.  391,  2008,  2021 
Mathes  v.  Neidig,  72  N.  Y.  100,  268 

Mathews  v.  Bensel,  51  N.  J.  L.  30,  1952 

Mathews  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  Mo. 

298,  963, 1892 

Mathews  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Minn. 

434,  1323, 1324, 1455 

Mathis  v.  Pridham,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  58,  113 
Matson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Iowa 

22,  2122 

Matson  v.  Port  Townsend,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 

Wash.  449,  1301,  1950 

Matter  of  Albany  Street,  11  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

149,  1387 

Matter  of  Application  of  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  125  N.  Y.  434,  897 

Matter  of  Application  of  Cooper,  etc.,  93 

N.  Y.  507,  1529 

Matter  of  Application  of  Mayor,  etc.,  of 

New  York,  99  N.  Y.  569,  1341,  1468 

Matter  of  Application  of  Syracuse,  etc., 

Co.,  91  N.  Y.  1,  341 

Matter  of  Argus  Printing  Co.,  1  N.  Dak. 

434,  338 

Matter  of  Barker,  6  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  509,  229 
Matter  of  Beekman  Street,  20  Johns.  269,  990 
Matter  of  Board  of  Commissioners,  52  N.  Y. 

131,  1498 

Matter  of  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  461,  1430 


CCXC1V 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Matter  of  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  N.  Y.  574, 

1270,  1343, 1356,  1376, 1380,  1392, 1395 
Matter  of  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  N.  Y.  64, 

1376, 1080, 1684,  1687, 1697 

Matter  of  Bowery  Bank,  16  How.  Pr.  56,      246 
Matter  of  Brooklyn,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  72  N.  Y. 

245,  1349 

Matter  of  Brooklyn,  etc.,  B.  E.  Co.,  75  N. Y. 

335,  860 

Matter  of  Buffalo,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  32  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  289,  1527, 1534 

Matter  of  Campbell,  1  N.  E.  S.  B.  768,        1530 
Matter  of  Cape  May,  etc.,  Co.,  51  N.  J.  L. 

78,  226 

Matter  of  Cecil,  36  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  477,      233 
Matter  of  Christian  Jensen  Co.,  128  N.  Y. 

550,  731 

Matter  of  City  of  Buffalo,  68  N.  Y.  167, 

108, 1267,  1377,  1378, 1395 

Matter  of  Claiborne  St.,  4  La.  Ann.  7,         1533 
Matter  of  Clear  Lake  Water  Co.,  48  Cal. 

586,  1529 

Matter  of  Deansville  Cemetery  Assn.,  66 

N.  Y.  569,  1339 

Matter  of  Election  of  St.  Lawrence  Steam- 
boat Co.,  44  N.  J.  L.  529,  233 
Matter  of  Empire  City  Bank,  18  N.  Y.  199,    140 
Matter  of  Eureka,  etc.,  Manf.  Co.,  96  N.  Y. 

42,  1340 

Matter  of  Exchange  Alley,  4  La.  Ann.  4,     1510 
Matter  of  Ford,  6  Lans.  92,  1091 

Matter  of  Furman  Street,  17  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

649,  1437 

Matter  of  Flatbush  Ave.,  1  Barb.  286,         1379 
Matter  of  Hamilton  Ave.,  14  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

405,  1379 

Matter  of  Hartford,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  65  How. 

(N.  Y.)  Pr.  133,  1388 

Matter  of  Jacobs,  98  N.  Y.  98,  960 

Matter  of  Knickerbocker  Bank,  19  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  602,  781 

Matter  of  LeBlanc,  14  Hun  8,  426 

Matter  of  Lee  &  Co.'s  Bank,  21  N.  Y.  9,         93 
Matter  of  Lighthall  Mfg.  Co.,  47  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  258,  233,  277 

Matter  of  Lockport.etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  N.  Y. 

557,  1494,  1495,  1684, 1687 

Matter  of  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  19  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  37,  215,  359 

Matter  of  Marsh,  71  N.  Y.  315,  1494, 1495 

Matter  of  Middletown,  82  N.  Y.  196,  1477 

Matter  of  Newcomb,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  16,        338 
Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  1  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  N.  S.190,  1503 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  How. 

(N.  Y.)  Pr.  434,  1527 


Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  63  How. 

(N.  Y.)  Pr.  265,  1524 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  86,  1499 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  6  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  149,  1429,  1430 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  15  Hun 

63,  1523 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  26  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  194,  1492 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  27  Hun 

116,  1531 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  29  Hun 

609,  1521 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  33  Hun 

(N.Y.)148,  1524 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  33  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  231,  1515 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  33  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  639,  1526 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  35  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  306,  1533 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  35  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  260,  1524 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  35  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  232,  1528 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  35  Hun 

220,  1351 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  44  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  194,  1370 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  62  Barb. 

(N.Y.)85,  1479,1494 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y. 

(4  Sickels)  414,  615 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  N.  Y. 

116,  1548 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  N.  Y. 

60,  1533, 1534 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  N.  Y. 

407.  1385 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  Y. 

327,  88 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  77  N.  Y. 

248,  1270,  1345, 1354 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  93  N.  Y. 

385,  1524, 1533 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  98  N.  Y. 

12,  1548,  1551 

Matter  of  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  N.  Y. 

12,  1351,  1352,  1374 

Matter  of  New  York  R.  Co.  v.  Kip,  46  N.  Y. 

546,  1343 

Matter  of  Ninth  Ave.,  45  N.  Y.  729,  1375 

Matter  of  North  Shore,  etc.,  Ferry  Co.,  63 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  556,  226 

Matter  of  Palmer  and  Hungerford  Mar- 
ket Co.,  9  Ad.  &  El.  463,  1489 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXCV 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-3166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Matter  of  Peter  Townsend,  39  N.  Y.  171,"   1347 
Matter  of  Petition  of  Kerr,  42  Barb.(N.Y.) 

119,  1341, 1380 

Matter  of  Petition  of  New  York  El.  R. 

Co.,  70  N.  Y.  327,  83 

Matter  of  Petition  of  Third  Avenue  E. 

R.  Co.,  121  N.  Y.  536,  14 

Matter  of  Poughkeepsie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  151,  1430 

Matter  of  Prospect  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  345,  1444 

Matter  of  Prospect  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67 

N.  Y.  371,  1496 

Matter  of  Public  Parks,  47  Hun  302,  1108 

Matter  of  Pyrolusite,  etc.,  Co.,  29  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  429,  862 

Matter  of  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Paige  553,  1806 

Matter  of  Rhinebeck,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  N.Y. 

242,  1508 

Matter  of  Rochester  Water  Commission- 
ers, 66  N.  Y.  413,  1373 
Matter  of  Roundout,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Deyo, 

5  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  298,  1523 

Matter  of  Seaside  El.  R.  Co.,  83  Hun  143,  1439 
Matter  of  Second  Ave.  Church,  66  N.  Y. 

395,  1103 

Matter  of  Split  Rock  Cable  R.  Co.,  128 

N.  Y.  408,  1271 

Matter  of  State  Reservation,  102  N.  Y. 

734,  1552 

Matter  of  Staten  Island  R.  T.  Co.,  41  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  392,  1535 

Matter  of  Staten  Island  R.  T.  Co.,  103  N.  Y. 

251,  1390 

Matter  of  Suburban  R.  T.  Co.,  38  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  553,  1495 

Matter  of  Thompson,  57  Hun  (N.  Y.)  419,    13S5 
Matter  of  Trustees,  31  N.  Y.  574,  1091 

Matter  of  Union  Village,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

Barb.  457,  1444 

Matter  of  Union  El.  Ry.  Co.,  113  N.  Y.  275, 

1270 
Matter  of  Union  Ferry  Co.,  98  N.  Y.  139, 

1341, 1382 

Matter  of  United  States,  96  N.  Y.  227,         1334 
Matter  of  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  456,  1444, 1520, 1521 

Matter  of  Village  of  Middletown,  82  N.  Y. 

196,  1478 

Matter  of  Volkmar  St.,  124  Pa.  St.  320,        1459 
Matter  of  Water  Comrs.,  31  N.  J.  Law  72, 

1503 
Matter  of  Waverly  Water  Works,  85  N.  Y. 

478,  1503 

Matter  of  Wells  County  Road,  7  Ohio  St. 

16,  "72 


Matteson  v.N.Y.,etc.,R.Co.,76N. Y.381,  2617,2631 
Matteeon  v.  N.  Y.  Cent.  R.  Co.,  62  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  364,  367 

Matthewman's  Case,  L.  R.  3  Eq.  781,  161 

Matthews  v.  Albert,  24  Md.  527,  263 

Matthews  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

28  L.  J.  Chan.  375,  122 

Matthews  v.  Hoagland,  48  N.  J.Eq.  455,  143, 144 
Matthews  v.  Kelsey,  58  Me.  56,  1613 

Matthews  v.  Murchison,  17  Fed.  R.  760, 

142, 162,  713,  724 

Matthews  v.  Skinker,  62  Mo.  329,  504 

Matthiessen  v.  Gusi,  29  Fed.  R.  794,  2207 

Mattingly  v.  Penn.  Co.,  2  Int.  C.  R.  806, 

2236,  2660,  2685 

Mattingly  v.  Penn.  Co.,  3 Int.  C.  C.  R.  592,  2680 
Mattise  v.  Consumers',  etc.,  Co.,  46  La. 

Ann.  1535,  2091 

Mattison  v.  N.Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  N.Y.  552,  2626 
Mattoon  v.  Fremont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (S.  Dak.) 

60  N.  W.  R.  69,  1905, 1907 

Mattoon  v.  Rep.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Neb.  647,  1040 
Mattoon  v.  Reynolds,  62  Fed.  R.  417,  944 

Mattox  v.  Hightshue,  39  Ind.  95,  12% 

Matze  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Hun  417,  1741 
Maun  v.  Corrigan,  28  Kan.  194,  1595 

Maunsell  v.  Midland  Great  W.  R.  Co.,  1 

Hem.  &  M.  130,  162 

Mauran  v.  Insurance  Co.,  6  Wall.  1,  2269 

Mauritz  v.  Fraloff,  100  U.  S.  24,  2608 

Mauritz  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  Co.,  23  Fed.  R.  765, 

2606,  2609,  2610,  2626,  2632 
Maury  v.  Talmadge,  2  McLean  (C.  C.)  157, 

24T6,  2470 
Maux  Ferry  G.  R.  Co.  v.  Branegan,  40  Ind. 

361,      <  371 

Maverick  v.  Eighth  Ave.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

N.  Y.  378,  2466 

Maving  v.  Todd,  1  Starkie  59,  2314 

Maxey  v.  Mo.  Pac.  R.  Co.,  113  Mo.  1,  1732, 1740 
Maxey  v.  Williamson  County,  72  111.  207,  1145 
Maxwell  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Fed. 

R.  236,  880 

Maxwell  v.  Bay  City  Bridge  Co.,  41  Mich. 

453,  1324 

Maxwell  v.  Board,  119  Ind.  20,  1192 

Maxwell  v.  Dulwich  College,  1  Fonbl.  Eq. 

306,  484 

Maxwell  v.  Goetschius,  40  N.  J.  Law  383,  1197 
Maxwell  v.  La  Brune,  68  Iowa  689,  1556 

Maxwell  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  (La.)  19 

So.  R.  287,  2264,  2333 

May  v.  Babcock,  4  Ohio  334,  22C9 

May  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  122  111.  551,  772 

May  v.  Greenhill,  80  Ind.  124,  774 

May  v.  Holdridge,  23  Wis.  93,  1197 

May  v.  Printup,  59  Ga.  128,  763,  765 

May  v.  Rice,  91  Ind.  546,  1141 

May  v.  State  Bank,  40  Am.  Dec.  726,  867 


CCXCV1 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  T,  pp.  1-1M,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-126S,  Vol.  III.  pp   1263-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  I165-27i5.] 


May  v.  State  Nat.  Bank,  59  Ark.  614,  948 

May  v.  Whittier  Mach.  Co.,  154  Mass.  29,  2105 

Mayall  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  19  N.  H.  122, 

402,  410,  2233 

Mayberry  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  75  Mo. 

492,  313, 316 

Maybnry  v.  Mutual,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Mich.  154,  99 
Mayer  v.  Denver,  T.  &  Ft.  W.  R.  Co.,  (C. 

C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.)  38  Fed.  R.  197,  241 

Mayes  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Iowa  562, 

2006,  2026,  2708 

Mayes  v.  Goldsmith,  58  Ind.  94,  662 

Mayfleldv.Savannah,etc.,R.Co.,87Ga.374,  2068 
Mayfield  v.  St.Louis,etc.,R.Co.,91  Mo.296,  1874 
Mayhew  v.  Burns,  103  Ind.  328,  1983,  2140 

Maynard  v.  Bond,  67  Mo.  315,  785,  788 

Maynard  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  115  Mass. 

458,  1803, 1850,  1863, 1959 

Maynard  v.Fireman's  Ins.  Fund,  34  Cal.48,  334 
Maynard  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (W.  Va.) 

21  S.  E.  R.  733,  1872 

Mayo  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  Mass. 

137,  2546, 2550 

Mayo  v.  Preston,  131  Mass.  304,  2267 

Mayo  v.  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  112  N.  C.  342,  991 
Mayor,  Ex  partc,  23  Wend.  277,  1103 

Mayor  v.  Davenport,  92  N.  Y.  604,  1070 

Mayor  v.  Horn,  2  Harr.  (Del.)  190,  985 

Mayor  v.  Humphries,  1  C.  &  P.  251,  2703 

Mayor  v.  Jacques,  30  Ga.  506,  903 

Mayor  v.  Potomac  Ins.  Co.,  2  Baxt.  296,  633 
Mayor  v.  Radecke,  49  Md.  217,  962 

Mayor  v.Richardson.l  Stew.&  P.(Ala.)  12,  1502 
Mayor  v.  Royal,  etc.,  Co.,  45  Ala.  322,  1111 
Mayor  v.  Simpson,  8  Q.  B.  65,  .  334 

Mayor  of  Albany  v.  Sikes,  94  Ga.  30,  1411 

Mayor  of  Alleghany  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

26  Pa.  St.  355,  1613 

Mayor  of  Annapolis  v.Har\vood,32  Md.471,  1103 
Mayor  of  Atlanta  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  53  Ga. 

120,  1375, 1378, 1424, 1466 

Mayor  of  Baltimore  v.  The  Baltimore,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  21  Md.  50,    4,  57, 142, 162,  446,  474,  1071 
Mayor  of  Baltimore  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 

Co.,  6  Gill  288,  57,  455, 1068 

Mayor  of  Baltimore  v.  Black,  56  Md.  333, 

1504,  1505 

Mayor  of  Baltimore  v.  Greenmount  Ceme- 
tery, 7  Md.  517,  1101, 1102 
Mayor  of  Baltimore  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  9,  86,  89,  90 

Mayor  of  Baltimore  v.  Postal  Tel.  Co.,  62 

Fed.  R.  500,  934 

Mayor  of  Baltimore  v.  Scharf ,  54  Md.  499,  1641 
Mayor  of  Baltimore  v.  Warren,  etc.,  Co., 

59  Me.  96,  1546 

Mayor,  etc.,  of  Birmingham  v.  Alabama, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Ala.  134,  1624, 1625 

Mayor  of  Birmingham  v.  Klein,  89  Ala.461,  1101 
Mayor  of  Brooklyn  v.Meserole,26Wend.l32, 1103 


Mayor  of  Columbus  v.  Dennison,  69  Fed. 

R.  58,  450, 1236 

Mayor  of  Houston  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

83  Tex.  548,  1615 

Mayor  of  Jersey  City  v.  Jersey  City,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  360,  1610 

Mayor  of  Knoxville  v.  Knoxville,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  22  Fed.  R.  758,  450,  505,  629 

Mayor  of  Kokomo  v.  State,  57  Ind.  152,  128 
Mayor  of  Lexington  v.  Long,  31  Mo.  369, 

1428,1429 
Mayor  of  Macon  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  82  Ga.  501,  1307 

Mayor  of  Macon  v.  Franklin,  12  Ga.  239,  1417 
Mayor  of  Mobile  v.  Stonewall  Ins.  Co.,  53 

Ala.  570,  1063 

Mayor  of  Nashville  v.  Linck,  12  Lea  499,  2647 
Mayor  of  New  York  v.  Bailey,  2  Denio 

(N.  Y.)  433,  1341 

Mayor  of  New  York  v.  Dry  Docks,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  133  N.  Y.  104,  1625 

Mayor  of  New  York  v.  Miln,  11  Pet.  102,  2656 
Mayor  of  New  York  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  19  N.  Y.  Supp.  67,  1641 

Mayor  of  Now  York  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co., 

102  N.  Y.  572,  1314, 1641, 1643 

Mayor  of  Northampton,  In  re,  158  Mass. 

299,  975 

Mayor  of  Norwich  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  El.  &  Bl.  397,  475 

Mayor  of  Pulaski  v.  Gilmore,  21  Fed.  R. 

870,  1146, 1167 

Mayor  of  Rome  v.  Perkins,  30  Ga.  154,  1538 
Mayor  of  Savannah  v.  Hartridge,  8  Ga. 

23,  1103, 1425, 1426 

Mayorof  Wetumpka  v.  Winter  ,29  Ala.  651,  1220 
Mayor  of  Worcester  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  109  Mass.  103,  598,  975,  1220,  2260 

Mays  v.  Cincinnati,  1  Ohio  St.  368,  1103 

Mays  v.  Foster,  13  Ore.  214,  246 

Mays  v.  Rose,  Freem.  Ch.  (Miss.)  703,  736,  738 
Mayton  v.  Texas,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Tex.  77,  305,  2060 
Maysville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ingram,  (Ky.) 

30  S.  W.  Rep.  8,  1629 

Maysville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marvin,  59  Fed.  R. 

91,  2141, 2142 

Maywood  v.  Railroad  Bank,  5  S.  Car.  379,  130 
Meacham  v.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Cush.  291,  1424, 1428, 1429, 1436 

Mead  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Conn. 

199,  30,  39,  84,  444,  458,  471,  477,  768 

Meadv  Parker,  115  Mass.  413,  562 

Mead  v.  Railway  Co.,  18  Weekly  R.  735,  2695 
Meaden  v.  Sealey,  6  Hare  620,  756 

Meader  v.  Lowry,  45  Iowa  684,  1311 

Meador  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  138  * 

Ind.  290,  1996,  2037 

Mealman  v.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  37  Fed. 

R.  189,  406,  2053 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxcvir 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  i-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Mean's  Appeal,  85  Pa.  St.  75,          264,  269,  795 
Meara  v.  Holbrook,  20  Ohio  St.  137, 

811,  812,  813 
Mechanics'  Bank  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  45 

Mo.  513,  148, 151 

Mechanics'  Bank  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  13  N.  Y.  599,  114, 126,  296,  842 

Mechanics'  Bank  v.  Smith,  19  Johns.  115,    275 
Mechanics'  Bank  v.  Seton,  1  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

299,  140,  147 

Mechanics',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Bridges,  30  N.  J. 

Law  112,  93 

Mechanics',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Burnet,  etc., 

Co.,  32  N.  J.  Eq.  236,  340 

Mechanics',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Farmers',  etc., 

Bank,  60  N.  Y.  40,  2214 

Mechanics',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hall,  121  Mass. 

272,  216 

Mechanics',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Meriden,  etc., 

24  Conn.  159,  348 

Medbury  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  26  Barb. 

564,  411 

Medeiros  v.  Hill,  8  Bing.  231,  2290 

Medford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Somnerville,  111 

Mass.  232,  1618 

Meek  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  38  Ohio  St. 

632,  1025, 1745 

Meeker  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  21  Ore. 

513,  1859 

Meeker  v.  Sprahue,  5  Wash.  St.  242,  802 

Meeker  v.  Winthrop,  etc.,  Co.,  17  Fed.  R. 

48,  245 

Meeks  v.  So.  Pac.  R.  Co.,  56  Cal.  513,          1757 
Meeks  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  52 Cal.  602, 

1757, 1981 
Meesel  v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Allen 

(Mass.)  234,  2558 

Meginnis  v.  Nunamaker,  64  Pa.  St.  374,       1450 
Megow  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Wis. 

466,  1939 

Mehan  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  N.  Y. 

585,  2064 

Mehegan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

N.  Y.  Supp.  444,  1770 

Mehle  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Tex. 

459,  1509 

Meier  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Dill.  (U.  S.) 

378,  676 

Meier  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  5  Dill.(U.  S.) 

476,  781,  783,  829 

Meier  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  64  Pa.  St. 

225,  2473 

Meily  v.  Zurmehly,  23  Ohio  St.  627,    1548, 1551 
Meints  v.  East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  89  111. 

48,  261 

Meir  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  64  Pa.  St.  225,    2466 
Meissner  v.  Brun,  128  U.  S.  474,  2420 


Melbourne  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 

Ala.  443,  2194,  2248,  2354 

Melendy  v.  Barbour,  78  Va.  544,  799,  812,  81* 
Malendy  v.  Keen,  89  111.  395,  191 

Melhado  v.  Hamilton,  28  L.  T.  (N.  S.) 

578,  119 

Melhado  v.  Porto  Alegre,  etc.,  Ry.,  L.  R. 

9  Com.  P.  503,  21,  488- 

Melledge  v.   Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Gush. 

(Mass.)  158,  364 

Mellen  v.  Moline,  etc.,  Iron  Works,  131 

U.  S.  352,  597 

Mellen  v.  Town  of  Lansing,  128  U.  S.  557,  1157 
Mellen  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  4  Gray  (Mass.) 

301,  1454 

Mellor  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150 

Mass.  362,  305, 1957,  211» 

Mellor  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Mo. 

455,  2083,  2456,  250» 

Mellor  v.  Spateman,  1  Saund.  339,  1318 

Meloy  v.  Central  Nat.  Bank,  17  Wash. 

L.  R.  68,  853- 

Melvin  v.  Lamar  Ins.  Co.,  80  111.  446, 

157, 198,  255 

Melvin  v.  Lisenby,  72  111.  63,  1179 

Melville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  2  Mackey  (D.  C.)  63,  2483,  2484 

Memphis  v.  Bolton,  9  Heisk.  508,  1417 

Memphis  v.  Dean,  8  Wall.  (U.  S.)  64,  764 

Memphis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Koch,  28  Kan.  565,  411 
Memphis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lyon,  62  Ala.  71,  1813 
Memphis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  85  Tenn.  703,  125,  298,  620 

Memphis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Orr,  43  Miss.  279,  1807 
Memphis  Freight  Co.  v.  Memphis,  4 

Coldw.  (Tenn.)  419,  134O 

Memphis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Abell,  (Ky.)  30  S.  W. 

R.  658,  2424,  2431 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alabama,  107 

U.S.  581,  41,470 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benson,  85  Tenn. 

627,  285, 2574 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bibb,  37  Ala.  699, 

1857 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Birmingham,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  96  Ala.  571,  1686,  1700,  1701,  1702 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carlley,  39  Ark. 

246,  1883, 1884 

Memphis,  etc»,  R.  Co.  v.  Chastine,  54 

Miss.  503,  2508,  2703,  2721 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Copeland,  61  Ala. 

376,  1780, 2475- 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dow,  120  U.  S. 

287,  129, 628- 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dow,  22  Blatchf. 

48,  638- 


CCXCVlll 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-1^2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  12G3-2161,,  Vat.  IV,  pp.  2165-27S5.] 


Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  T.  Dow,  19  Fed.  R. 

214,  503 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dow,  19  Fed.  R. 

388,  525 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graham,  94  Ala. 

545,  2071, 2124 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grayson,  88  Ala. 

572.  242, 484,  569 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hembree,  84  Ala 

182,  1880, 1882 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoechner,  67  Fed. 

R.  456,  819 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holloway  9  Baxt. 

(Term.)  188,  2250,  2341 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Horsfall,  36  Ark. 

651,  1883 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kerr,  52  Ark.  162, 

1854 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCool,  83  Ind. 

392,  2599 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Memphis,  4  Cold. 

(Tenn.)  406,  1615 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neighbors,  51 

Miss.  412,  1312 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parsons,  etc.,  Co., 

26  Kan.  503,  1482,  1511, 1559 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Payne,  37  Miss. 

700,  1422, 1549,  1580 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Com- 
missioners, 112  U.  S.  609, 

43, 100, 105, 106, 109,  702,  717,  868,  1065,  1351 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Salinger,  46  Ark. 

528,  2556 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sanders,  43  Ark. 

225,  1854, 1855 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  117  U.  S.  1,  2261 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stringfellow,  44 

Ark.  322,  819 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  37  Ark.  632, 

644,  679 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  87  Tenn. 

746,  1036,  1111, 1641 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  57  Ga. 

240,  71,  169, 175 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  51  Miss. 

637,  2046,  2051,  2076 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  24 

Kan.  170,  176, 177, 1184, 1197 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whorley,  74  Ala. 

264,  889 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  48  Pa. 

161,  1571, 1575,  1586 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Womack,  84  Ala. 

149,  308, 1741, 1948, 1967 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woods,  88  Ala. 

630,  142,  227,  230,  239,  249,  250,  348,  912 


Menacho  v.  Ward,  27  Fed.  R.  529, 

2285,  2430, 2663,  2667 
Menard  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  Mass. 

386,  1796 

Menard  v.  Hood,  68  111.  121,  1207, 1209 

Menasha  v.  Hazard,  102  U.  S.  81, 

189, 1224, 1236, 1239, 1254 
Mendell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Iowa 

9,  1877, 1878 

Mendenhall  v.  Hall,  134  U.  S.  559,  s.  c.  10 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  616,  678 

Menges  v.  Albany,  56  N.  Y.  374,  1470 

Menier  v.  Hooper's  Tel.  Works,  L.  R.  9 

Ch.  350,  245 

Mennonstein  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  34 

N.  Y.  Supp.  97,  2627 

Menomonie,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Milwaukee,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  (Wis.)  65  N.  W.  R.  176, 

1896, 1897, 1944 
Mensch  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150 

Pa.  St.  598,  2003,  2064 

Mentz  v.  Cook,  108  N.  Y.  504,  1192 

Mentz  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  3  Abb.  App. 

274,  1649, 1779 

Menzell  v.  Railway  Co.,  1  Dillon  (TJ.  S. 
j     C.  C.)  531,  2328,  2329 

!  Mercantile,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Gladstone,  L.  R. 
|     3  Exch.  233,  2444 

Mercantile,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  4  Ch. 

475,  433 

Mercantile  Ins.  Co.  v.  Jaynes,  87  111.  199,      785 
Mercantile  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Calebs,  20 

N.  Y.  173,  2334 

Mercantile  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Chase,  1  E.  JX 

Smith  115,  2178,  2229 

Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  61  Fed.  R.  372,  665,  685 

Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Kanawha,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  39  Fed.  R.  337,  769,  770 

Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Kanawha,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  50  Fed.  R.  874,  836,  840,  841,  842, 843 

Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Kanawha,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  58  Fed.  R.  6,  841,  843,  845,  846,  847 

Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  8,  601,  822 

Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  35  Fed.  R.  221, 

39,  684,  685,  737,  741,  746,  754,  756,  780,  788 
Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  36  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  259,  746,  747 

Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  29  Fed.  R.  732,  657 

Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  (U.  S.  C.  C.  D.  N.  Hamp.)  10 Fed.  R. 

604,  684 

Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  51  Fed.  R.  529,  684,  975,  1001, 1097 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are,  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  ITT,  pp.  126S-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  27(55-2725.] 


Mercantie  Trust  Co.  v.  Zanesville,  etc., 

R.  R.  Co.,  52  Fed.  R.  342,  628 

Mercer  County  v.  Hacket,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

83,  632, 122-1,  1238, 1239 

Mercer  County  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

27  Pa.  St.  387,  1187,  1220, 1223, 1230 

Mercer,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  464,  1548 

Mercier  v.  Canonge,  8  La.  Ann.  37,  366 

Mercier  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.,  23  La. 

Ann.  264,  1649 

Merchants'  Bank  v.  Bergen  County,  115 

U.  S.  384,  1227, 1237 

Merchants'  Bank  v.  Chandler,  19  Wis.  434,  259 
Merchants'  Bank  v.  Crysler,  67  Fed.  R. 

388,  826 

Merchants'  Bank  v.  Hewitt,  3  Iowa  93,  2197 
Merchants'  Bank  v.  Shouse,  102  Pa.  St. 

488,  148, 428 

Merchants'  Bank  v.  State  Bank,  10  Wall. 

604,  398,  642,  2722 

Merchants'  Bank  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  69  N.  Y. 

373,  2218,  2221,  2360 

Merchants',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Citizens',  etc., 

Co.,  159  Mass.  505,  395,  398 

Merchants',  etc.,  Bank  v.  County  of  Pu- 

laski,  1  McCrary  (U.  S.)  316,  1248 

Merchants',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Hervey,  etc.,  Co., 

45  La.  Ann.  1214,  400 

Merchants',  fete.,  Bank  v.  Kent,  43  Mich. 

292,  779, 781 

Merchants',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Stone,  38  Mich. 

779,  271 

Merchants',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Trustees,  63  Ga. 

549,  766 

Merchants',  etc.,  Nat.  Bank  v.  Wheeler, 

13  Blatchf.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  218,  849 

Merchants'  Exchange  Bank  v.  McGraw, 

59  Fed.  R.  972,  2196 

Merchants'  Nat.  Bank  v.  McLeod,  38 

Ohio  St.  174,  771,  792 

Merchants',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Richards,  6  Mo. 

App.  454,  145, 147 

Merchants'  D.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bloch,  86  Tenn. 

392,  2178,  2234,  2964,  2321,  2324,  2345,  2346 

Merchants'  D.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bolles,  80  111. 

473,  2178,  2208,  2245 

Merchants'  D.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cornforth,  3 

Colo.  280,  2178,  2263,  2292, 2298,  2325 

Merchants'  D.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Furthmann, 

149  111.  66,  2199,  2322,  2325,  2326,  2330 

Merchants'  D.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Joesting,  89  111. 

152,  410, 2178,  2201,  2332 

Merchants'  D.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kahn,  76  111. 

520,  2237,  2241,  2308 

Merchants'  D.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Leysor,  89  111. 

43,  2178,  2210,  2324 


Merchants'  D.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Merriam,  111 

Ind.  5,  2214,  2278,  2363 

Merchants',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  79  Iowa  613,  901,  1460,  1651 

Merchants',  etc.,  Co.  T.  McVeigh,  20  Gratt. 

264,  2260 

Merchants',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Moore,  88  111.  136,  2230 
Merchants',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  76  111.  542, 

2215,  2299 
Merchants',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ins.  Co.,  151  U.  S. 

368,  533,  933,  938,  944,  2434,  2674 

Merchants'  Ins.  Co.,  In  re,  3  Biss.  (U.  S.) 

165,  784, 788 

Merchants',  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Butler,  20  Md. 

41,  2427 

Merchants'  &  Planters'  Line  v.  Waganer, 

71  Ala.  581,         .  861, 864 

Merchants',  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hallock,  64  111. 

284,  2279 

Merchants'  Union  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  4  Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  183,  2676 

Merchants'  Union  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  5  Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  478,  2683 

Meredith  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 

N.  Car.  616,  1969 

Meredith,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Simpson,  22  Kan. 

414,  799 

Merhon  v.  Holensack,  22  N.  J.  Law  372,     2299 
Meriam  v.  Brown,  128  Mass.  391, 

1329,  1447,  1501 
Meridian  News,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Diem,  etc., 

Co.,  70  Miss.  695,  774 

Meriwether  v.  Garrett,  102  U.  S.  472, 

1056, 1166, 1261 
Meriwether  v.  Muhlenburg  County  Court, 

120  U.  S.  354,  1164,  1243,  1258, 1261 

Merkle  v.  Bennington  Township,  58  Mich. 

156,  2128 

Merkle  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  J. 

L.  473,  1777, 1782 

Merriam  v.  Hartford,  e|c.,  Co.,  20  Conn. 

354,  2182,  2183,  2m,  2194,  2274,  2277,  2619 

Merrick  v.  Amherst,  12  Allen  500,  1151 

Merrick  v.  Gordon,  20  N.  Y.  93,  2421 

Merrick  v.  Peru  Coal  Co.,  61  111.  472,  244 

Merrick  v.  Van  Santvoord,  34  N.  Y.  208, 

33.863 

Merrick  v.  Webster,  3  Mich.  268,  2237 

Merrick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 

Co.,  (Pa.)  8  Atl.  R.  794,  161 

Merrill  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  62  N.  H. 

514,  411,  2317,  2344 

Merrill  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  21  Wis.  154, 

2324 

Merrill  v.  Call.  15  Me.  428,  134 

Merrill  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  139  Mass.  262,     1034 


ccc 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
{  Vol.  /,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Merrill  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  24  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  297,  684,  713 

Merrill  v.  Gamble,  46  Iowa  615,  170, 188 

Merrill  v.  Grinnell,  30  N.  Y.  594,  2607,  2608 

Merrill  v.  Hurley,  (S.  Dak.)  62  N.  W.  R. 

958,  402 

Merrill  v.  Ithaca,  etc..  R.  Co.,  16  Wend, 

586,  1585 

Merrill  v.  Marshall  County,  74  Iowa  24, 

1207,  1213 

Merrill  v.  Monticello,  138  U.  S.  673,     1158,  1167 
Merrill  v.  Sherbune,  1  N.  H.  199,  965 

Merrill  v.  Suffolk  Bank,  31  Me.  57,          94,  867 
Merrill  v.  Welsher,  50  Iowa  61,  1185,  1213 

Merrimac  Min.  Co.  v.  Bagley,  14  Mich. 

501,  216 

Merrimack,  The,  8  Cranch  317,  2695 

Merriman  v.  Magiveny,  12  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 

494,  271 

Merritt  v.  Bartholick,  36  N.  Y.  44,  675 

Merritt  v.  Earle,  29  N.  Y.  115,      2263,  2268,  2300 
Merritt  v.  Earle,  31  Barb.  38,  2268 

Merritt  v.  Ferris,  22  111.  303,  238 

Merritt  v.  Gibson,  129  Ind.  155,  777 

Merritt  v.  Merritt,  16  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  405, 

731,  792 
Merritt  v.  Northern  R.  Co.,  12  Barb. 

(N  Y.)605,  1321 

Merritt  v.  Old  Colony  Railroad,  11  Allen 

80,  2182 

Merritt  v.  Portchester,  71  N.  Y.  309, 

1104, 1181, 1183 
Merry  v.  Glasgow,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  4 

H.  L.  226,  2674 

Merry  v.  Glasgow,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Ry.  & 

Canal  Traf.  Gas.  383,  2674 

Merryman  v.  Carroll,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Ry.  & 

Corp.  L.  J.  12,  758 

Merryman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85 

Iowa  634,  1980 

Mersey  Docks  v.  Gibbs,  11  H.  L.  Cas.  686, 

811,  1564 
Mershon  v.  Hobensack,  22  N.  J.  Law  372, 

2265,  2451 
Merwin  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  1  N.  Y.  S. 

267,  2586 

Merz  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  Co.,  88  Mo. 

672,  971,  1044, 1624 

Merz  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  14  Mo. 

App.  459,  277 

Merz  Capsule  Co.  v.  United  States,  etc., 

Co.,  67  Fed.  R.  414,  162 

Messenger  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  36  N.  J. 

L.  407,  3,  2166,  2171,  2285,  2433,  2691 

Messenger  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  37  N.  J. 

L.  531,  3,  533,  1763,  2171,  2279,  2284 

Messersmith  v.  Messersmith,  22  Mo.  369,    1313 


Messick  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  128  Ind.  81, 

1323, 1327, 1329 
Metallic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co., 

109  Mass.  277,  2135 

Metcalf  v.  City  of  Watertown,  128  U.  S. 

589,  1016 

Metcalf  v.  McLaughlin,  122  Mass.  84,         2283- 
Metcalfe  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  307,  2694 

Methodist,  etc.,  Church  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of 

Baltimore,  6  Gill  391,  478, 1479 

Methodist,  etc.,  Church  v.  Pickett,  19 

N.  Y.  482,  544,  877 

Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Godfrey,  23  111.  579,    543 
Metropolitan,  etc.,  Bank  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

Co.,  36  Fed.  R.  722,  134 

Metropolitan  "Board  of  Works  v.  Mc- 
Carthy, L.  R.  7  E.  &  I.  App.  243,       1410,  1444 
Metropolitan  Board  of  Works  v.  Metro- 
politan R.  Co.,  37  L.  J.  C.  P.  281,  1456 
Metropolitan  Board  of  Works  v.  Sant,  38 

L.  J.  Ch.  7,  1452 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  111  N.  Y. 

588,  1563 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Collins,  1  App. 

D.  C.  383,  308 

Metropolitan,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Harper,  3 

Hughes  260,  34 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hawkins,  4  H. 

&  N.  87,  872 

Metropolitan,   etc.,   Co.    v.    Manhattan, 

etc.,  Co.,  15  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  1,  578 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  7  N.  Y. 

Supp.  708,  1498 

Metropolitan  C.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  W.  D. 

R.  Co.,  87  111.  317,    48,  98,  1267,  1370, 1381,  1611 
Metropolitan  City  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Chi- 
cago, 96  111.  620,  900 
Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dominick,  55 

Hun  198,  1500 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Highland  St. 

R.  Co.,  118  Mass.  290,  47, 1395,  1627 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  3 

L.  R.  App.  Cas.  193,  1768,  2065,  2467 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kneeland,  120 

N.  Y.  13-1,  384,  385 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manhattan 

El.  R.  Co.,  11  Daly  (N.  Y  )  373,  351 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manhattan, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Daly  (N.  Y.)  367,  235 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quincy  R. 

Co.,  12  Allen  (Mass.)  262,  1637 

Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stickney, 

150  111.  362,  1411 

Metropolitan  Trust  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  25  Fed.  R.  760,  645 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCC1 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  T,  pp.  l-Utf,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-lWZ,  Vol. 

Metropolitan  Trust  Co.  v.  Tonawanda, 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  103  N.  Y.  245,         707,  835,  840 
Metier  v.  Easton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  N.  J.  L. 

222,  1457 

Mettler  v.  Easton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  N.  J.  Eq. 

214,  1545,  1546,  1550 

Metz  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.,  58  N.  Y.  61,    105,  819 
Metz  v.  California,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Cal. 

329,  2605,  2609 

Metzgar  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Iowa 

3>7,  1895 

Metzger  v.  Attica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  N.  Y.  171, 

1243 

Metzler  v.  Hugde's  Road,  62  Pa.  St.  151,    1531 
Metzner  v.  Bauer,  98  Ind.  425,  770,  771,  798 

Meux's  Case,  2  DeG.,  M.  &  G.  522,  867 

Mexican,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cram,  6  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  702,  2707 

Mexican,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  32  S.  W.  R.  230,        1023,  2036,  2134 
Mexican,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lauricella,  87  Tex. 

277,  2476,  2568,  2600 

Mexican,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lauricella,  (Tex.) 

26  S.  W.  R.  301,  1829,  2562 

Mexican,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mussette,  86  Tex. 

708,  2047 

Mexican,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shean,  (Tex.)  18 

S.  W.  R.  151,  2015,  2054,  2087 

Meyer  v.  Amidon,  45  N.  Y.  169,  326 

Meyer  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mo.  542,  1882 
Meyer  v.  Blair,  109  N.  Y.  600,  133, 170, 198 

Meyer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Wis.  566, 

2353,  2359,  2383 
Meyer  v.  City  of  Muscatine,  1  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  384,  1249 

Meyer  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Fed. 

R.  116,  2455 

Meyer  v.  Harnden,  etc.,  Co.,  24  How.  Pr. 

290,  298 

Meyer  v.  Hornby,  101  U.  S.  728,  656,  1604 

Meyer  v.  Johnston,  53  Ala.  237, 

100,  455,  463,  464,  536,  640,  647,  648,  650, 653, 655, 

701,  736,  738,  782,  818,  833,  834,  835,  836,  841,  860 
Meyer  v.  Lemcke,  31  Ind.  208,  2373,  2374 

Meyer  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ind.) 

43  N.  E.  R.  448,  2720,  2721 

Meyer  v.  Muscatine,  1  Wall.  384, 

1158, 1219, 1239 
Meyer  v.  North  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 

Mo.  352,  1837 

Meyer  v.  Peck,  28  N.  Y.  590, 

2203,  2204,  2205,  2206 

Meyer  v.  Porter,  65  Cal.  67,  633,  1259 

Meyer  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Fed.  R. 

116,  2534,  2574,  2584,  2587 

Meyer  v.  State,  ex  rel.  Day,  125  Ind.  335,    1548 
Meyer  v.  Utah,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  3  Utah  280,  711 


III.  pp.  1263-216L,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  ei65-?725.] 

Meyer  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  La. 

Ann.  639,  1889, 1895, 1937,  2192 

Meyer,  etc.,  Drug  Co.  v.  McMahan,  50  Mo. 

App.  18,  2195 

Meyers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Iowa 

555,  974 

Meyers  v.  Seeley,  10  Nat.  Bank  Reg.  411,      115 
Meyerstein  v.  Barber,  L.  R.  2  C.  P.  38, 

2218,2220 
Miami,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  38  S.  Car.  78,  2694 

Miami  Coal  Co.  v.  Wigton,  19  Ohio  St.  560, 

1346 
Miami  Exporting  Co.  v.  Gano,  13  Ohio 

269,  795, 867 

Michael  v.  Roanoke,  etc.,  Works,  90  Va. 

492,  2022 

Michaels  v.  New  York  R.  Co.,  30  N.  Y.  564, 

2189,  2242,  2255,  2264,  2268,  2306 
Michoud  v.  Girod,  4  How.  (U.  S.)  502,  378 
Michigan  City  v.  Boeckling,  122  Ind.  39, 

1614,  1790 
Michigan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Flint,  etc.,  Co.,  28 

Chicago  Legal  News  6,  2668 

Michigan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rust,  68  Fed.  R.  155, 

1134 
Michigan  Ins.  Bank  v.  Eldred,  143  U.  S. 

293,  873, 874 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  20 

Mich.  244,  1900 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bacon,  33  Mich. 

466,  188 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnes,  40  Mich. 

383,  1473,  1483,  1487,  1555 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnes,  44  Mich. 

222,  1523,  1528,  1530 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bivens,  13  Ind. 

263,  2363 

Michigan  Cent,  R.  Co.  v.  Boyd,  91  111.  268,  2325 
Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burrows,  33 

Mich.  6,  2304,  2306,  2307 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campau,  35 

Mich.  468,  2144 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carrow,  73  111. 

348,  2608,  2609,  2611 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Caster,  13  Ind. 

164,  2421, 2693 

Michigan  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  1  Brad.  (111.  App.)  399, 

651,  655,  887,  2388 
Michigan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Coleman,  28  Mich. 

440,  308,  2008,  2478,  2590 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Curtis,  80  111. 

324,  2194, 2307 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Day,  20  111.  375, 

411,  2236,  2302, 2384 
Michigan,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Dolan,  32  Mich. 

510,  2073 


CCC11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


(References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  J-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  ttf-im,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27Z5.] 


Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher,  27  Ind. 

96,  1850, 1856 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gougar,  55  111. 

503,  367 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hale,  6  Mich.  243, 

2201,  2263,  2279,  2320 
Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Heaton,  37  Ind. 

448,  2317 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lantz,  29  Ind. 

528,  2567 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDonough,  21 

Mich.  165,  2173,  2280,  2348,  2398,  2399 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mellen,  44  Mich. 

321,  373 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meyers,  21  111. 

627,  2619 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Michigan  S.  R. 

Co.,  4  Mich.  361,  48 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oehm,  56  111.  293, 

2608,  2609,  2611 
Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  60  111. 

190,  2218 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Probate  Judge, 

48  Mich.  638,  1511 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Smithson,  45  Mich. 

212,  2014,  2016,  2169 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shurtz,  7  Mich. 

515,  2189,  2277,  2615 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ward,  2  Mich. 

538,  2368 

Mickee  v.  Walter  A.  Wood,  etc.,  Co.,  71 

Hun  569,  1998 

Mickey  v.  Stratton,  5  Sawyer  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

475,  555 

Mickles  v.  Rochester  City  Bank,  11  Paige 

(N.  Y.)  118,  244,  335,  859,  864 

Micou  v.  Moses,  72  Ala.  439,  778 

Micou  v.  Tallassee  C.  Co.,  47  Ala.  652,  48 

Middle  port  v.  Aetna  Life  Ins.  Co.,  82  111. 

562,  1143, 1215 

Middlesex,  etc.,  v.  Davis,  3  Met.  (Mass.) 

137,  ,23 

Middlesex  Manf.  Co.  v.  Lawrence,  1  All^n 

(Mass.)  339,  329 

Middlesex  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

115  Mass.  347,  100,  525,  569 

Middlesex  R.  Co.  v.  Wakefleld,  103  Mass. 

261,  1623 

Middlesex  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Locke,  8  Mass. 

268,  70 

Middleton  v.  Flat  Co.,  27  Mich. 

533,  1546 

Middleton  v.  Fowler,  1  Salk.  282,  2286 

Middleton  v.  Mullica  Tp.,  112  U.  S.  433,     1220 
Middleton  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 

N.J.Eq.269,  700 


Middleton  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95 

N.  Car.  167,  1029 

Middletown,  Matter  of,  82  N.  Y.  196, 

1477, 1478,  1479 

Midill  v.  Collier,  16  Ohio  St.  599,  271 

Midland  Nat.  Bank  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  (Mo.)  33  S.  W.  R.  521,  2221,  2222 

Midland  R.  Co.  v.  Ambergate  R.  Co.,  10 

Hare  359,  749 

Midland  Co.  v.  Bromley,  17  Com.  B.  372, 

2246,2629 

Midland  R.  Co.  v.  Daykin,  17  C.  B.  126,  1850 
Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher,  125  Ind. 

19,  559,  561,  1300, 1305, 1315, 1822 

Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gordon,  16  Mees. 

&  W.  804,  71 

Midland  R.  Co.  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 

8  Ch.  App.  841,  492 

Midland  Ry.  Co.  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

L.  R.  2  Eq.  524,  2663 

Midland  R.  Co.  v.  Miles,  L.  R.  30  Chan. 

Div.  634,  1444 

Midland  R.  Co.  v.  McDermid,  91  111.  170, 

880,882 
Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  109  Ind. 

488,  1493,  1500, 1502 

Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  113  Ind. 

233,  898, 1327, 1651 

Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  125  Ind. 

509,  1459 

Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  8  H.  L. 

Cases  751,  135 

Midland  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  122  Ind.  84, 

696,  1114,  1599,  1605,  1606 
Midland  Railroad  v.  Young,  22  Can.  S.  C. 

R.  190,  1295 

Midland  Township  v.  County  Board,  37 

Neb.  582,  1230 

Mierson  v.  Hope,  2  Sweeney  (N.  Y.)  561,  2272 
Mifflin  v.  Railroad  Co.,  16  Pa.  St.  182,  1407 
Miffiin  Bridge  Co.  v.  Juniata  County,  13 

L.  R.  A.  431,  1331 

Mikesell  v.  Durkee,  34  Kan.  509,  1271 

Milan  v.  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Lea 

329,  1216 

Milbank  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  64 

How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  20,  230,  250 

Milburn  v.  City  of  Cedar  Rapids,  12  Iowa 

246,  1633 

Milburn  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86 

Mo.  104,  1858, 1872 

Miles  v.  Bough,  3  Ad.  &  El.  (N.  S.)  845, 

208,209 

Milhauv.  Sharp,  27  N.  Y.  611,  1615 

Millan  v.  Maysville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  15  B. 

Mon.  (Ky.)  218,  182, 183 

Millar  v.  Madison  Co.,  130  Mo.  517,  2058 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCC111 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-WZ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Millard  v.  Burley,  13  Neb.  259,  647,  652 

Millard  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  N.  Y. 

441,  2612, 2613 

Millen  v.  Guerrard,  67  Ga.  284, 

421,  422,  423,  424 
Millaudon  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Rob.  (La.)  488,  263 

Miller's  Appeal,  1  Pennypacker  (Pa.  Sup. 

Ct.)  120,  254 

Miller  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  92  Tenn.  167, 

503 
Miller  v.  Auburn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Hill 

(N.Y.)61,  1323,1459 

Miller  v.  Barber,  66  N.  Y.  558,  20 

Miller  v.  Bradish,  69  Iowa  278,         431,  434,  435 
Miller  v.  Burlington,  8  Neb.  219,  299  ! 

Miller  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App. 

Rep.  474,  2187,  2266  ; 

Miller  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Iowa 

546,  1728,  1816, 1934 

Miller  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Fed.  R. 

305,  2155, 2159 

Miller  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Iowa 

318,  1934  I 

Miller  v.  County  Commissioners,  119 

Mass.  485,  1469 

Miller  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

Ga.  630,  2549  j 

Miller  v.  Ewer,  27  Me.  509,  24,  32,  33, 236  : 

Miller  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Ga.  563, 

286,  2436,  2437,  2438 
Miller  v.  Green  Bay  C.  R.  Co.,  (Minn.)  11 

Lewis  Am.  R.  &  Corp.  Rep.  246,  1396 

Miller  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

(Minn.)  26  L.  R.  A.  443,  65 

Miller  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Minn. 

169,  1408 

Miller  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  607,  2204,  2212 

Miller  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  N.  Y. 

430,  2203,  2207,  2301 

Miller  v.  Hanover,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Pa.  St. 

95,  173,198,253 

Miller  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  24  Barb. 

( N.  Y.)  312,  127,  320,  321,  430, 441 

Miller  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  Co.,  56  Iowa  374,  1126 

Miller  v.  Jones,  39  111.  54,  787 

Miller  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Iowa 

680,  1455, 1539 

Miller  v.  Lancaster,  5  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  514,    461 
Miller  v.  Loeb,  64  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  454,  799 

Miller  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  Ind. 

97,  1765,  1791, 1799 

Miller  v.  Mackenzie,  29  N.  J.  Eq.  291,  795 

Miller  v.  Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  Mo. 

517,  2012 

Miller  v.  Malony,  3  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  105,          211 


III,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 

Miller  v.  Mansfield,  112  Mass.  260, 

286,  2438,  2439,  2442 
Miller  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Iowa 

655,  1590,  1592 

Miller  v.  Newberg,  etc.,  Co.,  31  W.  Va.  836,  868 
Miller  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  18 

How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)374,  618 

Miller  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Barb. 

513,  954, 997 

Miller  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Hun 

623,  1760 

Miller  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y. 

118,  604 

Miller  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  R. 

431,  882 

Miller  v.  Pine  Min.  Co.,  2  Idaho  1206,    873, 875 
Miller  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  40 

Pa.  St.  237,  124, 168, 182, 183 

Miller  v.  Porter,  71  Ind.  521,  1500 

Miller  v.  Prairie  du  Chien,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

Wis.  533,  61,  1349,  1553 

Miller  v.  Preston,  4  N.  Mex.  314,  159 

Miller  v.  Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mo.  App. 

72,  1717 

Miller  v.  Ratterman,  47  Ohio  St.  141, 

121, 125,  226 
Miller  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Vt.  452, 

46, 324,  334,  351,  393,  525,  638,  641,  659;  701,  1351 
Miller  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  40  Vt. 

399,  634,  636,  725 

Miller  v.  Second,  etc.,  Assn.,  50  Pa.  St.  32,   253 
Miller  v.  Sharp,  37  Fed.  R.  161,  933 

Miller  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  33  S.  Car. 

359,  2236 

Miller  v.  Southern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  20  Ore. 

285,  2011,  2080,  2081 

Miller  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Mo.  389, 

1946 
Miller  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Minn. 

454,  1649 

Miller  v.  State,  15  Wall.  (U.  S.)  478,          89,  91 
Miller  v.  Steam,  etc.,  Co.,  10  N.  Y.  431, 

2241,  2265,  2469 

Miller  v.  Stewart,  9  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  680,       330 
Miller  v.  Swann,  89  Ala.  631,  1118, 1133 

Miller  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ind.) 

43  N.  E.  R.  257,          1739, 1757,  1771, 1783,  2724 
Miller  v.  Truesdale  56  Minn.  274,  1772 

Miller  v.  Union  Pac.  Railroad  Co..  17  Fed. 

R.  67,  2058 

Miller  v.  White,  50  N.  Y.  137,  259 

Miller  v.  Wildcat,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Ind.  541,       196 
Miller  v.  Wild  Cat,  etc.,  Co.,  52  Ind.  51, 

155, 163 
Miller  v.  Windsor  Water  Co.,  148  Pa.  St. 

429,  1383 


•CCC1V 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  l-M,  Vol.  II,  pp.  IM-1Z62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  U6S-S16U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2265-2725.] 


Millerstown  Borough  v.  Frederick,  114 

Pa.  St.  435,  1231 

Milligan,  Ex  parte,  4  Wall.  (U.  S.)  2,         930 
Milligan  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

U.  C.  C.  P.  115,  2306 

Milliken  v.  Whitehouse,  49  Me.  527,  258 

Milliman  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 

N.  Y.  642,  2455,  2545,  2549 

MiUoy  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

Out.  App.  404,  2273,  2277 

Mills  v.  Britton,  64  Conn.  4,  423 

Mills  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  Railroad  Co.,  10 

Misc.  R.  1,  1649 

Mills  v.  Catlin,  22  Vt.  98,  2152 

Mills  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  41  N.  J.  Eq.  1, 

454,  508,  569,  571,  572,  580 
Mills  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Wis. 

422,  1927 

Mills  v.  Gleason,  11  Wis.  493,  1070 

Mills  v.  Hopkins,  6  U.  C.  C.  P.  138,  1731 

Mills  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y. 

622,  2241,  2242,  2248,  2279 

Mills  v.  Northern  R.  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Ch. 

App.  Cas.  621,  430,  434,  436 

Mills  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Va.)  19 

S.  E.  R.  171,  1573 

Mills  v.  Orange,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  McArthur, 

285,  615 

Mills  v.  Parlin,  106  111.  60,  900 

Mills  v.  Paul,  (Tex.)  30  S.  W.  R.  558,  1600 

Mills  v.  Scott,  99  U.  S.  25,  1012 

Mills  v.  Stewart,  41  N.  Y.  384,  216,  218 

Millsaps  v.  City  of  Terrell,  60  Fed.  R.  193, 

1225 

Millsaps  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

Miss.  423,  2085 

MiUvale  v.  Evergreen  R.  Co.,  131  Pa.  St.  1,      5 
Millville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Goodwin,  (N.  J.)  32 

Atl.  R.  263,  904 

Milhvard,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  161  Pa.  St.  157,    481 
Milne  v.  Douglas,  4  McCrary  368,  2244 

Milne  v.  Douglas,  13  Fed.  R.  37,  2231 

Milner  v.  Pensacola,  2  Woods  (U.  S.)  632,  1180 
Milnes  v.  Gery,  14  Vesey  400,  562 

Milnor  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Ga.  385,   1576 
Milnor  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  355,  2494 

-Milnor  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  N.  Y. 

363,  44,  412,  2228,  2244,  2627 

Miltenberger  v.  Logansport  Ry.  Co.,  106 

U.  S.  256, 

677,  707,  708,  710,  755,  777,  814,  834,  836 
Miltimore  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Wis. 

190,  2406 

Milton  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Colo. 

App.  307,  2266 


Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Board  of  Super- 
visors, 48  Wis.  666,  1068, 1069 
Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arms,  91  U.  S. 

489,  2163 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brevoort,  73 

Mich.  155,  887 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brooks,  etc., 

Works,  121  U.  S.  430,  892 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Faribault, 

23  Minn.  167, 

108,  907, 1068, 1374,  1379,  1663,  1664 
Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eble,  4  Chand. 

(Wis.)  72,  1425,  1522 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Field,  12  Wis. 

340,  71, 124, 168,  192 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Finney,  10  Wis. 

388,  2578 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunter,  11  Wis.  • 

160,  1766, 1795 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kellogg,  94  U.S.   ' 

469,  1908,  1909,  2066,  2265 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kossuth  Co.,  41 

Iowa  57,  1209 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lynch,  Circuit 

Court  of  Oneida  Co.,  Wisconsin,  Oct.  15, 

1892,  2438 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Milwaukee,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  20  Wis.  165,  647,  762 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Soutter,  2  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  440,  690,  739,  750,  751,  753,  788,  830 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Soutter,  5  Wall. 

660,  737 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Strange,  63  Wis. 

178,  1328,  1449 

Mims  v.  Armstrong,  31  Md.  87,  646,  2328 

Mims  v.  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Ga.  333, 

1341,  1342,  1537 

Minard  v.  Douglas  Co.,  9  Ore.  206,  1091 

Miner  v.  Belle  Isle  Ice  Co.,  93  Mich.  97, 

239,  245,  362,  757,  862,  864 
Miner  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  123 

N.  Y.  242,  463 

Miner  v.  New  York  Cent.  &  H.  R.  R.  Co., 

46  Hun  612,  545 

Miner  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Conn. 

91,  2423 

Miners'  Bank  v.  United  States,  1  Greene 

(Iowa)  553,  90,  91 

Miners'  etc.,  Co.  v.  Zellerbach,  37  Cal.  543, 

503,564 
Miners',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Zellerbach,  99  Am. 

Dec.  300,  865 

Mine  Hill,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.    Lippincott,  86 

Pa.  St.  468,  1286 

Mineral  Point  R.  Co.  v.  Barron,  83  HI.  365, 

889,894 
Mineral  Point  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Keep,  22  111.  9,    32 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262.  Vol. 

Mineral  Range  R.  Co.v.  Detroit,  etc.,  Co., 

25  Fed.  R.  515,  930, 1348 

Mining   Co.    v.    Anglo  Californian,  etc., 

Bank,  104  U.  S.  192,  341,  395 

Mining  Co.  v.  Cullins,  104  U.  S.  176,  857,  858 
Mining  Co.  v.  Grant,  L.  R.  11  Ch.  Div.  918,  17 
Mining  Co.  v.  Spooner,  74  Wis.  307,  17 

Minor  v.  Mechanics'  Bank,  1  Pet.  46,  395 

Minneapolis  v.  Lundin,  58  Fed.  R.  525, 

2080,2091 

Minneapolis  v.  Wilkin,  30  Minn.  140,  1470 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis,  40  Minn. 

110,  154,  190 

Minneapolis  Harvester  Works  v.  Libby, 

24  Minn.  327,  224 

Minneapolis  Mill  Co.v.  Minneapolis,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  51  Minn.  304,  1325, 1326 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  36  Minn. 

48},  1691 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bassett,  20 

Minn.  535,  159 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beckwith,  129 

U.  S.  26,         31,  954, 1059,  1092, 1809,  1810,  1812 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  33  Minn.  62,  1798 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Emmons,  149 

U.  S.  364,  972 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Home  Ins.  Co., 

(Minn.)  66  N.  W.  R.  132,  2333 

Minneapolis,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Kanne,    32 

Minn.  174,  1479, 1510,  1535 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Milner,  57  Fed. 

R.  276,  907 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minneapolis, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Minn.  128,  1325,  1352 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minneapolis, 

W.  Ry.  Co.,  (Minn.)  63  N.  W.  1035,  1380 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  &5  Minn.  265,  1282 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  134  U.  S. 

467,  991 

Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woodworth, 

32  Minn.  452,  1506 

Minnehaha,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Legg,  50  Minn. 

333,  214 

Minnesota  v.  Barber,  136  U.  S.  313, 

977,  2647,  2651 
Minnesota  Co.  v.  St.  Paul  Co.,  2  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  609,  46,  536 

Minnesota,  etc.,    Oil  Co.  v.  Palmer,    20 

Minn.  468,  1103 

Minnesota,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis,  40  Minn. 

455,  1124,  1130 

Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doran,  17  Minn. 

188,  1427, 1428,  1429,  1430, 1431 

CORP. — xx 


III,  pp.  nsS-tlGlt,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gluek,  45  Minn. 

463,  1519 

Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McNamara,  13 

Minn.  508,  1427 

Minnesota,  etc.,R.  Co.  v.  Peterson,  31  Minn. 

42,  1553 

Minnetonka  Lake  Improvement,  In  re,  56 

Minn.  513,  1404 

Minnett  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Dill. 

(U.  S.)  460,  935 

Minnick  v.  Union  Insurance  Co.,  40  Fed. 

R.  369,  929 

Minock  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Mich. 

425,  2549 

Minor,  In  re,  69  Fed.  R.  233,  2637 

Minor  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Wis.  40, 

2618,  2629 
Minor  v.  Mechanics'  Bank,  1  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

46,  28, 374 

Minor  v.  Wright,  16  La.  Ann.  151,  1405 

Minot's  Case,  33  Alb.  L.  Jour.  106,  421 

Minot  v.  Paine,  99  Mass.  101,  422,  423,  428 

Minter  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  41  Mo.  503, 

2186,  2277,  2608,  2612,  2613 
Minter  v.  Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.,  56  Mo. 

App.  282,  2187 

Minty  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  2  Idaho  437,    2706 
Mire  v.  East  Louisiana  R.  Co.,  42  La.  Ann. 

385,  2047 

Mirriam  v.  Hartford  &  N.-  H.  R.  Co.,  20 

Conn.  354,  2190 

Mischke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  111. 

App.  472,  2019 

Mish  v.  Main,  81  Md.  36,  375,  852 

Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  58  Miss.  846,  455 

Mississippi,  etc.,  Boom  Co.  v.  Patterson, 

98  U.  S.  403,  930 

Mississippi  River  Bridge  Co.  v.  Ring,  58 

Mo.  49,  1514, 1533 

Mississippi  Mills  v.  Cook,  56  Miss.  40,         1060 
Mississippi  Home  Insurance  Co.  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Miss.  119,  1888 
Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ayres,  16  Lea 

725,  2152 

Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Byington,  14 

Iowa  572,  1548,  1551 

Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cross,  20  Ark. 

443,  170,  512,  873,  1263 

Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Devaney,  42 

Miss.  555,  1282, 1283 

Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fort,  44  Miss. 

423,  2696 

Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gaster,  20  Ark. 

455,  208,  220,  349 


CCCV1 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  J-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-W62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-H61,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  8165-2725.] 


Mississippi,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Harris,  36 

Miss.  17,  160, 162 

Mississippi,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Howard,  7 

Wall.  392,  476 

Mississippi,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  41 

Miss.  671,  2167,  2607,  2611,  2622 

Mississippi,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Louisville, 

etc.,  B.  Co.,  70  Miss.  119,  1900, 1923 

Mississippi,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.   Mason,  51 

Miss.  234,  1404, 1766,  2069 

Mississippi,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  McDonald,  12 

Heisk.  (Tenn.)  54,  1426 

Misssissippi,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Miller,  40 

Miss.  45,  1867 

Mississippi,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eosseau,  8 

Iowa  373,  1553 

Mississippi,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  United  States 

Express  Co.,  81  111.  534,  648,  891,  892 

Mississippi,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Ward,  2  Black 

(U.  S.)  485,  886 

Mississippi  Eiver,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Jones, 

54  Mo.  App.  529,  1482 

Mississippi  Val.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  St.  L.  & 

N.  O.  E.  E.  Co.,  58  Miss.  896,         465,  647,  652 
Mississippi  Society  v.  Musgrove,  44  Miss. 

820,  24 

Missouri,  The,  30  Fed.  E.  384,  2276 

Missouri  v.  Lewis,  101  U.  S.  22,  1059, 1092 

Missouri,  etc.,  Co., Inre,  L.  E. 42  Ch.  Div. 

321,  2330 

Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bradshaw,  33  Kan. 

533,  1809 

Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Carpenter,  44  Kan. 

257,  294 

Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Eckel,  49  Kan.  794,      1810 
Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  74 

m.  217,  983 

Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Humes,  115  U.  S.  512,  1810 
Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Eeinhard,  114  Mo. 

218,  24,  36,  236,  363 

Missouri,  etc.,E.  Co.  v.  Abney,  30  Kan.  41,    1885 
Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Ayers,  (Tex.)  8  S. 

W.  E.  538,  1930 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Baker,  14  Kan.  563, 

858,  1594 
Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  69  Tex. 

79,  1926 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  81  Tex. 

42,  1895 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Baxter,  42  Neb. 

793,  2042 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Baxter,  45  Kan. 

520,  1809, 1816, 1826 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Beeson,  30  Kan. 

298,  2210 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Belcher,  (Tex.)  35 
S.  W.  E.  6,  2199 


Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Brown,  14  Kan. 

557,  1595 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Cape  Girardeau, 

etc.,  Co.,  1  Interst.  Com.  E.  607,  2655 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Carter,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  29  S.  W.  E.  565,  2201 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Chilton,  (Tex.)  27 

S.  W.  E.  272,  831 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Cornell,  30  Kan. 

35,  1928 

Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Cullers,  81  Tex. 

382,  1910 

Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Douglas,  2  Tex. 

App.  (Civ.  Cas.)  32,  2198 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Dunham,  68  Tex. 

231,  1861 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Dwyer,  36  Kan. 

58,  .  2088 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Evans,  71  Tex. 

361,  2532 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Fennell,  79  Tex. 

448,  2301 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Finch,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  31  S.  W.  E.  84,  1760 

Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Finley,  38  Kan. 

550,  2651 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Fitterling,  79  Mo. 

594,  1843 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Foreman,  73  Tex. 

311,  2462 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Fulmore,  (Tex.) 

29  S.  W.  E.  688,  1930, 1943 

Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Gedney,  44  Kan. 

329,  1854, 1855 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  GUI,  49  Kan.  441,  1859 
Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Goode,  7  Tex.  C. 

App.  245,  1930 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Haines,  10  Kan. 

439,  1520 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Haines,  115  U.  S. 

512,  1812, 1912 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Haley,  25  Kan. 

35,  2104, 2115 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App. )  30  S.  W.  E.  679,  2034 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  E. 

Co.,  79  Mo.  478,  1881 

Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  B.  • 

Co.,  35  Mo.  84,  2192 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Harrelson,  44  Kan. 

253,  1810, 1811 

Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Haynes,  72  Tex. 

175,  2377 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Henry,  75  Tex. 

220,  2046 

Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Huff,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  32  S.  W.  E.  551,  2460 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[Vol.  I, pp.  1-V&,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-216!.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  72  Tex. 


95,  2473 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  97  U.  S.  491,  1118, 1126 

Missouri,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  (Tex.)  30  S. 

W.  R.  488,  1944 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kincaid,  29  Kan. 

654,  1925 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  24  Neb. 

848,  2006, 2134 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Long,  27  Kan-  684, 

1665,  1675 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mackey,  127  U.  S. 

205,  1059, 1095 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manson,  31  Kan. 

337,  A  1842, 1844 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martino,  2  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  604,  2488 

Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McFadden,(Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  32  S.  W.  R.  18,  2306 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLiney,  32  Mo. 

App.  166,  2392 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meithvein,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  33  S.  W.  R.  1093,  1051 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meyers,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  35  S.  W.  R.  421,  2592 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Miami  Co,.  12  Kan. 

230,  1210 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  8  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  241,  2458,  2480 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  35  S.  W.  R.  66,  2484,  2497 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.   v.  Patton,   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  25  S.  W.  R.  329,  2047,  2085 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peregoy,  36  Kan. 

424,  2077 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pierce,  39  Kan. 

391,  1753 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Platzer,  73  Tex. 

117,  1896, 1912 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Reynolds,  31  Kan. 

132,  1852, 1854 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reynolds,  (Tex.) 

26  S.  W.  R.  879,  1042 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ricketts,  45  Kan. 

617,  1840, 1860 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sherwood,  84  Tex. 

125,  2656, 2662 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shirley,  20  Kan. 

660,  1885 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simmons,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  33  S.  W.  R.  1096,  2460 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  84  Tex.  348, 

2694,  2695,  2696 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Somers,  71  Tex. 

700,  1999 


Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spellman,  (Tex.), 

34  S.  W.  R.  298,  2067 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stafford,  (Tex.) 

31  S.  W.  R.  319,  1945 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stoner,  5  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  50,  1021,  2249,  2253,  2441 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  Woods  (U.S.)  360,  1698 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  10  Fed.  R.  497,  1686,  1693 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  26  S.  W.  R.  873,  1944 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  30  Fed.  R.  2,  2645,  2672 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 

Co..  31  Fed.  R.  864,  2293 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  38  Fed.  R.  816,  1997 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  913,  2403 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 

Co  ,  41  Fed.  R.  917,  1942 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  33  S.  W.  R.  718,  2141 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trinity,  etc.,  Co., 

1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  553,  2429 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  (Tex.)  26 

S.  W.  R.  513,  2021 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ward,  10  Kan.  352, 

1455, 1544 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watts,  63  Tex. 

549,  610 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whi taker,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  33  S.  W.  R.  716,  2114 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White,  76  Tex. 

102,  2014 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  28  Kan. 

637,  1854, 1857 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  (Tex.)  35 

S.  W.  R.  879,  2028 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woods,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  31  S.  W.  R.  237,  2408 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  York,  (Tex.)  18 

Am,  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  623,  2309 

Missouri,  etc.,  Works  v.  Ellison,  30  Mo. 

App.  67,  555 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Barber,  44  Kan. 

612,  2126 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Barnes,  2  Tex. 

App.  (Civ.  Cas.)  507,  2701 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Beeson,  30  Kan. 

298,  2324, 2326 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Breeding,  4  Tex. 

App.  (Civil  Cas.)  217,  2251,  2310 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Bridges,  74  Tex. 

520,  1643,  1675,  1794 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.v.  Cady,  44  Kan.  633,    1891 


CCCV111 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-IA&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1,1,3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Callbreath,  66 

Tex.  526,  2016 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Carter,  85  Mo.  448, 

1463,  1468,  1492, 1527,  1528 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  25  Fed.  R.  317,  2169,  2175 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Collier,  62  Tex. 

318,  879, 881 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Coon,  15  Neb. 

232,  1519 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Douglas,  2  Tex. 

App.  (Civ.  Gas.)  32,  2182,  2192,  2700,  2701 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Eckel,  49  Kan. 

794,  1859 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Fagan,  72  Tex. 

127,  2279,  2321,  2327,  2371,  2401,  2411 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Fagan,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  27  S.  W.  R.  887,  2400 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Fennell,  79  Tex. 

448,  2205, 2206 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Finley,  38  Kan. 

550,  411, 2401 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Foreman,  73  Tex. 

311,  2547 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hansen,  (Neb.)  66 

N.  W.  R.  1105,  1969 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  1  Tex. 

App.  (Civ.  Cas.)  730,  2319 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  67  Tex. 

166,  2328,  2342,  2343 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hays,  15  Neb.  224, 

1422,  1427, 1431 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heidenheimer,  82 
Tex.  195, 

2199,  2214,  2219,  2221,  2363,  2392,  2393,  2473 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Holcomb,  44  Kan. 

332,  2552 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Humes,  115  U.  S. 

512,  973,  1019, 1031, 1465,  1883, 1885 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  International, 

etc.,  Co.,  84  Tex.  149,         2319,  2331,  2334,  2335 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Ivy,  71  Tex.  409, 

2508,  2509,  2510,  2511,  2515 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Ivy,  79  Tex.  444, 

2205,  2301,  2414 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  70  Tex.  496,     1733 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Mackey,  127  U.  S. 

205,  31 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Mackey,  33  Kan. 

298,  968. 2104 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.   v.  Maltby,  34  Kan. 

125,  894, 895 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McFadden,  154 
I   U.S.  155,  2181,2220 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Merrill,  40  Kan.  404, 

1934,  1937,  1945 


Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Moffatt,  (Kan.)  44 

Pac.  R.  607,  1749,  1750, 1755 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Morrow,  32  Kan. 

217,  608,  613,  1840,  1841,  1842,  1860, 1878 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Moseley,  57  Fed. 

R.  921,  1958,  1968, 1971,  2138 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Neiswanger,  41 

Kan.  621,  2479,  2591,  2592 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Renfro,  52  Kan. 

237,  1566 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Richmond,  73  Tex. 

568,  874 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Roads,  33  Kan. 

640,  1810,  1816,  1825,  1864 

Missouri  Pac.   R.  Co.  v.  Rushin,  3  Tex. 

App.  (C.  Cas.)  385,  2694 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Sharritt,  43  Kan. 

375,  888,  894,  895 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Sherwood,  84  Tex. 

125,  2236, 2319 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Sidell,  67  Fed.  R. 

464,  324,  481,  510,  585 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Stults,  31  Kan. 

752,  309,  310,  413 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Terry,  115  U.  S. 

523,  1883 

Missouri  Pac.   R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  31  Fed.  R.  862,  789,  2547,  2676 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Texas  &  P.  R.  Co., 

41  Fed.  R.  913,  1047,  2340,  2414 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Twiss,  35  Neb.  267, 

2256,  2257 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Tygard,  84  Mo.  263, 

176, 177, 183,  494,  527, 1308 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Vandeventer,  26 

Neb.  222,  2319 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Wemwag,  35  Mo. 

App.  449,  1533 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Whipsker,  77  Tex. 

14,  894 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Wichita,  etc.,  Co., 

55  Kan.  525,        224,  2175,  2234,  2346,  2354,  2700 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  45  Mo. 

App.  1,  1492 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Wortham,  73  Tex. 

25,  2546, 2596 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  25  Neb. 

651,  2176, 2241 

Missouri,  River  Co.  v.  Morris,  7  Kan.  210, 

1058 
Missouri  River  Packet  Co.  v.  Hannibal, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mo.  478,  1377 

Missouri  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miami 

County,  12  Kan.  230,  1211,  1217 

Missouri  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Owen,  8 

Kan.  409,  1457 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCC1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216&,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S7S5.] 


Missouri  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richards,  8 

Kan.  101,  326,  380 

Missouri  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shepard,  9 

Kan.  647,  1274, 1478, 1479 

Mitchell's  Case,  L.  R.  9  Eq.  363,  161 

Mitchell,  Ex  parte,  12  S.  Car.  83,  839 

Mitchell  v.  Beckman,  64  Cal.  117,    113, 165,  228 
Mitchell  v.  Boardman,  79  Me.  469,  925 

Mitchell  v.  Bridgewater,  10  Gush.  (Mass.) 

411,  1484 

Mitchell  v.  Burlington,  4  Wall.  274,  1168 

Mitchell  v.  Bunch,  2  Paige  Ch.  606,  764 

Mitchell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Mich. 

236,  2069,  2549,  2598 

Mitchell  v.  Deeds,  49  111.  416, 

30,  191,  390,  394,  444,  445 

Mitchell  v.  Ede,  11  Ad.  &  El.  888,        2215,  2222 
Mitchell  v.  Franklin,  etc.,  Tump.  Co.,  3 

Humph.  (Tenn.)  456,  1539 

Mitchell  v.  Crassweller,  13  C.  B.  237, 

301,  302,  303,  305 

Mitchell  v.  Holderners,  29  N.  H.  523,  1470 

Mitchell  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  111.  566, 

1445, 1524 

Mitchell  v.  Kavanaugh,  38  Iowa  286,  1572 

Mitchell  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

10  Q.  B.  256,  2274,  2278,  2328,  2368 

Mitchell  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  82  Mo. 

106,  1875 

Mitchell  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132 

Pa.  St.  226,  1976 

Mitchell  v.  Prange,  (Mich.)  67  N.  W.  R. 

1096,  2707 

Mitchell  v.  Rome  R.  Co.,  17  Ga.  574, 

159,  246,  474,  618 

Mitchell  v.  Smith,  1  Binney  (Pa.)  110,  521 

Mitchell  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  87  Cal. 

62,  2477 

Mitchell  v.  Tacoma,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Wash. 

120,  1644 

Mitchell  v.  United  States  Ex.   Co.,  46 

Iowa  214,  2205,  2347 

Mitchell  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  Co.,  67  N.  Y. 

280,  221 

Mitchell  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Ga. 

22,  2549 

Mix  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  111.  349, 

1438,  1441 

Mix  v.  Ross,  57  111.  121,  1099 

Mixter  v.  Imperial,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  152  Pa. 

St.  395,  2044,  2063 

Mizell  v.  Burnett,  4  Jones  L.  249,  1306 

Moaklerv.  Willamette,  etc.,  R.Co.,18Ore. 

189,  2563 

Moale  v.  Baltimore,  5  Md.  314,  1100 

Moberly  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98 

Mo.  183,  1653, 1659 


Mobile  v.  Watson,  116  U.  S.  289,  1166, 1168 
Mobile  v.  Yuille,  3  Ala.  137,  280 

Mobile  County  v.  Kimball,  102  U.  S.  691, 

1084,  2637,  2656 

Mobile,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Moseley,  52  Miss.  127,  1064 
Mobile,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sessions,  28  Fed.  R.  592, 

2645 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alabama  Midland 
R.  Co.,  87  Ala.  501, 

108,  908,  1378, 1380,  1392, 1393,  1394,  1687,  1699, 

1700 

Mobile,  etc. ,  R.  Co.  v.  Ashcraf  t,  48  Ala.  15,  1797 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnhill,  91  Tenn. 

395,  888 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Caldwell,  83  Ala. 

196,  1853, 1855 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Copeland,  63  Ala. 

219,  2227 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dale,  61  Miss.  206,  1025 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davj,s,  62  Miss.  271, 

709,  813,  817,  818,  819,  831 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Francis,  (Miss.)  9 

So.  R.  2234,  2412 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Franks,  41  Miss.  494, 

57,  476,  505 

MobQe,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  George,  94  Ala.  199,  2116 
Mobile  &  M.  Ry.  Co.v.  Gilmer,  85  Ala.  422,  460 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Godfrey,  155  111.  78,  2716 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gunn,  68  Miss.  366,  1852 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holborn,  84  Ala.  133, 

2113,  2116 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hopkins,  41  Ala. 

486,  2148,  2316,  2515,  2600,  2629 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Humphries,  (Miss.) 

7  So.  R.  522,  ia5 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jarboe,  41  Ala.  644, 

2213,  2320,  2329 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jurey,  111  U.  S.  584, 

2198,  2202,  2325,  2335 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Mullins,  70  Miss. 

730,  2405 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholas,  98  Ala.  92,  234 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  132  111.  559, 

922,  958, 1002, 1308 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prewitt,  46  Ala.  63,  2278 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  59  Ala.  245, 

2025,  2080,  2084 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  29  Ala.  573, 

89,  235,  861 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  51  Miss.  137, 

971,1044 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Steiner,  61  Ala.  349, 

559,  2431 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Talman,  15  Ala,  472, 

64,  639 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  42  Ala.  672, 

1996,  2025,  2027,  2063,  2473 


cccx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[  Vol.  I,  pp.  i-ua,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  iM-1%62,  Vol.  in,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  iv,  pp. 


Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tupelo,  etc.,  Co.,  67 
\  Miss.  35,  2250 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tennessee,  153  U.  S. 

486,  434, 1063, 1064, 1088 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watly,  69  Miss.  145,   1969 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woiner,  49  Miss. 
'  725,  2167,  2181,  2201,  2320,  2321,  2324 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  53  Ala. 

595,  1806, 1870, 1872,  2168,  2694 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wisdom,  5  Heisk. 

125,  596,920,2692 

Mobile,  etc.,  R  Co.  v.  Yandal,  5  Sneed 

(Tenn.)294,  162 

Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yeates,  67  Ala.  164,       5 
Mobley  v.  Breed,  48  Ga.  44,  1463 

Mock  v.  Muncie,  9  Ind.  App.  536,  1102 

Moers  v.  Reading,  21  Pa.  St.  188,  1147 

Moffat  v.  Winslow,  7  Paige  124,  336 

Moffat  v.  Farquhar,  L.  R.  7  Ch.  Div.  591, 

147,  228 
Moffat  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  15  L.  T. 

630,  2399 

Moffat  v.  Tenney,  17  Colo.  189,  2117 

Moggy  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  Mani- 
toba 209,  1653,  1669 
Mogul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGregor,  L.  R  21 

Q.  B.  D.  544,  2283,  2664 

Mohawk  Bridge  Co.  v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

6  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  554,  62, 1377, 1381 

Mohawk,  Propeller,  8  Wall.  (U.  S.)  153,     2445 
Mohawk,  etc.  R.  Co.,  Exparte,  19  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  135,  229 

Mohawk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Artcher,  6  Paige 

83,  1663 

Mohawk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clute,  4  Paige 

Ch.  384,  114,  1058 

Mohr  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Iowa  579, 

2279,2382 

Moise  v.  Chapman,  24  Ga.  249,  796 

Mokelumne  Hill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wood  bury,  14 

Cal.  424,  27 

Molair  v.  Railway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  S.  Car. 

510,  1850 

Mollison  v.  Lockhart,  30  N.  Brunswick 

398,  2394 

Monadnock  R.  Co.  v.  Felt,  52  N.  H.  379,       158 
Monadnock  R.  Co.  v.  Peterborough,  49 

N.  H.  281,  1194 

Monaghan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

Hun  113.  2089 

Monahan  v.  Keoknk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Iowa 

523,  1851 

Mondego,  The,  56  Fed.  R.  268,  2407 

Moneypenny  v.  Sixth  Avenue  R.  Co.,  4 

Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  357,  10 

Monhanan  v.  Worcester,  150  Mass.  439,        301 
Monk  v.  Jenkins,  2  Hill  Ch.  9,  990 


Monmouth,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hutchinson, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  N.  J.  Eq.  108,  1916 

Monmouthshire  B.  Co.  v.  Williams,  27  L. 

T.  R.  134,  2435 

Monongahela,  etc.,  Co,  v.  Coons,  6  Watts 

&  S.  101,  103 

Monongahela  Bridge  Co.  v.  Kirk,  46  Pa. 

St.  112,  56, 1401 

Monongahela  Navigation  Co.  v.  Fenlon, 

4  Watts  &  S.  205,  1576, 1581 

Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

148  U.  S.  312,  1380,  1413, 1419, 1425 

Monroe  v.  Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

Mich.  272,  168 

Monroe  v.  The  Iowa,  50  Fed.  R.  561,  2331 

Monsseaux  v.  Urquhart,  19  La.  Ann.  482, 

142,226 
Montana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Helena,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  6  Mon.  416,  1267 

Montana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Langlois,  9  Mont. 

419,  2672 

Montana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warren,  6  Mont. 

275,  1514 

Montandon  v.  Deas,  14  Ala.  33,  1596 

Montclair  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

N.  J.  Eq.  436,  722,  954 

Montclair,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benson,  36  N.  J. 

L.  557,  1513, 1516 

Montclair  Tp.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

N.  J.  Eq.  (18  Stew.)  436,  66 

MonteUo,  The,  20  Wall.  430,  2637 

Monterey,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  HUdredth,  53 

Cal.  123,  155 

Montgomery,  In  re,  48  Fed.  R.  896,  1415 

Montgomery  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97 

Ala.  305,  1959 

Montgomery  v.  Exchange  Bank,  (Pa.)  6 

Atl.  133,  247 

Montgomery  v.  Forbes,  148  Mass.  249,  271 

Montgomery  v.  Lansing,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Mich.)  61  N.  W.  R.  543,  1646 

Montgomery  v.  Phillips,  (N.  J.)  31  Ati. 

R.  622,  855 

Montgomery  v.  Santa  Ana,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  104  Cal.  186,  8,1633 

Montgomery  v.  Sayre,  65  Ala.  564,  1070 

Montgomery  v.  Wasem,  116  Ind.  343,  2715 

Montgomery,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  Council  of 

Montgomery,  87  Ala.  245,  478 

Montgomery,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dienelt,  133  Pa. 

St.  585,  851 

Montgomery,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hardaway, 

(Ala.)  16  So.  R.  29,  306 

Montgomery,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Montgomery, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Ala.  372,  1589, 1766 

Montgomery  Gravel  Road  Co.  v.  Stock- 
ton, 43  Ind.  328,  1440 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXl 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boring,  51 

Ga.  582,  469,  2477 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Branch,  59 

Ala.  139,  462,  466,  868 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Culver,  75 

Ala.  578,  2246,  2251,  2380,  2628,  2631 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Edmonds,  41 

Ala.  667,  2328,  2333,  2700,  2702 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hurst,  9  Ala. 

513,  3%,  307 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kolb,  73  Ala. 

396,  2182,  2187,  2192,  2274 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mathews,  77 

Ala.  357,  193,  194, 195 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  51  Ala. 

394,  2242,  2244,  2381 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perryman,  91 

Ala.  413,  1856 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sayre,  72  Ala. 

443,  1465, 1511 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stewart,  91 

Ala.  421,  2548 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  77 

Ala.  448,  2589 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Varner,  19 

Ala.  185,  1521 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walton,  14 

Ala.  207,  905 

Montgomery,  etc.,  Soc.  v.  Francis,  103  Pa. 

St.  378,  634 

Monticello  v.  Banks,  48  Ark.  251,  1102 

Montpelier,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Langdon,  46 

Vt.  284,  167 

Montrose,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dodson,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  76  Iowa  172,  2388 

Monument,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Globe  Works,  101 

Mass.  57,  486,  643 

Mooar  v.  Walker,  46  Iowa  164,  891 

Moody  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77 

Iowa  29,  1864 

Mooers  v.  Kennebec,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Me. 

279,  1536 

Mooers  v.  Smedley,  6  Johns.  Ch.  28,  1103 

Moon  v.  Northern  Pac.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 

Minn.  106,  2014 

Moon  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Va. 

745,  2010,  2076,  2079 

Mooney  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  145,  1632 

Mooney  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  Co.,  60  Iowa 

346,  893, 894 

Moor  v.  Anglo-Italian  Bank,  L.  R.  10  Ch. 

Div.  681,  649 

Moore  v.  Bank,  52  Mo.  377,  134,  277 

Moore  v.  Boston,  8  Gush.  274,  1459 

Moore  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N.  Y. 

98,  75 


III,  pp.  1263-2161.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  1165-2725.] 

Moore  v.  Campbell,  111  Ind.  328,  176 

Moore  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Iowa  688, 

1789 
Moore  v.  Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  24  N.  J.  Law 

268,  2069 

Moore  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Iowa 

385,  894 

Moore  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Neb.  476, 

104o 
Moore  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Wis.  120, 

1901, 1912, 1930 

Moore  v.  City  of  Albany,  98  N.  Y.  396,  1565 
Moore  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  S.  Car. 

1,  2576, 2577 

Moore  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co,  69  Iowa 

491,  2470 

Moore  v.  Edison,  etc.,  Co.,  43  La.  Ann.  792, 

2563,2704 
Moore  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Corp.,  4  Gray 

(Mass.)  465,  299,  2577,  2578 

Moore  v.  Garwood,  4  Ex.  681,  20 

Moore  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

L.  R.  10  Ir.  95,  2403 

Moore  v.  Green,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Phila.  (Pa.) 

417,  1468 

Moore  v.  H.  Gaus,  etc.,  Co.,  113  Mo.  98,  400 
Moore  v.  Hanover  Junction  R.  Co.,  94  Pa. 

St.  324,  184 

Moore  v.  Henry,  18  Mo.  App.  35, 

2209,  2253,  2441 
Moore  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126  Mo. 

265,  1644 

Moore  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Iowa 

223,  1771 

Moore  v.  Lent,  81  Cal.  502,  387 

Moore  v.  Mayor,  8  N.  Y.  110,  1485 

Moore  v.  Mayor,  3  La.  Ann.  645,  1766 

Moore  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  8  Q. 

B.  36,  1992 

Moore  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  5  N.  Y. 

Supp.  192,  221,  912 

Moore  v.  New  Orleans,  32  La.  Ann.  726,  1258 
Moore  v.  New  York,  4  Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  456,  1487 
Moore  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Va.  489,  2068 
Moore  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  (W.  Va.)  23  S. 

E.  R.  539,  2519 

Moore  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  167  Pa.  St.  495, 

2009 

Moore  v.  Rawson,  3  Barn.  &  Cr.  332,  1290 

Moore  v.  Roberts,  64  Wis.  538,  1460,  1551 

Moore  v.  Robinson,  62  Ala.  537,  2214,  2219 

Moore  v.  Ryder,  65  N.  Y.  438,  555 

Moore  v.  Sanford,  151  Mass.  285,  1338, 1460 
Moore  v.  Sargent,  112  Ind.  484,  664 

Moore  v.  Schoppert,  22  W.  Va.  282,  4,  869 

Moore  v.  Silver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  N.  C,  534, 

240,241 


CCCX11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-442,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  126S-216&,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Moore  v.  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Wis.  173, 

1343 

Moore  v.  Tate,  87  Term.  725,  1010 

Moore  v.  Taylor,  42  Hun  45,  1585 

Moore  v.  Town  of  Edgefleld,  32  Fed.  R.  498, 

1258 
Moore  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S,  270, 

2638,2640 

Moore,  etc.,  Hardware  Co.v.  Towers  Hard- 
ware Co.,  87  Ala.  206,  21,  335 
Moore  v.  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,  111  U.  S. 

156,  117, 118,  144,  396 

Moorehead  v.  Little  Miami  R.  Co.,  17 

Ohio  340,  1282,  1285,  1545 

Moose  v.  Carson,  104  N.  Car.  431,  1C29 

Moran  v.  Commissioners,  2  Black  722, 

1236,1239 

Moran  v.  Hagerman,  64  Fed.  R.  499,  669 

Moran  v.  Lydecker,  27  Hun  (N.  Y.)  582, 

77,  790, 1352 
Moran  v.  Lydecker,  11  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.) 

298,  846 

Moran  v.  New  Orleans,  112  U.  S.  69, 

1076, 1078, 1079, 1083 
Moran  v.  Pittsburgh,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co., 

32  Fed.  R.  878,  653 

Moran  v.  Ross,  79  Cal.  159,  2,  10,  1341, 1424 

Moran  v.  Sturges,  154  U.  S.  256,  763 

Morbach  v.  Home  Min.  Co.,  53  Kan.  731,      246 
More  v.  Lott,  13  Nev.  376,  2394 

Moreau  v.  DuBellett,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  27 

S.  W.  R.  503,  797 

Morehead  v.  Brown,  6  Jones  (N.  Car.)  367,  2275 
Morel  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Bush 

535,  2563 

Moreland  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141  Mass. 

31,  2478 

Morelock  v.  Westminister  Water   Co., 

(Md.)4Atl.  R.  404,  246 

Morey  v.  Lockhart,  123  U.  S.  56,  948 

Morgan's  Appeal,  39  Mich.  675,  1446,  1527 

Morgan  v.  Bank,  8  Yerg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  73,         148 
Morgan  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Pa.  St.) 

16  AtL  R.  353,  2550 

Morgan  v.  Chicago,  etc. ,  R.  Co. ,  76  Mo.  161 ,  1602 
Morgan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Mich. 

428,  1479, 1482 

Morgan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Mich. 

675,  1145,  1529 

Morgan  v.  Commonwealth,  55  Pa.  St.  456,    1258 
Morgan  v.  DesMoines.etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa 

589,  1631,  1632,  1676 

Morgan  v.  Donovan,  58  Ala.  241,      646,  647,  652 
Morgan  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

48  Fed.  R.  705,  44 

Morgan  v.  Hardee,  71  Ga.  736,  826 


Morgan  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  Co.,  133  N.Y. 

666,  287, 2016 

Morgan  v.  Illinois,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  5  Dill 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  96,  1983 

Morgan  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  15  Fed.  R. 

55,  670 

Morgan  v.  London,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  12  Q.B. 

D.  201,  2110 

Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  U.  S.  217, 

61,  97,  99,  458,  702,  717,  869, 1066,  1067, 1341 
Morgan  v.  Martien,  32  Mo.  438,  667 

Morgan  v.  Neville,  74  Pa.  St.  52,  894 

Morgan  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Woods  244,  2312 

Morgan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Paige 

(N.  Y.)  290,  262,  850 

Morgan  v.  Parham,  16  Wall.  471,  1076 

Morgan  v.  Railroad  Co.,  96  U.  S.  716, 

1304, 1316,  1317,  1318, 1319,  1417 
Morgan  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1  Woods  (U.  S.) 

15,  877 

Morgan  v.  Sears,  159  Mass.  570,  2109 

Morgan  v.  Skiddy,  62  N.  Y.  319,  384,  386,  387 
Morgan  v.  Smith,  159  Mass.  570,  2083 

Morgan  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Cal. 

510,  2151 

Morgan  v.  Struthers,  131  U.  S.  246,  133 

Morgan  v.  Turner,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  192,  107 
Morgan  v.  United  States,  113  U.  S.  476,  626 
Morgan  Co.  v.  Thomas,  76  111.  120, 

705,  1206,  1210 
Morgan  County  v.  Allen,  103  U.  S.  498, 

1206, 1210, 1263 
Morgan's,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  etc.,  118 

U.  S.  455,  952,  2648 

Morgan  Civil  Township  v.  Hunt,  104  Ind. 

590,  1529 

Morgan's   Louisiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Bourdier,  1  McGloin  (La.)  232,        1479, 1489 
Morgan's  Louisiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas 

Central  R.  Co.,  137  U.  S.  171,         685,  710,  836 
Moriarity  v.  Kent,  71  Ind.  601,  795 

Moriarty  v.  Central  Iowa  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa 

646,  1841 

Moriarty  v.  Harnden's  Express,  1  Daly 

(N.  Y.  C.  P.)  227,  2280 

Morier  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Minn. 

351,  302,  305, 1905 

Morin  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn. 

100,  1420, 1427, 1446 

Morison  v.  Gray,  2  Bing.  260,  2392 

Moritzv  Miller,  87  Ala.  331,  774,775 

Morley  v.  Hay,  3  M.  &  Ryland  396,  2391 

Morling  v.  Bronson,  37  Neb.  608,  665 

Morning  Light,  The,  2  Wall.  560,  2299 

Morrell  v.  Dixfield,  30  Me.  157,  246 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCX111 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1S62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2M,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Morrill  v.  Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  55  N.  H. 

531,  498,  525,  2663 

Morrill  v.  C.  T.,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Hun  543,  364 

Morrill  v.  Little  Falls,  etc.,  Co.,  53  Minn. 

371,  114,  227,  231 

Morrill  v.  Noyes,  56  Me.  458,  536,  655 

Morrill  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Mo.  174, 

561,  1311 

Morris  v.  Brown,  111  N.  Y.  318,  2449 

Morris  v.  Cheney,  51  111.  451,  211 

Morris  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Fed.  R. 

22,  1670, 1737, 1738, 1739 

Morris  v.  Chicago,  11  111.  650,  1553 

Morris  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Iowa 

727,  1023, 2132 

Morris  v.  Comptroller,  54  N.  J.  Law  268,    1470 
Morris  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst. 

Com.  Rep. ,  2408 

Morris  v.  Gleason,  1  111.  App.  510,  2068 

Morris  v.  Keil,  20  Minn.  531,  556 

Morris  v.  Merrel,  44  Neb.  423,  1208 

Morris  v.  Metaline  Land  Co.,  164  Pa.  St. 

326,  218, 220 

Morris  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Tex. 

17,  885 

Morris  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  N.  Y. 

678,  2598, 2704 

Morris  v.  Schallsville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Bush  (Ky.)  448,  1273 

Morris  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Mo. 

78,  1836, 1838 

Morris  v.  Stephens,  46  Pa.  St.  200,  552 

Morris  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Wis. 

541,  1402 

Morris,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  16  N.  J. 

Eq.  419,  1501 

Morris,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nathan,  2  Hall  (N.  Y.) 

239,  174 

Morris  Canal  Co.  v.  State,  24  N.  J.  L.  62,   1376 
Morris  Canal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fisher,  64  Am. 

Dec.  423,  627,  632,  634 

Morris  Canal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fisher,  1  Stockt. 

Ch.  (N.  J.)  667,  626 

Morris  Canal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Seward,  23  N.  J. 

Law  219,  1454 

Morris  Canal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Van  Vorst's 

Admx.,  21  N.  J.  L.  100,  328,  330 

Morris  Run  Coal  Co.  v.  Barclay  Coal  Co., 

68  Pa.  St.  173,  500,  526 

Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ayres,  29  N.  J.  Law 

393,  277,  282,  286,  288,  2274,  2278,  2358 

Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blair,  9  N.  J.  Eq. 

635,  1266, 1267, 1276,  1421,  1626 

Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bonnell,  34  N.  J.  L. 

474,  1304,  1511 


Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  31  N.  J.  L.  205, 

62,  512, 1268, 1270, 1285, 1369, 1373, 1386, 1680, 
1681, 1682, 187& 
Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haslan,  33  N.  J. 

Law  147,'  1786 

Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hudson,  etc.,  Co., 

25  N.  J.  Eq.  384,  1273,  1549 

Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newark,  10  N.  J. 

Eq.  352,  57, 1633,  167& 

Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newark,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  51  N.  J.  Eq.  379,  1713 

Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prudden,  20  N.  J. 

Eq.  530,  1651 

Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  36  N.  J.  L. 

553,  1888 

Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sussex  R.  Co.,  20 

N.  J.  Eq.  542,  57,  474,  507,  522 

Morriss  v.  Virginia  Insurance  Co.,  85  Va. 

588,  778 

Morrissey  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  126  Mass.  377, 

1952, 1958, 1966, 1973,  197& 
Morrissey  v.  Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

R.  1. 271,  1828- 

Morrison,  In  re,  10  Nat.  Bank  Reg.  105,        151 
Morrison  v.  Buckner,  1  Hempst.  (U.  S.) 

442,  743, 744 

I   Morrison  v.  Bucksport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Me. 

353,  1405, 1406 

Morrison  v.  Davis,  20  Pa.  St.  171,         2268,  2307 
Morrison  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  N.  Y.  302, 

2550 
Morrison  v.  Inhabitants,  etc.,  of  Bernards, 

36  N.  J.  L.  219,  632 

Morrison  v.  Jacoby,  114  Ind.  84,  1071 

Morrison  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  568,  1873 

Morrison  v.  Phillips,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Wis.  405, 

2324,2339,2407 
Morrow  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Mo. 

App.  432,  1874 

Morrow  v.  Iron,  etc.,  Co.,  87  Tenn.  262, 

128, 170 
Morrow  v.  Nashville, etc.,  Co.,  87  Tenn. 

262,  128, 170 

Morrow  v.  Sweeney,  10  Ind.  App.  626, 

1947, 1955 

Morse  v.  Beale,  68  Iowa  463,  555 

Morse  v.  Brainerd,  41  Vt.  550,  412 

Morse  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  30  Minn. 

465,  1796 

Morse  v.  Morse,  44  Vt.  84,  617 

Morse  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Vt.  49, 

1803, 1&50 

Morss  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Cash.  536, 

561, 1297, 1?<07 


CCCXIV 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


\Heferences  are  to  ^ages.} 

[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-lMS,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S725.] 
irtimAr  v.  T^nnisvilln.  fit/-      Tt_    Co..  10  Motnl  v.  Ki*fch  Avfi.  R.  fY>..  99  N.  Y.  R32.       1 


Mortimer  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Bush  485,  1813 

Mortland  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81 

Hun  473,  2618 

Morton  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  81  Mich. 

423,  2010, 2013 

Morton  v.  Franklin  Co.,  62  Me.  455,  1498 

Morton  v.  Mutual,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  105  Mass. 

141,  936 

Morton  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  79 

Ala.  590,  626,  629,  674,  706 

Morton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wysong,  51  Ind.  4, 

234,278 
Morville  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  123  Mass. 

129,  503 

Moseby  v.  Burrow,  52  Tex.  396, 

797,  852,  859,  861 
Moser  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Minn. 

480,  1835,  1864 

Moses  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  N.  H.  523, 

2277,  2278,  2356,  2366 
Moses  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  H.  71, 

540,  2182,  2189,  2322 
Moses  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  La. 

Ann.  649,  2479,  2590,  2591 

Moses  v.  McFerlan,  2  Burr.  1005,  1251 

Moses  v.  Norris,  4  N.  H.  304,  2264 

Moses  v.  Ocee  Bank,  1  Lea  (Tenn.)  398,        258 
Moses  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  111. 

515,  62, 1632 

Moses  v.  Port  Townsend,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5 

Wash.  595,  2253,  2441 

Moses  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  18  Ore.  385, 

1803,  1805,  1807, 1834, 1863 
Moses  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Dock  Co.,  84  Mo. 

242,  1483,  1494, 1559 

Moses  v.  Tompkins,  84  Ala.  613, 

218,  219,  340,  370,  912 

Moses  v.  Tompkins,  (Ala.)  4  So.  R.  763,        205 
Moshannon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sloan,  109  Pa.  St. 

5:52,  400 

Mosher  v.  Independent,  etc.,  District,  44 

Iowa  122,  1176 

Mosher  v.  Southern  Ex.  Co.,  38  Ga.  37, 

2227,  2238 
Mosher  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  127  U.  S. 

390,  496,  2483,  2493,  2496 

Moshier  v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Barb.  427,   1859 
Moss's  Appeal,  83  Pa.  St.  264,  422,  440 

Moss  v.  Averell,  10  N.  Y.  449,  1292 

Moss  v.  McCullough,  5  Hill  (N.  Y.)  131,       259 
Moss  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Mo.  167, 

2025,2035 

Moss  v.  Syers,  32  L.  J.  Ch.  711,  120 

Mostyn  v.  Fabrigas,  1  Cowp.  161,  s.  c. 

Smith's  Lead.  Cases  652,  885 

Mote  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Iowa  22, 

1882,  2616,  2618,  2629 


Motol  v.  Sixth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  99  N.  Y.  632,  1980 
Mott  v.  Consumers'  Ice  Co.,  73  N.  Y.  543,  1990 
Mott  v.  Hicks,  1  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  513,  32,  383 

Mott  v.  Union  Bank,  38  N.  Y.  18,  107 

Mott  v.  United  States  Trust  Co.,  19  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  568,  356 

Mottram  v.  Heyer,  5  Denio  629,  2393 

Motz  v,  Detroit,  18  Mich.  494,  1102, 1103 

Moulder  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ohio 

C.  P.)  1  Ohio  N.  P.  361,  1710 

Moulton  v.  Evansville,  25  Fed  R.  382, 

1152, 1207, 1209, 1244, 1247 

Moulton  v.  Gage.  138  Mass.  390,  2113 

Moulton  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Minn. 

85, 

2264,  2317,  2336,  2337,  2339,  2399,  2402, 2404,  2405, 

2406 

Moultrie  v.  Fairfield,  105  U.  S/370,  1159 

Moultrie  County  v.  Rockingham,  etc., 

Bank,  92  U.  S.  631,  1240,  1243, 1444 

Mound  City,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Conlon,  92  Mo. 

221,  1096, 2083 

MoundsviUe  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  (W. 

Va.)  20  L  R.  A.  161,  913 

Moundsville  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  37  W. 

Va.  92,  918,  1667, 1668 

Mouritz  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Fed. 

R.  765,  2482 

Mousseaux  v.  Urquhart,  19  La.  Ann.  482,  229 
Mowbray  v.  Antrim,  123  Ind.  24,  330,  399 

Mower  v.  Kemp,  42  La.  Ann.  1007,  639 

Mower  v.  Staples,  32  Minn.  284,  71 

Mowrey  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Biss.  (U.  S  )  78,  66,  69,  89,  454 

Mowry  v.  Hawkins,  57  Conn.  453,  146 

Moxley  v.  Canada,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Ont. 

App.  309,  1936 

Moxley  v.  Shepard,  3  Cal.  64,  1603 

Moyer  v.  East  Shore,  etc.,  Co.,  25  L.  R.  A. 

48,  275 

Moyer  v.  East  Shore,  etc.,  Co.,  41  S.  Car. 

300,  276, 395 

Moyer  v.  Ft.  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  132 

Ind.  88,  703,  706 

Moyer  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

88  N.  Y.  351,  1402 

Moyers  v.  Coiner,  22  Fla.  422,  824 

Moynihan  v.  Hills  Co.,  146  Mass.  586,  2110 
Mozley  v.  Alston,  1  Phill.  790,  &12 

Mt.  Holley  Paper  Co.'s  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St. 

513,  149 

Mt.  Pleasant  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

138  Pa.  St.  365,  1103 

Mt.  Pleasant  v.  Beckwith,  100  U.  S.  514, 

455,  1187 
Mt.  Pleasant,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cape  Fear,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  106  N.  Car.  207,  2253,  2429,  2431 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Mt.  Sterling,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Little,  14  Bush 

(Ky.)  429,  153, 154 

Mt.  Sterling,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Looney,  1  Mete. 

(Ky.>550,  390,395 

Mt.  Vernon  Co.  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

92  Ala.  296,  2189, 1293 

Mt.  Vernon  v.  Hovey,  52  Ind.  563, 

189, 1163,  1199, 1224, 1254 
Mt.  Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Petition  of, 

35  N.  H.  134,  1335, 1429,  1436,  1441,  1465 

Muckle  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Hun 

32,  2497 

Mud  Creek,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  43  Ind.  236,      85 
Mudgett  v.  Bay  State  Steamboat  Co.,  1 

Daly  (N.  Y.)  151,  2621 

Mudgett  v.  Horrell,  33  Gal.  25,  163,  228 

Mueller  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.) 

63  N.  W.  R.  416,  2707 

Mueller  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Mo. 

262,  1560 

Mueller  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Wis. 

340,  1648 

Mugler  v.  Kansas,  123  U.  S.  623,    966,  2272,  2647 
Muhl  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Ohio  St. 

272,  2126, 2136 

Muhle  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Tex. 

459,  1287, 1289 

Muhlenberg  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  47  Pa.  St.  16,  625 

Muhlman  v.  Union  Pacific  Co.,  2  L.  A.  R. 

192,  406 

Muire  v.  Falconer,  10  Gratt.  (Va.)  12,         1482 
Muirhead  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

Mo.  251,  2043 

Mulcahey  v.  Strauss,  151  111.  70,  666,  803 

Mulchahey  v.  Washburn,  etc.,  Co.,  145 

Mass.  281,  2129,  2131 

Muldoon  v.  Seattle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Wash. 

528,  2514,  2516,  2557,  2601,  2603 

Muldoon  v.  Seattle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Wash. 

311,  2523,  2524,  2525,  2601,  2602 

Muldowney  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

Iowa  615,  2001,  2042 

Mulhado  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  30  N.  Y. 


370, 


2713 


Mulhern  v.  Lehigh  Coal  Co.,  161  Pa.  St. 

270,  2074 

Mulherrin  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81 

Pa.  St.  366,  1957 

Mull  v.  Jones,  33  Kan.  112,  889 

Mullan  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  P..  Co.,  78 

Pa.  St.  25,  2078 

Mullan  v.  Wisconsin  Cent.  R.  Co.,  46 Minn. 

474,  2585 

Mullanphy  Bank  v.  Schott,  135  111.  655,  855 
Mullen  v.  City  of  Owosso,  100  Mich.  103,  1799 


Mullen  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  127  Mass.  86, 

2150 
Mullen  v.  St.  John,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  N.  Y. 

567,  1984 

Mullen  v.  Steamship  Co.,  78  Pa.  St.  25,       2079 
Muller  v.  Dows,  94  U.  S.  444, 

38,  39,  41,  42,  687,  697,  768, 1114, 1606 
Mulligan  v.  Curtis,  100  Mass.  512,  1786 

Mulligan  v.  Illinois  R.  Co.,  36  Iowa  181, 

2201,  2234,  2322,  2324 
Mulligan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129 

N.  Y.  506,  1991,  2585 

Mulligan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129 

Ind.  394,  2581 

Mulligan  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Dak. 

315,  412, 2629 

Mulligan  v.  Smith,  59  Cal.  206,  1476 

Mullin  v.  California.'etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Cal. 

77,  2010, 2024 

Mulliner  v.  Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Ch. 

Div.  611,  545 

Mumma  v.  Potomac  Co.,  8  Peters  (U.  S.) 

281,  861,  866,  868 

Mumper  v.  Wilson,  72  Iowa  163,  895 

Muncey  v.  Joest,  74  Ind.  409,  1207 

Munch  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Barb. 

647,  1846 

Muncy  Creek,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hill,  84  Pa.  St. 

459,  107 

Mundhenk  v.  Central  Iowa  R.  Co.,  57  Iowa 

718,  1832,  1836, 1841,  1842, 1877 

Mundle  v.  Hill  Manufacturing  Co.,  86  Me. 

400,  2047 

Mundt  v.  Sheboygan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Wis. 

451,  1581,  1594 

Mundy  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Fed. 

R.  633,  1573,  2371 

Munhall  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  92  Pa.  St. 

150,  490, 533 

Municipality  No.  2  v.  Dunn,  10  La.  Ann.  57, 

1102 
Munkers  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 

Mo.  334,  5,  1391 

Munks  v.  Jackson,  66  Fed.  R.  571,  2176 

Munkwitz  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Wis. 

403,  1425, 1433, 1434, 1525 

Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113, 

4,  126,  916,  956, 1330, 1331,  2486,  2638 
Munos  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Fed.  R. 

188,  2143 

Munro  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Cal.  515, 

1567,  2146 

Munro  v.  Wivenhoe,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  De  Q.,  J. 

&  S.  723,  1299, 1584 

Munson  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Hun 

76,  245 


CCCXV1 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-126S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  H6S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Munson  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  103  N.  Y. 

58,  20,  378,  379 

Munson  v.  Town  of  Lyons,   12  Blatchf. 

(U.  S.)  539,  1246,  1247 

Munster  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  4  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  676,  2282,  2608 

Munt's  Case,  22  Beav.  55,  140 

Munt  v.  Shrewsbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Beav. 

1,  508, 512 

Murch  v.  Concord  R.  Co.,  29  N.  H.  9, 

609,  615,  2167,  2281,  2462,  2553,  2555 
Murch  v.  Wright,  46  111.  487,  644 

Murdfeldt  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Sil. 

App.  (N.  Y.)93,  1721 

Murdfeldt  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

N.  Y.  703,  1591,  1728 

Murdock  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  Ma>s. 

293,  2484,2488 

Murdock  v.  City  of  Cincinnati,  44  Fed.  R. 

726,  1414 

Murdock  v.  Prospect,  etc.,R.  Co.,  10  Hun 

598,  1459 

Murdock  v.  Prospect  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73 

N.  Y.  579,  1324 

Murdock  v.  Walker,  152  Pa.  St.  595,  910 

Murdock  v.  Wood  son,  2  Dill.  188,  660 

Murdock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  152 

Mass.  28,  1133 

Murfreesboro  Railroad  Co.  v.  Commis- 
sioners, 108  N.  C.  56,  1170,  1207 
Murphy,  Re,  51  Wis.  519,  146 
Murphy  v.  Adams,  71  Me.  113,                      1605 
Murphy  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  Mass. 

121,  1742,  1951, 1957 

Murphy  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  Y. 

146,  2076 

Murphy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Wis. 

222,  1926 

Murphy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Iowa 

661,  1764,  1953,  2124 

Murphy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Iowa 

539,  1743 

Murphy  v.  Deane,  101  Mass.  455,         1794,  2069 
Murphy  v.  Holbrook,  20  Ohio  St.  137, 

815,  2108 

Murphy  v.  Louisville,  9  Bush  (Ky.)  189,     1104 
Murphy  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co., 

(Mich.)  65  N.  W.  R.  753,  1794 

Murphy  v.  Phillips,  35  L.  T.  R.  (N.  S.) 

477,  2013 

Murphy  v.  Staton,  3  Munf.  (Va.)  239,          2264 
Murphy  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  118  Mass.  228, 

285,  2574,  2577 
Murphy  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  Mo. 

Ill,  2030 

Murphy  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Fed. 

R.  637,  2574,  2584 


Murphy  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  122,  2683 

Murphy  v.  Wilson,  52  L.  J.  (Q.  B.)  524,  2105 
Murray  v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  432, 

1133,  1206,  1210 
Murray  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Fed.  R. 

24,  1011,  2432,  2638 

Murray  v.  Currie,  L.  R.  6  C.  P.  24,  305 

Murray  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co,  11  Colo.  124, 

2027,  2705 
Murray  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  130  Mass.  99, 

1561 
Murray  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex. 

407,  1031 

Murray  v.  Glasgow,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  R.  & 

Canal  Traf .  Cas.  456,  2684 

Murray  v.  Glasse,  17  Jur.  816,  424 

Murray  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  407,  2432 
Murray  v.  Lardner,  2  Wall.  (U.  S.)  110,  628 
Murray  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Mo. 

236,  1739 

Murray  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.Co.,  4  Keyes 

274,  1817 

Murray  v.  Nichols,  etc.,  Co.,  11  N.  Y. 

Supp.  2196, 
Murray  v.  Pontchartrain  Railway  Co.,  31 

La.  Ann.  490,  1648, 1768,  2145 

Murray  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  N. 

Car.  92,  197& 

Murray  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  1  Mc- 

Mullan  (S.  Car.)  385,  333,  2051,  2075 

Murray  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  10  Rich. 

(S.  Car.)  227,  1638,1872 

Murray  v.  Vanderbilt,  39  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

140,  257 

Murray  v.  Warner,  55  N.  H.  546,  2373,  2374 
Murtry  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Miss. 

601,  2070 

Murtry  v.  Tuttle,  13  Neb.  232,  778 

Muscatine  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa 

645,  1108,  1112 

Muscatine  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Iowa 

291,  1110 

Muscatine  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Dill.  (U.  S.)  536,  1199 

Muscatine,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Muscatine  Lumber 

Co.,  85  Iowa  112,  4*0 

Muscatine,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Horton,  38  Iowa 

33,  188, 1225 

Muschamp  v.  Lancaster,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

M.  &  W.  421,  614,  2168,  2226 

Muser  v.  American  Ex.  Co.,  1  Fed.  R.  382,  ±.N 
Muser  v.  Holland,  17  Blatchf.  412,  22<W 

Musgrave  v.  Morrison,  54  Md.  161,  161, 162 
Musick  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  114 

Mo.  309,  1462 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-271.-.] 


Muskingum  Valley,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ward,  13 

Ohio  120,  207,  208,  209 

Musser  v.  Fairmount,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Am.  L. 

Reg.  (O.  S.)  284,  1622 

Musser  v.  McRae,  38  Minn.  409,  1125,  1126 

Mussina  v.  Goldthwaite,  34  Tex.  125,  243 

Muster  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Wis. 

325,  1965, 2032 

Mutual  Benefit,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Elizabeth,  42 

N.  J.  Law  235,  487 

Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Forty-second  St., 

R.  Co.,  74  Hun  (N.  Y.)  505,  114,  1361 

Mutual  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Katkamp,  103 

111.  420,  1526 

Myer  v.  Car  Co.,  102  U.  S.  468,  653,  655  i 

Myer  v.  Dresser,  16  Com.  B.  (N.  S.)  646,  2204 
Myers  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Railway  Co.,  150 

Pa.  St.  386,  1772 

Myers  v.  Baymore,  10  Pa.  St.  114,  2445 

Myers  v.  Caperton,  87  Ky.  306,  385 

Myers  v.  Croft,  13  Wall.  294,  542,  552 

Myers  v.  De  Pauw  Co.,  138  Ind.  590,  2022 

Myers  v.  Estell,  48  Miss.  372,  731 

Myers  v.  Hewitt,  16  Ohio  449,  688 

Myers  v.  Hudson  Iron  Co.,  150  Mass.  125,  2008 
Myers  v.  McQavock,  39  Neb.  843,  1294, 1320 
Myers  v.  Perigal,  2  DeGex,  M.  &  G.  74,  336 
Myers  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  N. 

Car.  345,  1987 

Myatt  v.  St.  Helen's,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  2  Q.  B. 

364,  649,  650 

Myers  v.  St.  Louis,  82  Mo.  367,  1403 

Myers  v.  Swann,  107  U.  S.  546,  933 

Myers  v.  The  Queensmore,  53  Fed.  R.  1022,  2422 
Myers  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Mo.  98, 

2327,  2340,  2410 
Myers  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Curtis  (U.S.) 

28,  1585 

Myerson  v.  Woolverton,  29  N.  Y.  Supp. 

737,  2628 

Myette  v.  Gross,  18  R.  I.  729,  2129 

Mygatt  v.  Green  Bay,  1  Biss.  (U.  S.)  292,  1239 
Myhea  v.  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Wis.)  67 

N.  W.  R.  1138,  30 

Mynard  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  N.  Y. 

180,  2318,  2319,  2329,  2399,  2418 

Myuning  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mich. 

93,  1766,  2720,  2722 

Mynning  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Mich. 

257,  2151 

Mynning  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Mich. 

677,  2069 

Myrick  v.  Brawley,  33  Minn.  377,  89 

Myrick  v.  Michigan  Cent.  Railroad,  107 

U.  S.  102,  2225,  2228,  2230,  2233,  2686 

Myrick  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  9  Biss. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  44,  2356 


Mytton  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  28  L.  J.  Exch. 

385,  2609 

Mytton  v.  Midland,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  4  Hurl. 

&  N.  615,  2238,  2493,  2609 


N 


Nagel  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Mo.  653, 

1974,  2725 
Nagle  v.  Alleghany  Valley  R.  Co.,  88  Pa. 

St.  35,  1979 

Nagle  v.  Macy,  9  Cal.  426,  675 

Naglee  v.  Alexander,  etc.,  Ry.  Co  ,  83  Va. 

707,  603,  693,  813,  2450 

Najac  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Allen  (Mass.) 

329,  2493, 2626 

Nail  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  129  Ind.  260, 

296,2081 
Nalley  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Conn. 

524,  1796, 2117 

Nanney  v.  Morgan,  57  L.  T.  Rep.  48,  143 

Nanson  v.  Jacob,  93  Mo.  331,  2176 

Nanson  v.  Jacob,  12  Mo.  App.  125,       2176,  2240 
Napa  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Napa  County,  30 

Cal.  435,  1150,  1173,  1199,  1212 

Nary  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Hun  612, 

2052 

Nash  v.  Lowry,  37  Minn.  261,  1615 

Nash  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Hun 

618,  1743 

Nash  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y. 

715,  1769 

Nash  v.  Page,  80  Ky.  539,  916 

Nash  v.  Sullivan,  29  Minn.  206,  1126 

Nashua's  Petition,  12  N.  H.  425,  1470 

Nashua,  etc.,  Corp.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Corp., 

19  Fed.  R.  804,  2663 

Nashua,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  27 

Fed.  R.  821,  335,  364 

Nashua  Lock  Co.  v.  Worcester,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  48  N.  H.  339,  » 

412,  2227,  2229,  2230,  2238,  2244 
Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  157 

Mass.  268,  590 

Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  136  U.  S.  356,     37,42,344,346,448,492,936 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Foster,  10  Lea 

351,  2088 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  (Tenn.)  34 

S.  W.  R.  4,  67 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alabama,  128 

U.  S.  96,  967,  968,  2320,  2648 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carroll,  6  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  347,  298,  2570 


cccxvm 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  J-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Nashville,  etc.,  E.Co.  v.  Cowardin,  11 

Humph.  (Tenn.)  348, 

64,  539,  540,  1355,  1358, 1384 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  David,  6  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  261,  2167,  2248,  2265,  2266 

Nashville,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Edwards,  91  Ga. 

24,  470 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  1  Coldw. 

(Tenn. )  611,  321,  2028, 2470 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Erwin,  (Tenn.)  3 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cases  465,  312,  2561 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estes,  10  Lea 

747,  2269 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hammond, 

( Ala.  >  15  So.  R.  935,  1304 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Handman,  13 

Lea  (Tenn.)  423,  2051,  2078 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Heggie,  86  Ga. 

210,  2340,  2412, 2413 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hembree,  85  Ala. 

481,  1853, 1951, 1986 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes,  94  Tenn. 

450,  1838 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  6 

Heisk.  (Tenn.)  271,   2178,  2213,  2320,  2329,2398 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  9HeiSk. 

27,  2472,  2473,  2474 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  2  Cold. 

(Tenn.)  574,  183 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  King,  6  Heisk. 

269,  2265 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Messino,  1  Sneed 

220,  2167, 2449 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peacock,  25  Ala. 

229,  1825 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prince,  2  Heisk. 

580,  2131 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  6  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  174,  1760,  2145 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sprayberry,  9 

Heisk.  852,  2228,  2493 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Starnes,  9  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  52,  1987 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  83  Ala.  71, 

967, 1045 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  5  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  860,  1856 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  5  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  262,  1025,1744,1856 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Troxlee,  1  Lea 

520,  2476 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

113 U.S.  261,  688 

Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheless,  10  Lea 

741,  2076 

Nason  v.  Woonsocket,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  R.  I. 

377,  1455 


Nassua  Bank  v.  Jones,  95  N.  Y.  115,  501 

Natchez,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lambert,  70  Miss. 

779,  455,  457,  1063 

Natchez,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mullins,  67  Miss.  672,  2148 
Nathan  v.  Giles,  5  Taunt.  558,  2218 

Nathan  v.  Tompkins,  82  Ala.  437,  338,  454 

Nathan  Bros.  v.  Shivers,  71  Ala.  117,  2445 

National,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Mariposa  Co.,  60 

Barb.  (N.Y.)  423,  830 

National,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Prentice,  etc.,  Co., 

49  Minn.  220,  480 

National  Bank  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

S.  Car.  216,  603,  2216 

National  Bank  v.  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

63  Fed.  R.  25,  709 

National  Bank  v.  Case,  99  U.  S.  628, 

134,  348,  1206 
National  Bank  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 

Minn.  224,  414,  2203,  2217,  2392 

National  Bank  v.  Colby,  21  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

609,  867 

National  Bank  v.  Drake,  29  Kan.  311,  120 

National  Bank  v.  Graham,  100  U.  S.  699,  501 
National  Bank  v.  Ins.  Co.,  104  U.  S.  54,  785,859 
National  Bank  v.  Kent  Circuit  Judge,  43 

Mich.  292,  737 

National  Bank  v.  Matthews,  98  U.  S.  621, 

514,  542,  543,  642 
National  Bank  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  91 

U.  S.  92,  2217 

National  Bank  v.  Norton,  1  Hill  (N.  Y.) 

572,  366 

National  Bank  v,  Walbridge,  19  Ohio  St. 

419,  2203 

National  Bank  v.  Watsontown  Bank,  105 

U.  S.  217,  113,  114,  145 

National  Bank  v.  Wells,  79  N.  Y.  498,  486 

National  Bank  v.  Whitney,  103  U.  S.  99,  542 
National  Bank  v.  Young,  41  N.  J.  Eq.  531,  486 
National,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Brainerd,  65  Vt. 

291,  890 

National,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Porter,  125  Mass. 

333,  501 

National,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Vigo  County,  etc., 

Bank,  141  Ind.  352,  481,  732 

National  Bank  of  Chester  v.  Atlanta,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  25  S.  Car.  216,  2360 

National  Bank  of  Jefferson  v.  Texas  In- 
vest, Co.,  74  Tex.  421,  384,  851 
National,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Carlson,  47  111.  App. 

178,  2151 

National,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Kansas,  28 

Fed.  R.  921,  1623 

National,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Drew,  32  Eng.  Law 

&Eq.  1,  195 

National  Cash,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Blumenthal,  85 

Mich.  464,  2714 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.  ] 


National  Docks,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  R. 
Co.,  32  N.  J.  Eq.  755, 

25,  85, 1338,  1342,  1362, 1366, 1349 
National  Docks,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  (N.  J.)  30Atl.  R.  1102, 

937,  938, 1698 

National  Docks,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad 

Co.,  32  N.  J.  Eq.  755,  3 

National  Docks,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  53 

N.  J.  Law  217,  1681, 1691, 1692, 1700 

National  Exchange  Bank  v.  Hartford,  etc., 

R.  R.  GOJ,  8  R.  I.  375,  633 

National  Exchange  Bank  v.  Sibley,  71  Ga. 

726,  384,  386,  387 

National  Foundry  Works  v.  Oconto,  etc., 

Co.,  52  Fed.  R.  43,  696,  697 

National  Funds,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  10 

Ch.  Div.  118,  437 

National,  etc.,  Steamship  Co.  v.  Smart, 

107  Pa.  St.  492,  2279 

National  Steamship  Co.  v.  Tugman,  106 

TJ.  S.  118,  945 

National  Tel.  Co.  v.  Baker,  62  L.  J.  Ch. 

699,  1407 

National  Trust  Co.  v.  Miller,  33  N.  J.  Eq. 

155,  484,  489,  517 

National  Tube  Works  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  (Pa.)  8  Atl.  R.  6,  2432,  2434 

National  Tube  Works  v.  Gilfillan,  124  N.Y. 

302,  166 

Natoma,  etc.,  Mining  Co.  v.  Clarkin,  14 

Cal.  544,  1130 

Nattress  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150 

Pa.  St.  527,  2048 

Naugatuck  R.  Co.  v.  Beardsley  S.  Co.,  33 

Conn.  218,  2206 

Naugatuck  R.  Co.  v.  Waterbury  Button 

Co.,  24  Conn.  468,  2226 

Naumburg  v.  Hyatt,  24  Fed.  R.  898,  802 

Nave  v.  Flack,  90  Ind.  205,  602,  2467,  2509 

Naylor  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Wis. 

661,  2031 

Naylor  v.  Dennie,  8  Pick.  (Mass.)  198, 

2220,2390 

Naylor  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Fed. 

R.  801,  2005,  2031,  2080 

Neal's  Appeal,  129  Pa.  St.  64,  856 

Neal  v.  Delaware.  103  TJ.  S.  370,  930, 1091 

Neal  v.  Knox,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Me.  298, 

1486, 1489, 1528 
Neal  v.  Pitts.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Pa.  St.  19, 

1281, 1282, 1421, 1492, 1509 
Neal  v.  Pitts.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Grant's  Cas. 

(Pa.)  137,  1282, 1492 

Neal  v.  Saunderson,  2  Smed.  &  M.  (Miss.) 

572,  2264, 2300 


Neal  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Jones 

L.  (N.  Car.)  482,  2274.  2276 

Nealand  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  161  Mass. 

67,  2278, 2617 

Nealon  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  42  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  651,  2632 

NeaU  v.  HiU,  16  Cal.  145,  107,  387,  735,  760 

Nebenzahl  v.  Fargo,  15  Daly  (N.  Y.)  130,  2361 
Nebraska,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Nebraska,  etc., 

Co.,  14  Fed.  R.  763,  633,  663 

Nebraska,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bell,  58  Fed.  R.  326, 

300,481 
Nebraska,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Storer,  22  Neb. 

90,  1555 

Needham  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ry.  Co.,  38  Vt. 

294,  2132,  2145,  2148 

Needham  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

37  Cal.  409,  1804, 1850 

Neel  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  157  TJ.  S.  153,  936 
Neeley  v.  Searight,  113  Ind.  316,  1598, 1602 

Neely  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  S.  Car. 

136,  1856 

Neely  v.  State,  4  Lea  (Tenn.)  316,  291 

Neenan  v.  Smith,  50  Mo.  525,  1113 

Neer  v.  Williams,  27  Kan.  1,  1126 

Neff  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1^4  Wis.  370,  1556 
Nefzger  v.  Davenport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Iowa  642,  1208,  1230 

Nehrbas  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  62  Cal. 

320,  1762 

Neibles  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  37  Minn. 

151,  306 

Neil  v.  Board,  31  Ohio  St.  15,  22 

Neil  v  Hill,  1  Wool.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  96,  416 

Neilson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Wis. 

516,  1424, 1455 

Neilson  v.  Crawford,  52  Cal.  248,  259 

Neilson  v.  Hillside,  etc.,  Co.,  168  Pa.  St. 

256,  2024 

Neilson  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Iowa  71,  1604 
Neilson  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Iowa  184, 

536,1599 
Neimann  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 

(Mich.)  61  N.  W.  R.  519,  1636 

Nelling  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  63 

N.  W  R.  568,  2072 

Nellis  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  N.  Y. 

505,  2506 

Nelson  v.  Carrington,  4  Munf.  (Va.)  332,  1313 
Nelson  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 Ga.  225,  2046 
Nelson  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Va. 

971,  2134 

Nelson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa 

576,  2112, 2122 

Nelson  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co..  88  Wis.  392, 

1782 
Nelson  v.  Fleming,  56  Ind.  310,  1458 


cccxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  V3-1262,  Vol. 

Nelson  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Tex. 

621,       .  2136, 2143 

Nelson  v.  Hay  wood  Co.,  87  Tenn.  781, 

1161,  1164,  1170, 1220,  1224,  1245, 1254 
Nelson  v.  Hubbard,  96  Ala.  238,  238,  628,  867 
Nelson  v.  Hudson  R.  R.  Co.,  48  N.  Y.  498, 

2188,  2201, 2263,  2327,  2331 
Nelson    v.    Long  Island    R.    Co.,  7  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  140,  2498 

Nelson  v.  Luling,  62  N.  Y.  645,  377 

NcLson  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.Co.,(Minn.) 

63  N.  W.  R.  486,  2150 

Nelson  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Minn. 

131,  1809 

Nelson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Kan. 

165,  1809 

Nelson  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Vt.  717, 

569,  611,  614,  971,  1589,  1841 
Nelson  v.  Woodruff,  1  Black  156, 

2205,  2300,  2346, 

Nenney  v.  Waddill,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  244,     256 
Nesbit  v.  Garner,  76  Iowa  314,  1799 

Nesbit  v.  Riverside  Independent  Dist., 

144  U.  S.  610,  630,  631 

Nesbit  v.  Town  of  Gainer,  75  Iowa  314,       1791 
Nesbitt  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Spears 

(S.  Car.)  697,  1579,  1580 

Nesbitt  v.  Lushington,  4  T.  R.  783,  2269 

Neslie  v.  Second,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Pa.  St. 

300,  2473, 2586 

NVsmith  v.  Sheddon,  7  How.  (U  S.)  812,     1087 
Nesmith  v.  Washington  Bank,  6  Pick. 

(Mass.)  324,  151 

Neston  Colliery  Co.  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  4  R.  Canal  Tr  Cas.257,  2435 

Nettles  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  7  Rich. 

Law  190,  2302 

Ncubacher  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

134  Ind.  25,  2721 

Neuer  v.  O'Fallon,  18  Mo.  277,  891 

Neufelder  v.  German  American  Ins.  Co.,  6 

Wash.  336,  887,  893 

Nciisr,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  6  Jones 

(X.  Car.  L.)  204,  166 

Neutz  v.  Jackson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  Ind. 

411,  2015 

Nevada,  City  of,  v.  Eddy  123  Mo  546,         1107 
Nevada,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  DeLissa,  103  Mo. 

125,  1520 

Nevada  v.  Eddy,  123  Mo.  546,  1106 

Nevin  v.  Pullman,  etc..  Co.,  106  111.  222, 

2528,  2532,  2587,  2696 
Nevins  v.  Bay  State  S  Co.,  4  Bosw.  (N.  Y.) 

225,  2609, 2633 

New  v.  Walker,  108  Ind.  365,  2654 

New  Albany  v.  Burke,  U  Wall.  (U.  S.)  96, 

254,  255,  875 


III,  pp.  1263-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

New  Albany  v  McCulloch,  127  Ind.  500,  1001 
New  Albany,  etc.,  R,  Co.  v.  Connelly,  7 

Ind.  32,  1547 

New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fields,  10  Ind. 

187,  164,  170, 173 

New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grooms,  9 

Ind.  243,  879 

New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haskell,  11 

Ind.  301,  403 

New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Huff,  19  Ind. 

444,  536 

New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maiden,  12  Ind. 

10,  1825 

New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCormick, 

10  Ind.  499,  114,  171,  176,  207 
New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pace,  13  Ind. 

411,  1841 

New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pickens,  5 Ind. 

247,  210 

New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tilton,  12  Ind. 

3,  69,  879,  967 

Newark,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Block,  55  N.  J.  L. 

605,  1635 

Newark,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newark,  23  N.  J. 

Eq.  515,  1393 

Newaygo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

64  Mich.  114,  561 

Newbecker  v.  Susquehanna  R.  Co.,  Pears. 

(Pa.)  57,  1471, 1473 

New  Bedford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Aclushnet  St. 

R.  Co.,  143  Mass.  200,  1627 

New  Bedford  R.  Co.  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co., 

120  Mass.  397,  461,  469,  705 

Newberry  v.  Arkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Kan. 

613,  884 

Newberry  v.  Furnival,  56  N.  Y.  638,  1472 

Newberry  v.  Robinson,  7  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J. 

396,  259 

Newbold  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.Co.,  5  111.  App. 

367,  838, 842 

New  Boston's  Petition,  49  N.  H.  328,  1470 

New  Brighton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pittsburgh, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Pa.  St.  13,  1266, 1278, 1350 
New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  17  New 

Brunswick  (1  P.  &  B.)  667,  917 

New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Armstrong, 

23  N.  B.  193,  1874 

New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Conybeare, 

9  H.  L.  Gas.  711,  194,  195,  386 

New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mugge- 

ridge,  1  Dr  &  Sm.  363,  190,  197 

New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mugge- 

ridge,  4  H.  &  N.  160,  158,  163 

New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson, 

11  Sup.  Ct.  of  Can.  689,  1898 
New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tiers,  24 

N.  J.  Law  697,  2264 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXX1 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  T,  pp.  1-U&,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  TTI,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  3165-2725.] 


New  Buffalo  v.  Iron  Co.,  105  U.  S.  73,  450, 1224 
Newburger  v.  Howard,  etc.,  Ex.,  6  Phila. 

174,  2263, 2338 

Newburg  Petroleum,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Weare, 

27  Ohio  St.  343,  33 

Newburyport,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Eastern  R.  R. 

Co.,  23  Pick.  (Mass.)  326,  4,  50,  2165 

Newby  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Mo.App. 

391,  2406, 2410 

Newby  v.  Platte  County,  25  Mo.  258,  1353 

Newby  v.  Van  Oppen.  L.  R.  7  Q.  B.  293, 

878,880 

Newby  v.  Wiltshire,  2  Esp.  739,  319 

New  Castle,  etc.,  Marine  Ins.  Co.,  In  re, 

19  Beav.  97,  :     356 

Newcastle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bell,  8  Blackf. 

(Ind  )  584,  169 

New  Castle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peru,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  3  Ind.  464,  47, 108,  1267,  1680 

New  Castle,  etc.,  R   Co.  v.  Simpson,  21 

Fed.  R.  533,  129 

New  Castle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simpson,  23 

Fed.  R.  214,  503 

Newcastle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simpson,  26 

Fed.  R.  133,  1595 

New  Cent.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  George's,  etc.,  Coal 

Co.,  37  Md.  537, 

1271, 1337,  1339, 1344, 1346, 1361, 1385, 1386, 1390, 

1545 

Newcomb,  In  re,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  16,      338,  340 
Newcomb  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 

Mass.  230,  2221 

Newcomb  v.  Smith,  1  Chandler  (Wis.)  71, 

1333, 1465 

Newell  v.  Cowan,  30  Miss.  492,  2127 

Newell  v.  Fisher,  24  Miss.  392,  793 

Newell  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  19  Mich. 

336,  878, 882 

Newell  v.  Hoadly,  8  Conn.  381,  2303 

Newell  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  35 

Minn.  112,  6,  9, 1614, 1636 

Newell  v.  Smith,  49  Vt.  255, 

296,  804,  812,  813,  2225,  2322 
Newell  v.  Williston,  138  Mass.  240,  145 

New  England,  etc.,  Bank  v.   Newport 

Steam  Factory,  6  R.  1. 154,  257 

New  England,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Baxley,  (S. 

Car.)  21  S.  E.  R.  444,  294 

New  England,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Starin,  60  Conn. 

369,  2182, 2701 

New  England  Express  Co.  v.  Maine  Cen- 
tral R.  Co.,  57  Me.  188, 

524,  533,  2170,  2279,  2283,  2284,  2423,  2433 
New  England,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Phillips, 

141  Mass.  535,  142 

CORP. — xxi 


New  England,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baltimore, 


1599 


134 


422 


etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Md.  81, 
New  England  Trust  Co.  v.  Abbott,  162 

Mass.  148, 
New  England  Trust  Co.  v.  Eaton,  140 

Mass.  532, 
Newfoundland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Schack,  40 

N.  J.  Eq.  222,  743,  864 

Newhall  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Cal.  345, 

2363,  2389,  2392 
Newhall  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  111.  273, 

65,  66, 1270,  ia54 

Newhall  v.  Sanger,  92  U.  S.  761,  1131 

Newhall  v.  Vargas,  13  Me.  93,  2391 

New  Hampshire,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Tilton,  19 

Fed.  R.  73,  543 

New  Hampshire,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson, 

30  N.  H.  390,        113,  114,  169, 171,  213,  217,  228 
Newhard  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153 

Pa.  St.  417,  1737 

New  Haven  v.  City  Bank,  31  Conn.  106,       111 
New  Haven  v.  Fair  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Conn.  422,  1207, 1643 

New  Haven,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Campbell,  128 

Mass.  104,  2446 

New  Haven  Nail  Co.  v.  Linden  Spring  Co., 

142  Mass.  349,  166 

New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chapman,  38 

Conn.  56,  350 

New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chatham,  42 

Conn.  465,  1182,  1236,  1246 

New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hammersely, 

104  U  S.  1,  992 

New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  44  Conn. 

376,  596, 923 

New  Haven  Wire  Company  Cases,  57 

Conn.  352,  516 

New  Jersey  v.  Wilson,  7  Cranch  164, 

1063,1090 

New  Jersey  v.  Yard,  95  U.  S.  104,        89,  93,  868 
New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mayor,  42  N.  J.  L. 

97,  1107 

New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co  v.  Morris,  etc.,  Co., 

44  N.  J.  Eq.  398,  1387,  1463 

New  Jersey,  etc.,  Navigation  Co.  v.  Mer- 
chants' Bank,  6  How.  (U.  S.)  344, 

2178,  2263,  2279,  2295,  2316,  2320,  2321,  2380,  2338 

2692,2696 
New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Brockett, 

121  U.  S.  637,  2475,  2575,  2578,  2581 

New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v  Kennard,  21 

Pa.  St.  203,  2296 

New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Long  Branch 

Comrs.,  39  N.  J  L.  28, 

48,  907,  1379, 1663, 1681, 1692 


CCCXX11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-JU2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 

R.  Co.,  27  N.  J.  Law  100,  2168,  2174 

New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Strait,  35  N.  J. 

L.  322,  201,  210,  211 

New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Suydam,  17 

N.  J.  Law  25,  1523, 1532,  1533, 1558 

New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Syckle,  37 

N.  J.  Law  496,  546,  1329 

New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wortendyke, 

27  N.  J.  Eq.  658,  657 

New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  49  Fed. 

R.  723,  2019,  2039,  2046 

New  Jersey  R.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 

R.  Co.,  3  Dutch  (N.  J.)  100,  2209 

New  Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Albani,  12 

Ind.  App.  497,  2067 

New  London,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Brockle^ank, 

L.  R.  21  Ch.  Div.  302,  150 

Newman,  Ex  parte,  9  Cal.  502,  2647 

Newman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Iowa 

672,  2145 

Newman  v.  City,  32  Kan.  456,  1104 

Newman  v.  Davenport,  9  Baxter  (Tenn.) 

538,  817 

Newman  v.  Hammond,  46  Ind.  119,  778 

Newman  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

118  N.  Y.  618,  1425 

Newman  v.  Mills,  1  Hog.  ( Irish  Rolls)  291,  830 
Newman  v.  Phillipsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  52 

N.  J.  L.  446,  1982 

Newman  v.  Phlllipsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

L.  R.  A.  842,  1973 

Newman  v.  Schwerin,  61  Fed.  R.  865,  947 

Newman  v.  Smoker,  25  La.  Ann.  303,  2201 

Newman  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y. 

Super.  Ct.  142,  2713 

New  Orleans  Praying  for  Opening  of 

Streets,  20  La.  Ann.  497,  1102 

New  Orleans  v.  Clark,  95  U.  S.  644,  1149 

New  Orleans  v.  Kaufman,  29  La.  Ann.  283,  1060 
New  Orleans  v.  Poutz,  14  La.  Ann.  853,       1172 

New  Orleans  v.  Wire,  20  La.  Ann.  1112,      

New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Briggs,  27  La. 

Ann.  318,  215 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Brown,  36  La. 

Ann.  138,  378 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  etc., 

Co.,  125  U.  S.  18,  1088 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  Exchange  v.  Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst.  Com.  R.  289, 

2655 
New  Orleans,-etc.,  Exchange  v.  Illinois 

Cent.  R.  Co.,  3  Interst.  Com.  C.  R.  534, 

2676,2683 
New  Orleans  Gas  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  etc., 

Co.,  115  U.  S.  650,        975, 1381, 1623,  2648,  2650 


New  Orleans,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  New  Or- 
leans, etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  La.  Ann.  302,  2329,  2333 
New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allbritton,  38 

Miss.  242,  2568 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bailey,  40 

Miss.  395,  1949 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barton,  43 

La.  Ann.  171,  1441 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bougere,  23 

La.  Ann.  803,  1510 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bourgeois,  66 

Miss.  3,  1852, 1853, 1892 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  64 

Miss.  479,  1543,  1547, 1565 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burke,  53  Miss. 

200,  285,  2480,  2573,  2584 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  New 

Orleans,  44  La.  Ann.  748,  1246, 1268, 1615 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crescent  City 

R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  R.  308,  1625 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Delamore, 

114  U.  S.  508, 

43,  92,  100, 105,  638,  640,  697,  702,  717, 1634 
New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Drake,  60 

Miss.  621,  1465 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  51  Ala. 

128,  1153, 1208,  123a 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ellerman, 

105  U.  S.  166,  51ft 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Enochs,  42 

Miss.  603,  1819, 1872 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Faler,  58 

Miss.  911,  2275,  2321 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Field,  46  Miss. 

573,  1806, 1807,  1850 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frank,  39  La 

Ann.  707,  26,  1531 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frederic,  46 

Miss.  1,  1479,  1483, 1491 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gay,  32  La. 

Ann.  471,  1387,  1391 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manning,  15 

Wall.  649,  1588, 1952 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hemphill,  35 

Miss.  17,  1474, 1475,  1478,  1492 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Harris,  27  Miss. 

517,  66,  69,  232,  234,  235,  637 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harrison,  48 

Miss.  112,  300, 1991,  2060 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes,  49 

Miss.  258,  2052 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hurst,  36  Miss. 

660,  2370,  2698,  269& 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXX111 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


New  Orleans,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Jones,  68  Ala. 

48,  1541, 1552 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jopes,  142 

U.  S.  18,  2475,  2580,  2583 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lagarde,  10 

La.  Ann.  150,  1424,  1437, 1549, 1550 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mississippi, 

102  U.  S.  135,  941,  945 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mississippi, 

112  U.  S.  12,  917, 1009 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mississippi 

College,  47  Miss.  560,  636 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  40 

Miss.  39,  2605,  2631 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moye,  39  Miss. 

374,  1324,  1327, 1424,  1425, 1426 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murrell,  34 

La.  Ann.  536,  1418, 1530 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murrel,  36  La. 

Ann.  344,  1426 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  Orleans, 

etc.,  Co.,  20  La.  Ann.  302,  2319,  2347 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Norwood,  62 

Miss.  565,  1587 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parker,  143 

U.  S.  42,  s.  c.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  364, 

647,  651,  671,  686,  711,  712,  755 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schneider,  60 

Fed.  R.  210,  2563 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Second  Mu- 
nicipality of  New  Orleans,  1  La.  Ann. 

128,  62, 1282, 1386, 1613 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  & 

A.  T.  Co.,  53  Ala.  211,  48, 1381 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  State,  112 

U.  S.  12,  862 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Toulme,  59 

Miss.  284,  1761 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tyson,  46 

Miss.  729,  2351 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

124  U.  S.  124,  •        1119 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  16 

La.  Ann.  315,  196 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Zeringue,  23 

La.  Ann.  521,  1526 

New  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Peterson,  136 

Ind.  398,  2077,  2079,  2991 

Newport  Highway,  48  N.  H.  433,  1533 

Newport  v.  South  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

89  Ky.  29,  1621 

Newport,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wooley,  78  Ky.  523,  37,  40 
Newport  News,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Carroll,  (Ky.) 

31  S.  W.  R.  132,  2713 

Newport  News,  etc.,  Co.  v.  United  States, 

61  Fed.  B.  488,  1047, 2413 


Newport  News,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hazelip, 

(Ky.)  34  S.  W.  R.  904,  1851 

Newport  News,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mendell, 

(Ky.)  34  S.  W.  R.  1081,  2242 

Newport,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mercer,  96  Ky. 

475,  2290,  2409,  2416 

Newport  News,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell, 

(Ky.)33S.  W.  R.  622,  1853 

New  Providence  v.  Halsey,  117  U.  S.  336, 

487, 1236,  1239,  1256,  1362 
Newry  &  Eniskillen  R.  Co.  v.  Edmunds,  2 

Ex.  R.  118,  203 

Newson  v.  Thornton,  6  East  17,  2220 

New  Sombrero  Phosphate  Co.  v.  Erlan- 

ger,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  Div.  73,  20 

Newson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  N.  Y. 

383,  1784, 1949 

Newstadt  v.  Adams,  5  Duer  (N.  Y.)  43,  2424 
New  State  House,  In  re,  Condemnation 

for,  (R.  I.)  33  Atl.  R.  523,  1512,  1514 

Newton  v.  Carbery,  5  Cranch  C.  C.  (U.  S.) 

632,  23 

Newton  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 Conn.  21,  1033 
Newton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  White,  42  Ga.  148,  244, 859 
New  York  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  84  Mo. 

117,  1764 

New  York  v.  Squire,  145  U.  S.  175,  1096 

New  York,  Mayor,  etc.,  of,  v.  Dry  Docksv 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  N.  Y.  104,  1625 

New  York,  Mayor,  etc.,  of,  v.  Second  Ave. 

R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  572,  1641, 1643 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bates,  68  Md.  184,  298 
New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ely,  2  Cow.  678,  334 
New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Morisania,  7  Hun 

652,  1109 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  New  Haven,  42 

Conn.  279,  1107, 1110 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Parrott,  36  Fed.  R. 

462,  238 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  People,  12  Hun 

195,  1266 

New  York,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Fulton  Bank, 

7  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  412,  444 

New  York  Ex.  Co.  v.  DeWolf,  31  N.  Y.  273, 

176,  196 
New  York,  etc.,  Dock  v.  Hicks,  5  McLean 

111,  543 

New  York  Guaranty,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mem- 
phis, etc.,  Co.,  107  U.  S.  205,  s.  c.  2  Sup. 

Ct.  R.  279,  675 

New  York  Produce  Exchange  v.  New  York 

Cent.,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  2  Interst.  Com.  E. 

553,  2677 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  58  Conn. 

532,  975,  1397 

New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.'s  Appeal,  62  Conn. 

527,  987, 1671 


cccxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


{References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  63  How.  Pr. 

123,  1463 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  8  N.  Y. 

Supp.  290,  1346 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  33  N.  Y.  Supp. 

726,  867 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  5  Hun  105, 

1527,  1531 
New  York,  etc.,  R.Co., In  re, 6  Hun  (N.Y.) 


149, 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  15  Hun 


1433 


(N.  Y.)  63, 


1441,  1523 


New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  26  Hun  194,   1492 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  27  Hun  116, 

1516,  1531 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  29  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  269,  1374,  1484 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  33  Hun  148, 

1511, 1524 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  35  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  220,  161,  271,  1351 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,    In  re,  36  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  427,  1628 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  59  Hun  7,     1369 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  61  Hun 

625,  1531 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  63  Hun 

629,  1351 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  46  N.  Y. 

546,  538 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  49  N.  Y.  414, 

599,  615 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  63  N.  Y. 

326,  1356 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  64  N.  Y.  60, 

1527,  1533,  1534 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  66  N.  Y.  407, 

64,  1385 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  70  N.  Y.  191, 

1500,  1501 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  70  N.  Y.  327, 

88,  860 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  77  N.Y.  248, 

539, 1270, 1354,  1356,  1369,  '1374,  1664 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  88  N.  Y. 

279,  1282 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  90  N.  Y. 

342,  1502 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  62  Barb. 

85,  1494,  1497 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  67  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  426,  1356,  1369 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  99  N.  Y.  12, 

161, 1269,  1351,  1374 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  107  N.  Y.  42,     9 
New  York,  etc.,  Matter  of,  35  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

575, 


New  York,  Matter  of  Application  of 

Mayor,  99  N.  Y.  569,  1469 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  1  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  N.  S.  190,  1503 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  21  How. 

(N.  Y.)Pr.434,  1527 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  63  How. 

(N.  Y.)  Pr.  265,  1524 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  5  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  86,  1499 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  15  Hun 


63, 


1441, 1523 


New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  27  Hun 


116, 


1516,  1531 


New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  26  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  194,  1492 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  29  Hun 

609,  1521 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  33  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  631,  1526 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  33  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  23,  1515 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  33  Hun 


(N.  Y.)  148, 


1511,  1524 


New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  35  Hun 


220, 


161,  271,  1351 


New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  35  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  232,  1528 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  35  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  260,  1524 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  35  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  306,  1533 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  44  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  194, 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  62  Barb. 


(N.  Y.)  85, 


1479,  1494,  1497 


New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  49  N.  Y. 

414,  599, 615 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  60  N.  Y. 

116,  1548 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  64  N.  Y. 

60,  1527,  1533,  1534 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  66  N.  Y. 

407,  64, 1385 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  70  N.  Y. 

327,  .  88,860 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  77 

N.  Y.  248,  539, 1270, 1354,  1356,  1369,  1374,  1664 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  93  N.Y. 

385,  1524,  1529,  1533 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  98  N.Y. 

12,  1548,  1551 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  99  N.  Y. 

12,  161, 1269,  1351.  1374 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXXV 


[References  are  to  .Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-lM,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2735. 


New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ball,  53  N.  J.  L. 

283,  2560 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baltz,  141  Ind. 

661,  1896,  1944 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bennett,  50  Fed. 

R.  496,  2487,  2573 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blumenthal,  160 

111.  40,  2510,  2512 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  36  Conn.  196, 

90, 108, 1267, 1286, 1370,  1372,  1374,  1377,  1688 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bridgeport  Trac- 
tion Co.,  65  Conn.  410,  1407,  1713, 1714 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burns,  51  N.  J. 

L.  340,  2601 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Union 

Tel.  Co.,  21  Hun  (N.  Y.)  261,  6 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Church,  31  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  440,  1534 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Water- 
bury,  60  Conn.  1,  970,  1089 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Water- 
bury,  55  Conn.  19,  1671 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cooper,  85  Va. 

9139,  1799 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

7  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  14,  45 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coulbourn,  69 

Md.  360,  2545,  2548 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dixon,  114  N.  Y. 

80,  399,400 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doane,  115  Ind. 

435,  2465, 2550 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Enches,  127  Pa. 

St.  316,  2547 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estill,  147  U.  S. 

591,  2402 

Mew  York,  etc.,.R.  Co.  v.  Feely,  163 

Mass.  205,  2485 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fifth  National 

Bank,  135  U.  S.  432,  12,  1629 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flynn,  74  Hun 

124,  2672 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Forty-second 

St.  R.  Co.,  50  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  285,  1381 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Godwin,  12  Abb. 

Pr.  R.  (N.  S.)  21,  1493 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grand  Rapids, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  Ind.  60,    1706,  1707, 1709,  1710 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Green,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)36S.  W.  R.  812,  2707 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gunnison,  1 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  496,  539,  1359 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hackett,  (N.  J.) 

32  Atl.  R.  265,  1678, 1755 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haring,  47  N.  J. 

L.  137,  2575 


New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunt,  39  Conn. 

75,  168,  169 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hyde,  56  Fed.  R. 

188,  2088 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kellam,  83  Va. 

851,  1768, 1775 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ketchum,  27 

Conn.  170,  20,  370,  371,  372 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kip,  46  N.  Y.  546, 

536,  539,  540,  541,  557,  899, 1345,  1353,  1354,  1357, 

1358,  1387, 1664 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  LeVere,  27  Hun 

537,  1428 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Metropolitan 

Gas  Light  Co.,  5  Hun  (N.  Y.)  201, 

1343,  1345,  1354, 1356, 1357, 1373 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Metropolitan 

Gas  Light  Co.,  63  N.  Y.  326, 

1267, 1271,  1272,  1273, 1385 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mushrush,  11 

Ind.  App.  192,  1964,  2458 

New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  New  York,  104 

N.  Y.  1,  1349 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co»  v.  National,  etc., 

Co.,  137  N.  Y.  23,  2257 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  Britain,  49 

Conn.  40,  1107 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  Haven,  42 

Conn.  279,  1103 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  1 

Hilton  (N.  Y.)  562,  484 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  52  Conn.  274,         82,  694,  695,  897,  1275 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  11  Abb.  (N.  Y.)  N.  C.  386,  1275 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  50  Fed.  R.  867,  2685 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  58  Fed.  R.  268,  769,  781,  791,  821 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nickals,  119 

U.  S.  296,  118,  121,  434 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 

153  U.  S.  628,  45,  1089 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perriguey,  138, 

Ind.  414,  2052,  2062 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Powers,  98  N.  Y. 

274,  2068 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Purdy,  18  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  574,  880 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Com- 
missioners, 162  Mass.  81, 

1302, 1718,  1719,  1723 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Randel,  47  N.  J. 

L.  144,  1748 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sabin,  26  Pa.  St. 

242,  1062, 1068 


CCCXXV1 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S7S5.] 


New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sanders,  134 

Mass.  53,  2446 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schuyler,  34 

N.Y.  30,  117,  126, 144, 146, 290,  299 

New  York,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Shepard,  5  Mc- 
Lean (U.  S.)  455,  35 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Standard  Oil 

Co.,  87  N.  Y.  486,  2420,  2427 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Standard  Oil 

Co.,  87  N.  Y.  240,  2358 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stanley,  34  N.  J. 

Eq.  55,  1307,  1313, 1325, 1422, 1440, 1541 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  50  N.  J.  L. 

303,  722, 1673 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Steinbrenner,  47 

N.  J.  L.  161,  1790,  1798 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Town  of  Bristol, 

151  U.  S.  556,  974,  1089, 1396, 1671 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Townsend,  36 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  630,  1474,  1534,  1557 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trimmer,  53  N. 

J.  L.  1,  1388 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Horn,  57 

N.  Y.  473,  160,  2127 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y.  Welsh,  69  Hun 

619,  1369 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winans,  17  How. 

(U.  S.)  30,  492,  524,  693, 1920 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winter's  Admr., 

143  U.  S.  60,        2453,  2484,  2488,  2492, 2531,  2578 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  33  Pa.  St. 

175,  1345,  1346,  1401 

New  York,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Jewett,  115 

N.  Y.  166,  831 

New  York  Security,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Saratoga, 

etc.,  Co.,  34  N.  Y.  Supp.  890,  665 

New  York  State,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Helmer,  77 

N.  Y.  64,  504 

New  York  Street,  etc.,  Re,  133  N.  Y.  329,  1372 
Ney  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Iowa  347,  1582 
Ney  v.  Swinney,  36  Ind.  454,  1494 

Niagara,  Propeller  v.  Cordes,  21  How.  7, 

2264,2305 

Niagara,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  108  N.  Y.  375,  1496 
Niagara,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  121  N.  Y.  319,  1460 
Niagara  Falls,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  In  re,  108 

N.  Y.  375,  50 

Niblock  v.  Alexander,  44  Fed.  R.  306,  940,  941 
Nickals  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Fed. 

R.  575,  432 

Nickerson  v.  Atchison,  T.  &  S.  F.  R.  R. 

Co.,  3  McCrary  455,  17  Fed.  R.  408,  655 

Nickey  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Mo. 

App.  79,  2272,  2337,  2385 

Nicks  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Iowa  27,  1676 
Niclase  v.  Griffith,  (Ark.)  26  S.  W.  R.  381,  325 
Nicol's  Case,  3  DeG.  &  J.  387,  140 


Nicolay  v.  St.  Clair  County,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.) 

163,  1170, 1239, 1241 

Nicoll  T.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y. 

121,  545,  1302, 1306, 1310, 1615 

Nicolson  Paving  Co.  v.  Painter,  35  Cal. 

699,  1104 

Nichol  v.  Henry,  89  Ind.  54,  674 

Nichol  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  9  Humph.  (Tenn.) 

251,  1161, 1178, 1215 

Nicholas  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.Co.,  89  N.Y. 

370,  2318,  2328,  2543 

Nicholas  v.  Oliver,  36  N.  H.  218,  295 

Nicholas  v.  Sutton,  22  Ga.  369,  1546 

Nicholaus  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Iowa 

85,  2041 

Nicholds  v.  Chrystal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126  Mo. 

55,  2012 

Nichols  v.  Ann  Arbor,  etc.,  St.  Ry.  Co.,  87 

Mich.  361,  9,  1635 

Nichols  v.  Bridgeport,  23  Conn.  189,  1112 

Nichols  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Greene 

(Iowa)  42,  176 

Nichols  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Minn. 

319,  2114 

Nichols  v.  City  of  Duluth,  40  Minn.  389, 

1406, 1566 
Nichols  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.)  6 

S.  W.  R.  339,  1968 

Nichols  v.  Mase,  94  N.  Y.  160,  651,  655 

Nichols  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42 

Conn.  103,  702 

Nichols  v.  Perry,  11  N.  J.  Eq.  126,  748 

Nichols  v.  Scranton,  etc.,  Co.,  137  N.  Y. 

471,  394, 482 

Nichols  v.  Smith,  115  Mass.  332, 

804,  2168,  2189,  2194 
Nichols  v.  Somerset,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Me. 

356,  1332, 1423,  1540, 1547,  1549 

Nichols  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  23  Ore.  123, 

2494,  2495,  2499 

Nichols  v.  Walters,  37  Minn.  270,  1094 

Nichols  v.  Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Va. 

99,  1956, 1957 

Nicholls  v.  LeFeuvre,  2  Bing.  (N.  C.)  81,    2389 
Nicholls  v.  State,  68  Wis.  416,  1052 

Nicholson  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  N.  Y. 

525,  1741, 1952 

Nicholson  v.  Fields,  7  H.  &  N.  810,  1033 

Nicholson  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

7  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  755,  2285 

Nicholson  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

5C.  B.  (N.  S.)366,  2667 

Nicholson  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  748,  2284 

Nicholson  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Hurls.  &  C.  534,  2479,  2546,  2590 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


N     CCCXXV11 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  I-I 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2.765-2725.] 


Nicholson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 

Conn.  74,  1409, 1565, 1634 

Nicholson  v.  Willan,  5  East  507,  2314 

Niemann  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Mich.  197,  1863 

Niemeyer  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 

Ark.  Ill,  1349 

Nieto  v.  Clark,  1  Cliff.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  145,     2582 
Niklaus  v.  Conkling,  118  Ind.  289,  1103 

Niles  v.  Dodge,  70  Ind.  147,  388 

Niles  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.) 

65  N.  W.  R.  103,  2072 

Nilson  v.  Jonesboro,  57  Ark.  168,  1571 

Nimmo  v.  Walker,  14  La.  Ann.  581,  1996 

Nimmons  v.  Tappan,  2  Sweeny  (32  N.  Y. 

Super.)  652,  859 

Nims  v.  Mount  Hermon,  etc.,  160  Mass. 

177,  591 

Nines  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  Mo. 

475,  2235 

Nine  Thousand,  etc.,  Dry  Hides,  6  Ben. 

199,  2426 

Ninth  Ave.,  Matter  of,  45  N.  Y.  729,  1375 

Ninth  National  Bank  v.  Knox  County,  37 

Fed.  R.  75,  1164, 1195, 1235,  1247, 1262 

Niskern  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Fed.  R. 

811,  1935,  1938, 1941 

Nith,  The,  36  Fed.  R.  86,  2282 

Nitro-Glycerine  Case,  15  Wall.  524, 

2065,  2282,  2310 
Nitshillv.  Caledonian,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Nev.  &  Mac.  39,  2669,  2671,  2674 

Nixon  v.  Campbell,  106  Ind.  47,  1151, 1208 

Nixon  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Iowa 

331,  1800 

Nixon  v.  Taff,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Hare  136,       1580 
N.  K.  Fairbank  &  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  54  Fed.  R.  420,  884 

Noble  v.  Greer,  48  Kan.  41,  664 

Noble  v.  State,  43  Ga.  466,  696 

Noble  v.  Turner,  69  Md.  519,  114, 145, 146 

Noblesville  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130 

Ind.  1,  1317 

Nockels  v.  Crosby,  3  Barn.  &  C.  814,  20 

Noe  v.  Gibson,  7  Paige  (N.  Y.)  Ch.  513,        809 
Noell  v.  Gaines,  68  Mo.  649,  667 

Noesen  v.  Port  Washington,  37  Wis.  168, 

1190, 1210 

Nofsinger  v.  Ring,  4  Mo.  App.  576,  1996 

Nolan  T.  Brooklyn  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

N.  Y.  63,  2555,  2557 

Nolan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Conn. 

46J,  1828, 1953, 1973 

Nolan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co,  9  Jones  & 

S.  (41  N.  Y.  Super.)  541,  2484,  2503 


Nolan  County  v.  State,  83  Tex.  182,  1162 

Noll  v^  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Iowa  66, 

1288,1333 

Nolte  v.  Lebbert,  34  Ind.  163,  873 

Nolton  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  15  N.  Y.  444. 

299,2456 
Nonce  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Fed. 

R.  429,  883,  885 

Noonan  v.  Bradley,  9  Wall.  394,  2141 

Noonan  v.  Lee,  2  Black  (U.  S.)  499,  688 

Nordemeyer  v.  Loescher,  1  Hilt.  (N.  Y.) 

499,  2634 

Norfolk  City  v.  Ellis,  26  Gratt.  224,  1100 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  (Va.)  18 

S.  E.  R.  673,  286 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  90  Va.  393, 

2437,  2438,  2439 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bohannan,  85  Va. 

293,  1929,  1932 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carper,  88  Va.  556, 

1742,  1958,  1968 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carter,  (Va.)  22  S. 

E.  R.  517,  1565 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

(Va.)  24  S.  E.  R.  837,  2660,  2661 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

88  Va.  95,  2661 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cottrell,  83  Va. 

512,  880 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Donnelly,  88  Va. 

853,  2078 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ely,  95  N.  Car.  77, 

1343, 1536,  1552, 1554 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ferguson,  79  Va. 

241,  1889, 2553 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Galliher,  89  Va.  639, 

2554 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Groseclose,  88  Va. 

267,  1982 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harman,83  Va.  553, 

1787 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harman,  91  Va.  601, 

2340 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harman,  (Va.)  22 

S.  W.  R.  490,  2247 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoover,  79  Md.  253, 

2085,2091 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Howison,  81  Va. 

125,  1601 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irvine,  84  Va.  553, 

2614,  2624 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  85  Va.  489, 

2068,  270* 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Liscomb,  90  Va. 

137,  2541 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marshall,  90  Va. 

836,  2468,  2568,  2597 


CCCXXV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  V.3-U62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  3165-2725.} 


Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Onnsby,  27  Gratt. 

(Va.)  455,  1982 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  136 

U.  S.  181,     32,  44,  45,  951,  1078,  1082,  1084, 2657 
Norfolk,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Perdue,  40  W.  Va. 

442,  1327 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phelps,  90  Va.  665, 

2062 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Read,  87  Va.  185,    2254 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shott,  (Va.)  22  S. 

E.  R.  811,  2509 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smoot,  81  Va.  495,    1651 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sutherland,  89  Va. 

703,  2402,  2411,  2417 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  (Va.)  29 

L.  R.  A.  825,  1952 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  89  Va. 

165,  2038, 2046 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  (Va.)  18 

S.  E.  R.  35,  1958 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wysor,  82  Va.  250, 

2453,  2496,  2501,  2699 

Norman  v.  Heist,  5  Watts  &  S.  171,  965 

Norris  v.  Abingdon  Academy,  7  Gill  &  J. 

(Md.)  7,  1335 

Norris  v.  Androscoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Me. 

273,  1817,  1819, 1820 

Norris  v.  Boston,  4  Met.  (Mass.)  282,  1056 

Norris  v.  Harris.  15  Cal.  226,  2639 

Norris  v.  Irish  Land  Co.,  8  El.  &  Bl.  512,      147 
Norris  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Am. 

St.  R.  355,  2277 

Norris  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Fla. 

182,  2265,  2469 

Norris  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Vt.  99, 

560,  1301, 1400, 1403, 1404 

Norristown  v.  Moyer,  67  Pa.  St.  355,  1642 

Norristown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Citizens',  etc., 

R.  Co.,  3  Mont.  (Pa.)  119,  1626 

Norristown  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Burkett,  26 

Ind.  53,  1466,  1498 

North  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Ohio 

St.  548,  878 

North  v.  Forest,  15  Conn.  400,  133 

North  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  C.  B.  N. 

S.  132,  2445 

North  v.  Merchants'  Trans.  Co.,  146  Mass. 

315,  2216,  2224,  2236 

North  v.  State,  107  Ind.  356,  75,  87,  550 

North,  etc.,  Co.  v.  People,  147  111.  234,  77 

North,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spullock,  88 Ga.  283,    203 
North,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swank,  105  Pa.  St. 

555,  1301 

North,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winfree,  51  Ga.  318,   168 
North  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Orman,  55 

Fed.  R.  18,  949 


North  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kaskell, 

78  Md.  517,  2563" 

North  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  75 

Md.  247,  1625,  1627 

North  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  North 

Ave.  R.  Co.,  75  Md.  233,  1268, 1621 

North  Beach,  etc.,  Co.,  Appeal  of,  32  Cal. 

499,"  8, 1110 

North  Birmingham  v.  Calderwood,  89  Ala. 

247,  2703 

North  British,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  London,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  Div.  569,  2333 

North  British  R.  Co.  v.  Tod,  5  Bell's  App. 

Cas.  (Scotland)  184,  1264 

North  British,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Tod,  12  Cl.  & 

Fin.  722,  587 

North  Brookfield,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Flanders, 

161  Mass.  335,  398- 

North  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carolina, 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  83  N.  Car.  489, 

702,  717, 1350,  1374 
North  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  Drew,  3  Woods 

(U.  S.)  691,  465,  683 

North  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  Leach,  4  Jones 

L.  (N.C.)340,  195 

North  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

Co.,  152  U.  S.  596,  890- 

North  Central  Wagon  Co.  v.  Manchester, 

etc.,  By.  Co.,  35  Ch.  Div.  191,  660 

North  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cook,  145 

111.  551,  2471 

North  Chicago  R.  Co.  v.  Gastka,  128  HI. 

613,  257S 

North  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson, 

114  HI.  57,  2049,  2052 

North  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lake  View, 

105  IU.  207,  1620, 1639 

North  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams, 

140  111.  275,  2571 

North  German  Lloyd  v.  Heule,  44  Fed.  R. 

100,  2421, 2428 

North  Hallenbeagle,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L. 

R.  2  Ch.  321,  219 

North  Hudson  County  R.  Co.  v.  Booraem, 

28  N.  J.  Eq.  450,  703, 1445,  1452, 1487,  1532 

North  Lebanon  R.  Co.  v.  McGrann,  33  Pa. 

St.  350,  1577 

North  London  R.  Co.  v.  Metropolitan 

Board,  1  Johns.  Eng.  Ch.  405,  57 

North  Manheim,  Appeal  of  Township  of, 

(Pa.)  22  W.  N.  C.  149,  1668 

North  Manheim,  Township  of,  v.  Read- 
ing, etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Phila.  (Pa.)  650,         1666 
North  Missouri  R.  Co.  v.  Gott,  25  Mo.  540,  1343 
North  Missouri  R.  Co.  v.  Lackland,  25 

Mo.  515,  1282, 1503, 1506 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


North  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Maguire,  20 

Wall.  46,  1056 

North  Missouri  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  31  Mo. 

19,  188 

North  Missouri  v.  Co.  v.  Beynal,  25  Mo. 

534,  1283,  1553 

North  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winkler, 

29  Mo.  318,  182, 183,  527 

North  Pacific  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  3  Fed.  R.  702,  1376 

North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  54 

Pa.  St.  94,  633,  635 

North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Commercial 

Bank,  123  U.  S.  727, 

1800, 2175, 2215, 2216,  2217,  2350,  2360,  2368,  2382, 

2417,  2720 
North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  26 

Pa.  St.  238,  1371,  4488, 1489 

North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Heileman, 

49  Pa.  St.  60,  1737,  1738, 1777 

North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Kirk,  90  Pa. 

St.  15,  2151 

North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Mahoney, 

57  Pa.  St.  187,  1785 

North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Rehman, 

49  Pa.  St.  101,  1806 

North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson, 

44  Pa.  St.  175,  1984 

North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Stone,  3 

Phila.  421,  1623 

North  River  Bank  v.  Aymar,  3  Hill  (N.Y.) 

262,  366 

North  Shore,  etc.,  Ferry  Co.,  Matter  of,  63 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  556,  226 

North  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McWillie,  17 

Can.  Sup.  Ct.  R.  511,  1899,  2143 

North  State,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Field,  64  Md. 

151,  221 

Northampton,  In  re,  Mayor  of  City  of,  158 

Mass.  299,  1671 

Northampton  Bridge  Case,  116  Mass.  442,  1372 
Northampton,  etc.,  Co.v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  Co., 

75  Pa.  St.  461,  1068 

Northampton  Bank  v.  Pepoon,  11  Mass. 

288,  294, 355 

Northampton  Nat.  Bank  V.  Kidder,  106 

N.  Y.  221,  628,  629 

Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frazier,  25 

Neb.  53,  1422, 1517 

Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Payne,  8  Rich. 

L.  (S.  C.)  177,  62, 1619 

Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richardson, 

41  L.  J.  C.  P.  60,  2406 

Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sineath,  8 

Rich.  (S.  Car.)  Law  185,  1440 

Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mauleys,  L. 

R.  7  E.  &  I.  App.  Cas.  12,  1752, 1788 


Northern  Bank  v.  Porter  Township,  110 

U.  S.  608,  1157,  1225,  1232,  1236,  1238, 1239" 

Northern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Concord  R.  Co.,  50 

N.  H.  166,  37T 

Northern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Connelly,  10  Ohio 

St.  159,  1108, 1109, 1111 

Northern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mayor,  21  Md.  93, 

1616, 1621 
Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Babcock,  154  U.  S. 

978,  2041, 2134 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  46 

Md.  425,  1641,  1656,  1660, 1665, 1665 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  27  N.  H.  183,  108,  1527, 1533 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Craft,  69  Fed.  R. 

124,  2126 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hambly,  154  U.  S. 

349,  2048, 2049 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harrison,  10 

Exch.  376,  2519 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herbert,  116 U.  S. 

642,  2011 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Husson,  101  Pa. 

St.  1,  2004,  2054,  2055- 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mares,  123  U.  S. 

710,  2723 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mase,  63  Fed.  R. 

114,  2133,2134 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  46  Md. 

425,  1641,  1656, 1660 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Michigan  Cent. 

R.  Co.,  15  How.  (U.  S.)  2;«,  768 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  10  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  260,  164,  214 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Connor,  76  Md. 

207,  2452 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Page,  22  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  130,  2504 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peterson,  51  Fed. 

R.  182,  2079,  2081 

Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  31  Md.  357, 

1766,  2069- 
Northern  Central  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  103 

Pa.  St.  621,  1696- 

Northern  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Bastian,  15 

Md.  494,  394,  395,  641 

Northern  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  46 

Md.  425,  1378 

Northern  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Canton  Co.,  30 

Md.  347,  1329, 1445, 1447 

Northern  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Common- 
wealth, 90  Pa.  St.  300, 

1036, 1038, 1638, 1650, 1665 
Northern  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  7 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  262,  39 

Northern  Central  R.  Co.  v.  O'Connor,  76 

Md.  207,  284 


cccxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Northern  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Prentiss,  11 

Md.  119,  318 

Northern  Central  R.  Co.  v.  State,  29  Md. 

420,  314,  315,  2163,  2717 

Northern  Central  R.  Co.  v.  State,  54  Md. 

143,  1732 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Barnsville,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  4  Fed.  R.  (2  McCrary  203)  298, 1 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  8,  1323 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Behling,  57  Fed. 

R.  1037,  2118 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Blake,  63  Fed.  R. 

45,  2016, 2042 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Burlington,  etc., 

Co.,  4  Fed.  R.  298,  1552 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Cannon,  49  Fed. 

R.  517,  896 

Northern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Garland,  5  Mont. 

146,  1068 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Charless,  51  Fed. 

R;  562,  2010,  2044,  2089,  2723 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Charless,  162  U.  S. 

359,  2707 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Spokane, 

56  Fed.  R.  915,  564 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  De  Lacy,  66  Fed. 

R.  450,  1131 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Egeland,  56  Fed. 

R.  200,  2072 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Ellison,  3  Wash. 

225,  2126 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hambly,  154  U.  S. 

349,  2011 

Northern  Pac.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herbert,  116 

U.  S.  642,  2068 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hess,  2  Wash. 

383,  2587 

Northern  Pac.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hogan,  63  Fed.  R. 

102,  2081, 2107 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Holmes,  3  Wash. 

Ter.  202,  1737,  1777 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hussey,  61  Fed. 

R.  231,  1136 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  51  Fed.  R. 

658,  1910, 1913, 1939 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Mares,  123  U.  S. 

710,  2008 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McMullen,  86 

Wis.  501,  945,  946 

'  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Musser,  etc.,  Co., 

68  Fed.  R.  993,  1123, 1126, 1127 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Nickels,  50  Fed. 

R.  718,  2020 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  1  Wash. 

599,  176§,  2069 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Paine,  119  U.  S. 

561,  949 


Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Pauson,  70  Fed. 

R.  585,  2490 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Roberts,  42  Fed. 

R.  734,  3,  556, 1140 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  59  Fed. 

R.  993,  2086 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  1  McCrary  (U.  S.)  302,          907,  908, 1545 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  3  Fed.  R.  702,  1372 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  53  Fed. 
•  R  219,  1987 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Territory,  3  Wash. 

Ter.  303,  922,  958 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States,  36 

Fed.  R.  132,  1119 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Washington,  142 

U.  S.  492, 

913,  915,  920,  921,  958, 1002, 1009,  2670 
Northern  Transportation  Co.  v.  Chicago, 

99  U.  S.  635,  1400, 1406 

Northern  Transportation,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, 7  Biss.  45,  543 
Northern  Transportation  Co.  v.  McClary, 

66  111.  233,  2203 

Northern  Transportation  Co.  v.  Sellick, 

52  111.  249,  2363 

Northrop  v.  Bushnell,  38  Conn.  498,  260 

Northrop  v.  Newton,  etc.,  Turnpike  Co.,  3 

Conn.  544,  226,  420 

Northumberland  Ave.  Hotel  Co.,  In  re, 

L.  R.  33  Ch.  Div.  16,  488 

Northwestern,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  2  Interst.  Com.  R.  431,  2679 

Northwestern,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Jones,  154  Pa. 

St.  99,  2156 

Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burlington, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Fed.  R.  712,  2701 

Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Danielson,  57 

Fed.  R.  915,  2021 

Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hack,  66  HI. 

238,  299 

Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Shaw,  37  Wis. 

655,  503 

Northwestern  Fuel  Co.  v.  Danielson,  57 

Fed.  R.  915,  2034 

Northwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McMichael, 

6  Ex.  273,  203 

Northwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whinray,  26 

Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  488,  330 

Norton  v.  Board,  etc.,  129  U.  S.  479, 

1145, 1146, 1259 
Norton  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  113  Mass.  366, 

1748,  1986 
Norton  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  9 

Ch.  Div.  623,  L.  R.  13  Ch.  Div.  268,  1287 

Norton  v.  State,  74  Ind.  337,  1052 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXXX1 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Nye  v.  Marysville,  etc.,  St.  E.  Co.,  97  Cal. 


Norton  v.  Taxing  District,  129  U.  S.  479,    1222 
Norton  v.  Town  of  Dyersberg,  127  U.  S. 

160,    1153, 1167, 1168,  1212, 1216, 1228, 1252, 1258 
Norton  v.  Wallkill  Valley  R.  Co.,  63  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  77,  1285,  1479,  1483, 1497 

Norvell  v.  Porter,  62  Mo.  309,  1477 

Norwalk,  The  City  of,  55  Fed.  E.  98,  2129 

Norwalk  Bank  v.  Adams,  etc.,  Co.,  4 

Blatchf.  455,  2383 

Norwalk  Gas  Light  Co.  v.  Borough  of 

Norwalk,  63  Conn.  495,  1591 

Norway  Plains  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

1  Gray  263,  2167,  2278,  2279,  2352,  2366 

Norwich  v.  Norfolk  E.  Co.,  4  El.  &  B1.397,  476 
Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cahill,  18  Conn. 

484,  246 

Norwich,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Worcester,  147 

Mass.  518,  569 

Nosier  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.Co.,  73  Iowa 

268,  2715 

Notara  v.  Henderson,  5  L.  E.  Q.  B.  346, 

2301,  2305,  2445 
Nottingham  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  3 

McArthur  (D.  C.)  517,  1633 

Novock  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  63  Mich. 

121,  2072 

Nowell  v.  State,  94  Ga.  588,  1050 

Noyes  v.  Hall,  97  U.  S.  34,  1134, 1135 

Noyes  v.  Eich,  52  Me.  115,  648,  892 

Noyes  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  27  Vt.  110, 

2167,  2225,  2226,  2239 

Noyes  v.  Smith,  28  Vt.  59,  2028,  2051,  2063 

Noyes  v.  Southern,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (Cal.)  24 

Pac.  E.  927,  2145 

Noyes  v.  Spauldmg,  27  Vt.  420,  145, 1224 

Noyes  v.  St.  LouL,  A.  &  T.  H.  E.  Co.,  21 

N.  E.  E.  487,  561 

Noyes  v.  Town  of  Boscawen,  64  N.  H.  361,  1790 
Nudd  v.  Wells,  11  Wis.  408,  2304,  2700 

Nugent  v.  Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  80  Me.  62, 

604,  20f)0,  2450,  2630 

Nugent  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Dis- 
ney (Ohio)  302,  193 
Nugent  v.  Kaufmann,  (Mo.)  33  S.  W.  R. 

428,  2022 

Nugent  v.  Smith,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  Div.  2264, 

2380,  2400,  2692 

Nugent  v.  Supervisors,  19  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

241,  445,  449,  453,  456, 1200, 1224, 1254 

Nulton  v.  Clayton,  54  Iowa  425,  154,  157 

Nunn  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Ga.  710,   2533 
Nutt  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Ore.  291, 

1998,2029 
Nutting  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  Eailroad,  1 

Gray  502,  2227,  2248 

Nye  v.  Lamphere,  2  Gray  (Mass.)  297,        1027 


461, 


284 


0 


Oakbank  Oil  Co.  v.  Cram,  L.  E.  8  App. 

Cas.  65,  112,  442 

Oakdale,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Garst,  (E.  I.)  28  Atl. 

E.  973,  78 

Oakes  v.  Cattaraugus  Water  Co.,  143  N.  Y. 

430,  21,  390,  394 

Oakes  v.  Myers,  68  Fed.  E.  807,  788, 1127 

Oakes  v.  Northern  Pac.  E.  Co.,  20  Ore.  392, 

2608,  2610,  2612,  2613,  2614 
Oakes  v.  Turquand,  L.  E.  2  H.  L.  Cas.  325, 

190, 194, 199,  200,  260 
Oakland  E.  Co.  v.  Fielding,  48  Pa.  St.  320, 

1642, 1794 

Oakland  E.  Co.  v.  Keenan,  56  Pa.  St.  198,     695 
Oakland  E.  Co.  v.  Oakland,  etc.,  E.  Co., 

45  Cal.  365,  73,  89,  94,  98,  860, 1622 

Oakley  v.  Paterson  Bank,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  173,     736 
Oakley  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  Packet  Co., 

11  Exch.  618,  2175,  2264,  2299 

Oakley  v.  Workingmen's,  etc.,  Soc.,  2  Hilt. 

(N.  Y.)  487,  393 

Gates  v.  National  Bank,  100  U.  S.  239, 

2638,2640 
Gates  v.  Union  Pacific  E.  Co.,  104  Mo.  514, 

2123 
Oatts  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (Ky.)  22 

S.  W.  E.  330,  1949 

O'Bannon  v.  Southern  Ex.  Co.,  51  Ala.  481, 

2190 
O'Bannon  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  8 

Bush  (Ky.)  348,  967, 1813 

O'Bear,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Volfer,  (Ala.)  17  So. 

Eep.  525,          .  165, 850, 855 

Ober  v.  GaUegher,  93  U.  S.  199,  675 

Ober  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Mo. 

App.  81,  2694 

Oberfelder  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  Co.,  60 

Iowa,  755,  893 

O'Brien  v.  Baltimore  Belt  R.  Co.,  74  Md. 

363,  901, 1633 

O'Brien  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  138  Mass.  387, 

2457,  2601 
O'Brien  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Gray  90, 

2463,  2574,  2577 
O'Brien  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Iowa 

644,  2149 

O'Brien  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Wis.) 

66  N.  W.  R.  363,  2721 

O'Brien  v.  Cunard  Steamship  Co.,  154 

Mass.  272,  317,  318,  2162 

O'Brien  v.  Gilchrist,  34 Me.  554,    2203, 2205, 2207 
O'Brien  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  New  York,  139 

N.  Y.  543,  1579 


CCCXXX11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-126S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


O'Brien  v.  McGlinchy,  68  Me.  552,  1982 

O'Brien  v.  Moffitt,  133  Ind.  660,  678 

O'Brien  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

X.  Y.  236,  2574,2575 

O'Brien  v.  Xorris,  16  Md.  122,  2390 

O'Brien  v.  Shor's  Flat;  etc.,  Co.,  10  Cal. 

343,  882 

O'Brien  v.  St.  Paul,  25  Minn.  331,  1106 

O' Bryan  v.  Kinney,  74  Mo.  634,  2209 

O'CaUaghan  v.  Bode,  84  Cal.  489,  1949 

Occidental,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Sullivan,  62  Cal. 

394,  218 

Occidental  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ganzhorn,  2  Mo. 

App.  205,  198 

Och  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  Mo.  27,     2710 
Ochiltree  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

62  X.  W.  R.  7,  1985 

O'ConneU  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Md.  212,  2457 

O'Conner,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Coosa,  etc.,  Co.,  95 

Ala.  614,  855 

O'Connor  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  Mass. 

352,  1642, 1794 

O'Connor  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  83  Iowa 

105,  2708 

O'Connor  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  44  La. 

Ann,  339,  1951,  1976 

O'Connor  v.  Knoxville,  etc.,  Co.,  93  Tenn. 

708,  862, 864 

O'Connor  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Mo. 

150,  1764 

O'Connor  v.  Xeal,  153  Mass.  281,  2105 

O'Connor  v.  Pittsburgh,  18  Pa.  St.  187, 

1400, 1610 

O'Connor  v.  Rich,  164  Mass.  560,  2110 

O'Connor  v.  Smith,  82  Tex.  232,  1581 

Oconto  Water  Co.  v.  National,  etc.,  Co., 

59  Fed.  R.  19,  1599 

Ode  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Hun 

(X.  Y.)  199,  1441 

Oderkirk  v.  Fargo,  58  Hun  347,  2260 

Odlin  v.  Woodruff,  31  Fla.  160,  1070 

Odom  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  La. 

Ann.  1201,  2593 

O'Donald  Tf.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

Ind.  259,  174 

O'Donnell  v.  Allegheny  Valley  R.  Co.,  59 

Pa.  St.  239,  407,  1998,  2560 

O'Donnell  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

Fed.  R.  689,  946 

O'Donnell  v.  Johns  &  Co.,  76  Tex.  362,          81 
O'Donnell  v.  Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

R.  I.  211,  1757, 1828, 1986,  2066,  2135 

O'Donnell  v.  Sweeney,  5  Ala.  467,  521,  522 

O'Dougherty  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  T. 

&  C.  (X.  Y.)  477,  2215,  2376 

Odum  v.  Rutledge,  etc.,  Co.,  94  Ala.  488,    1553 


O'Flaherty  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  45  Mo.  70, 

1785, 1983 

Ogburn  v.  Connor,  46  Cal.  346,  1405 

Ogden  v.  Coddington,  2  E.  D.  Smith  217,    269S 
Ogden  v.  County  of  Daviess,  102  U.  S.  K54, 

1175,  1177, 1231,  1242,  1243 

Ogden  v.  Folliott,  3  T.  R.  726,  1023 

Ogden  v.  Kirby,  79  111.  555,  177, 186 

Ogden  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ogden  City,  7  Utah 

207,  U 

Ogdensburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frost,  21 

Barb.  (X.  Y.)  541,  28,  157,  215,  21& 

Ogdensburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pratt,  22 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  123,  2229 

Ogdensburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vermont, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Hun  268,  600,  608 

Ogdensburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wooley,  3 

Abb.  Ct.  of  App.  Dec.  398,  160,  165 

Ogg  v.  Shuter,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  Div.  47,  2216 

Ogilvie  v.  Crawford  County,  7  Fed.  R. 

745,  1083 

Ogilvie  v.  Knox  Ins.  Co.,  22  How.  (U.  S.> 

380,  192,  200,  261,  262 

Oglesby  v.  Attrill,  105  U.  S.  605, 

205,  206,  346,  47S 

Ogley  v.  Miles,  139  X.  Y.  458,  2023 

Oelbermann  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 

N.  Y.  Supp.  945,  243,  244 

Oelbermann  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 

Misc.  R.  352,  512,  516 

Oelbermann  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.)  77  Hun  332,  142,  513 

O'Hagan  v.  Dillon,  76  X.  Y.  170,  1797 

O'Hara  v.  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Dana 

(Ky.)  232,  1354,  1549 

O'Hara  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  25  Pa.  St. 

445,  1292, 1492,  1500, 1528- 

O'Hare  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  111. 

151,  1384,  1385 

Ohio  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Ohio  St. 

489,  123,  124,  419,  435 

Ohio  Co.  v.  Kerth,  130  Ind.  314,  1514 

Ohio  College  v.  Rosenthal,  45  Ohio  St. 

183,  124 

Ohio,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Debolt,  16  How. 

(U.  S.)  115,  1063, 1087 

Ohio  Insurance  Co.  v.  Xunnemacher,  15 

Ind.  294,  441 

Ohio  Life  Ins.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Merchants' 

Ins.,  etc.,  Co.,  11  Humph.  (Tenn.)  1, 

33,  521,  522,  543,  854 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allender,  47  111.  App. 

484,  312 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allender,  59  111.  App. 

620,  2704 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  10  111.  App. 

313,  812, 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccxxxm 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2~:r>.] 


Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Applewhite,  "52  Ind. 

540,  284, 2485 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bannon,  Com.  Pleas 

Ct.  of  Louisville,  Ky.,  June  20, 1892,  2438 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brubaker,  47  111.  462,  1826 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Trust  Co.,  133 

U.  S.  83,  668,  688 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cole,  41  Ind.  331, 

1858,  ia59 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Collarn,  73  Ind.  261, 

.     287,  321,  2086,  2706 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  7 

Ohio  St.  278,  1213 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cramer,  23  Ind.  490, 

166,  177 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dickerson,  59  Ind. 

317,  1914, 2552 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunbar,  20  111.  623, 

612, 1920,  2302,  2310,  2410,  2415 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  138  Ind.  18, 

2027,  2034,  2722 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Evans,  42  111.  288,  1858 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Emrich,  24  111.  App. 

245,  2227,  2233,  2234,  2695,  2696 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitch,  20  Ind.  498, 

762,  788,  820, 1860 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gibbens,  35  W.Va.  57,  901 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hamlin,  42  111.  App. 

441,  2123 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harness,  24  W.  Va. 

511,  1500,  1502, 1527 

Ohio, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hatton,  60  Ind.  12,  2461 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Heaton,  137  Ind.  1,  2013 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hecht,  115  Ind.  443,  1909 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hill,  117  Ind.  56,  1774 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lackey,  78  111.  55, 

962,  2467 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levy,  134  Ind.  343,  308 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maisch,  29  111.  App. 

640,  1779 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarthy,  96  U.  S. 

258,  412,  474,  476,  563 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McClelland,  25  111. 

140,  1661,  1811 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGehee,  47  111.  App. 

348,  1731 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDaneld,  5  Ind. 

App.  108,  1764 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McPherson,  35  Mo.  13, 

341,  362,  640 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morey,  47  Ohio  St. 

207,  1592 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Muhling,  30  111.  9, 

2465,  2508,  2509,  2517 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neady,  5  Ind.  App. 

328,  1837 


Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nickless,  71  Ind.  271, 

1521,  2510,  2512,  2515 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  29  111.  App. 

561,  968 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  120  111.  200, 

923,  924,  958 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  121  111.  483, 

1808,1809 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People.  123  111.  467,  40, 471 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quier,  16  Ind.  440,  879 
Ohio, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ridge,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

78,  4 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rowland,  51  Ind.  285,  1836 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rowland,  50  Ind.  349, 

1832,1837 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Russell,  115  111.  52, 

786,  819,  820,  859, 1861 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Selby,  47  Ind.  471, 

300,  2510,  2517,  2600 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shanefelt,  47  111.  497,  1925 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stanberry,  132  Ind. 

533,  2591 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  49  Ohio  St.  668,  339 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stein,  133  Ind.  243,  307, 308 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stein,  140  Ind.  64,  2062 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stratton,  78  111.  88, 

1981,  2547,2550 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swarthout,  67  Ind. 

567,  2485 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taber,  (Ky.)  36 

S.  W.  R.  18,  2319, 2320,  2654 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thillman,  143  111.  127, 

1415, 1539,  1565 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tindall,  13  Ind.  366,  2601 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Todd,  (Ky.)  45  Am.  & 

Eng.  R.  Cas.  461,  1812 

Ohio,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Trapp,  4  Ind.  App.  69,  1939 
Ohio,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Trowbridge,  126  Ind. 

391,  1985, 1988 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Voight,  122  Ind.  288,  2456 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wachter,  123  111.  440, 

1539, 1563 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  113  Ind.  196, 

1644,  1J37,  1739,  17S7 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wallace,  14  Pa.  St.  245, 

1528 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watson,  93  Ky.  654,  2r>:/J 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weber,  96  111.  443, 

37,  112,  469 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  1  Black 

(U.  S.)  286,  33,  34,  37,  38,  40,  935,  2140 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yohe,  51  Ind.  181, 

2167,  2272,  2385 
Ohrloff  v.  Briscall,  1  L.  R.  P.  C.  231, 

2300,2347 
Oil  Co.  v.  Densmore,  64  Pa.  St.  43,  17 


CCCXXX1V 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JUS-1S6S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161^  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Oil  Creek,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  72  Pa.  St. 

231,  2492 

Oil  Creek,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 

Trans.  Co.,  83  Pa.  St.  160,  489,  503,  508 

Oil  Run  Petroleum  Co.  v.  Gale,  6  W.  Va. 

525,  774 

Olbers,  The  Bark,  3  Ben  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  148, 

2205 

Olcott  v.  Bynum,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  44,    667,  716 
Olcott  v.  Headrick,  141  U.  S.  543,  705 

Olcott  v.  Supervisors,  16  Wall.  678, 

4,  49,  50,  976, 1087, 1139, 1162, 1229, 1256, 1260 
Olcott  v.  Tioga  R.  Co.,  27  N.  Y.  546, 

297,  298,  343,  396,  402,  476,  618,  619 
Olcott  v.  Tioga  R.  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  210,          32 
Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  County  of  Ply- 
mouth, 14  Gray  (Mass.)  155,     1397,  1702, 1703 
Old  Colony  R.  Co,  v.  Evans,  6  Gray 

(Mass.)  25,  538,  539,  557, 1292, 1298 

Old  Colony  R.  Co.  v.  Framingham,  etc., 

Co.,  153  Mass.  561,  1371 

Old  Colony  R.  Co.  v.  Inhabitants,  etc., 

14  Gray  (Mass.)  155, 

1660,  1C62,  1663,  1703, 1704 
Old  Colony  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  125  Mass.  1, 

1282, 1421 
Old  Colony  R.  Co.  v.  Tripp,  147  Mass.  35, 

288,  2018,  2672 
Old  Colony  R.  Co.  v.  Wilder,  137  Mass. 

536,  2373,  2374,  2422 

Old,  etc.,  S.  S.  Co.  v.  McKenna,  30  Fed. 

R.  48,  2688 

Oldenburg  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  N.  Y. 

414,  1752 

Oldfield  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  N.Y. 

310,  1647 

Oldknow  v.  Wainright,  2  Burr.  1017,  232 

Old  National  Bank  v.  Findley,  131  Ind. 

225,  2027 

Olds  Wagon  Works  v.  Benedict,  67  Fed. 

R.  1,  932 

Oldtown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Veazie,  39  Me. 

571,  71,  126,  175 

O'Leary,  Exparte,  65  Miss.  180,  959 

Oler  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Md.  583, 

157, 170,  225 
Oleson  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143 

Ind.  405,  2720,  2721 

Oleson  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ind.) 

42  N.  E.  R.  736,  1772, 1781, 1800 

Oliphant  v.  Woodburn,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Iowa 

332,  128 

Oliphint  v.  Bank,  60  Ark.  198,  148 

Olive  v.  Sabine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.)  33  S. 

W.  R.  139,  1302, 1389 

Olive  Cemetery  v.  Philadelphia,  93  Pa.  St. 

129,  1101 


Oliver  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  111.  587,  889 
Oliver  v.  Keightley,  24  Ind.  514,  1182 

Oliver  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  Co.,  30  Ark.  128,  1064 
Oliver  v.  Northeastern  Railroad  Co.,  L. 

R.  9  Q.  B.  409,  1669, 1794 

Oliver  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Ga.  257, 

1550, 1554 

Olliver's  Estate,  136  Pa.  St.  43,  421 

Olmstead  v.  Camp,  33  Conn.  532,  1340 

Olmstead  v.  Distilling,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Fed. 

R.  24,  774,  781 

Olmstead  v.  Distilling,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Fed. 

R.  24,  781 

Olney  v.  Chadsey,  7  R.  I.  224,  365 

Olney  v.  Conanicut,  etc.,  Co.,  16  R.  I.  597,  855 
Olseu  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Utah  129,  1779 
Olson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Wis.  41, 

1767, 1777 
Olson  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Minn. 

117,  1999,  2019,  2031,  2048 

Olwell  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  1  Cent.  L.  J. 

186,  2326 

Olyphant  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  22  Fed. 

R.  179,  709 

Omaha  v.  Kramer,  25  Neb.  489,  .1409 

Omaha  Fair  Association  v.  Missouri  Pa- 
cific R.  Co.,  42  Neb.  105,  1926 
Omaha,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chollette,  41  Neb. 

578,  308 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beeson,  36  Neb. 

361,  1524 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brady,  37  Neb.  27, 

1750, 1753, 1794 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  14  Neb.  170,  1404 
Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cable,  etc.,  Co.,  32 

Fed.  R.  727,  1411, 1626, 1714 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cable,  etc.,  Co.,  30 

Fed.  R.  324,  1620, 1625 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cook,  37  Neb.  435,  1969 
Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cook,  42  Neb.  905,  1969 
Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crow,  (Neb.)  66  N. 

W.  R.  21,  2511,  2513,  2553,  2593 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gerrard,  17  Neb. 

587,  1292 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hale,  (Neb.)  63  N. 

W.  R.  849,  1021, 1027 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Janecek,  30  Neb. 

276,  1411, 1632 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  14  Neb.295,  1966 
Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Monk,  4  Neb.  21, 

1528, 1530 
Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morgan,  40  Neb. 

604,  1785, 1981 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Donnell,  22  Neb. 

475,  1745 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers,  16  Neb.  117,  1633 
Omaha,  etc. ,  R.  Co.  v.  Ryburn,  40  Neb.  87,  1794 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXXXV 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216L,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Severin,  30  Neb.  318, 

1724, 1727, 1729, 1834, 1842 
Omaha,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Standen,  22  Neb. 

343,  1404 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Umstead,  17  Neb. 

459,  1511 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  108  Mo.  298,  651,  652 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  17  Neb. 

432,  1511, 1523, 1525 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  (Neb.)  66 

N.  W.  R.  842,  1854 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  47  Neb. 

886,  2707 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cameron,  43  Neb. 

297,  1644, 1645 

Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Duvall,  40  Neb.  29, 

1644, 1647 

O'Mahoney  v.  Belmont,  62  N.  Y.  133,  783,  809 
O'Mahony  v.  Belmont,  5  J.  &  S.  (N.  Y.) 

38D,  762, 763 

O'Maley  v.  South  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158 

Mass.  135,  2110,  2113,  2124 

O'MaUey  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Mo. 

319,  2720 

O'Malley  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Minn. 

289,  1974 

O'Mara  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  18 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  192,  1780 

O'Mara  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

N.  Y.  445,  1678, 1749 

O'Mellia  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 

Mo.  205,  2013 

Omnibus  R.  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  57  Cal.  160,  1626 
O'Neal  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132  Ind. 

110,  2001,  2026,  2040 

O'Neal  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132  Ind. 

110,  2028 

O'Neal  v.  Day,  53  Mo.  App.  139,  2394 

O'Neal  v.  King,  3  Jones  (N.  C.)  517,  527 

One  Hundred,  etc.,  Tons  of  Coal,  9  Ben. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  400,  2420 

One  Hundred,  etc.,Tons  of  Coal,  4  Blatchf. 

(U.  S.)  368,  2446 

O'Neil  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  N.  Y. 

125,  1644, 1645 

O'Neil  v.  Lake  Superior  Iron  Co.,  63  Mich. 

690,  2159 

O'Neil  v.  O'Leary,  164  Mass.  387,  2027 

O'Neill  v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  Mass. 

371,  285 

O'Neill  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  115  N.  Y. 

579,  1901, 1909 

O'Neill  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  N.  Y. 

138,  2189,  2273,  2274,  2695 

Onken  v.  Riley,  65  Tex.  468,  1535 


Onset  St.  R.  Co.  v.  County  Comrs.,  154 

Mass.  395,  1636 

Onstott  v.  People,  123  111.  489,  1164 

Ontario  v.  Hill,  99  N.  Y.  324,  1241 

Ontario  Bank  v.  Hanlon,  23  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

283,  2221 

Ontario  Bank  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat 

Co.,  59  N.  Y.  510,  2214,  2361 

Ontario,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  6  Ont.  R.  338, 

1428, 1442 
Ontario,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  14  Ont.  432,  1563 

Onthank  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 

N.  Y.  194,  1304 

Opdyke  v.  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  3  Dill.(U.  S.) 

55,  621 

Opelika  v.  Daniel,  59  Ala.  211,  1139 

Opening  of  Twenty-second  Street,  In  re, 

15  Phila.  409,  1372 

Oppenheim  v.  Russell,  3  Bos.  &  P.  42, 

2389,2444 
Oppenheimer  v.  United  States,  etc.,  Co., 

69  111.  62,  2263,  2309,  2323,  2338 

Orange  Co.  Bank  v.  Brown,  9  Wend.  85, 

2309,2609 
Orange  Bank  v.  Brown,  3  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

158,  2696 

Orange,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Alexandria,  17  Gratt. 

176,  1058, 1062 

Orange,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graver,  32  Fla.  28, 

1466, 1531 

Orange,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Placide,  35  Md. 

315,  1578 

Orchard  v.  Hughes,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.)  73,         688 
Orcutt  v.  Pacific  Coast  R.  Co.,  85  Cal.  291, 

'  1745, 1864 

Oregon  v.  Jennings,  119  U.  S.  74,         1222, 1241 
Oregon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Portland,  25 

Ore.  229,  1103 

Oregon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Oregonian  R.  Co.,  130 

U.  S.  1,  491 

Oregon,  etc.,  Navigation  Co.  v.  Winsor, 

20  Wall.  64,  2664 

Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.-v.  Baily,  3  Ore.  164, 

1349, 1373,  1468, 1518, 1552 
Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barlow,  3  Ore.  311, 

1421,  1439, 1442, 1455, 1456, 1511, 1544 
Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bridwell,  11  Ore. 

282,  1508,  1531, 1534 

Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dacres,  1  Wash. 

195,  1879 

Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Egley,  2  Wash.  409,  1980 
Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dwaco,  etc.,  Co., 

51  Fed.  R.  611,  2356,  2409 

Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  51  Fed.  R.  465,  2172,  2250,  2255,  2674 


cccxxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-UZ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JUS-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27S5.] 


•Oregon,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Co., 

10  Ore.  444,  1292,  1387, 1493, 1494,  1495 

Oregon,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Owsley,  3  Wash. 

Ter.  38,  1383 

Oregon,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Portland,  9  Ore. 

231,  1375 

Oregon,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Scoggin,  3  Ore.  161, 

156, 191, 192 
Oregon,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Smally,  1  Wash. 

206,  963,  1813, 1879, 1892 

Oregon,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Tracy,  66  Fed.  B. 

931,  2000 

Oregon,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  United  States,  67 

Fed.  650,  1126, 1127 

Oregon,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Wait,  3  Ore.  91, 

1425, 1550 
Oregon  B.  &  Nav.  Co.  v.  Oregonian  B. 

Co.,  130  U.  S.  1, 

56,  57,  59,  100, 104,  475,  505,  517,  525,  569,  570, 
572,  581,  590,  592 
Oregon  B.  &  Nav.  Co.  v.  Oregonian  By. 

Co.,  145  U.  S.  52,  592 

Oregon  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Winsor,  20 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  64,  533 

Oregonian  B.  Co.  v.  Hill,  9  Ore.  377, 

1273, 1423,  1494,  1534 
Oregonian  B.  Co.  v.  Oregon  B.,  etc.,  Co., 

23  Fed.  B.  232,  271,  873 

O'Beilly  v.  Bard,  105  Pa.  St.  569,  213,  266 

O'Beiley  v.  Kankakee,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Ind. 

169,  26, 1340 

O'Beilly  v.  Kerns,  52  Pa.  St.  214, 

1572,  1573, 1578 

O'Beilly  v.  Kingston,  114  N.  Y.  439,  1110 

O'Beilly  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  16  B.  I. 

388,  2134 

O'Beilly  v.  Utah,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  87  Hun  406, 

2127 
Orgall  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  46  Neb. 

4,  2126 

Organ  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  51  Ark. 

235,  546,  898,  1320 

Orient  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  In  re,  66  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

633,  824 

Orient  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Adams,  123  U.  S. 

67,  2333 

Oriflamme,  The,  1  Sawyer  176,  2205 

Orleans  v.  Platt,  99  U.  S.  676,  1231, 1239 

Orman  v.  Mannix,  17  Colo.  564,  2091 

Ormond  v.  Hayes,  60  Tex.  180,  2480 

Ormond  v.  Holland,  El.  Bl.  &  El.  102,         2025 
Ormsby  v.  Union  Pac.  B.  Co.,  2  McCrary 

48,  2341 

Ormsby  v.  Union  Pac.  B.  Co.,  4  Fed.  B. 

706,  2340, 2342 

Ormsby  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  Co.,  56  N.  Y.  623, 

219,  221,  236 


Orndorff  v.  Adams  Ex.  Co.,  3  Bush  (Ky.) 

194,  2321 

O'Bourke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  44  Iowa 

526,  2309, 2380 

Oroville,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Supervisor,  37  Cal. 

354,  30,  83,  1213 

Orphan  Asylum  v.  McCartee,  1  Hopk.  Ch. 

(N.  Y.)  423,  737,  738 

Orr  v.  Bracken  County,  81  Ky.  593,  67,  92 

Orr  v.  Cedar  Bapids,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

62  N.  W.  B.  851,  1646 

Orr  v.  Quimby,  54  N.  H.  590,  1273,  1332,  1423 
Orrick  School  District  v.  Dorton,  125  Mo. 

439,  1349 

Ortman  v.  Union,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  32  Kan.  419, 

1531,  1555 

Ortigosa  v.  Brown,  47  L.  J.  Ch.  168,  144 

Ortt  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  36  Minn. 

396,  2228,  2233,  2700 

Orvis  v.  Powell,  98  U.  S.  176,  1012 

Osage  Valley,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  County  Ct., 

53  Mo.  156,  1212, 1257 

Osborn  v.  Adams,  18  Pick.  (Mass.)  245,  849 
Osborn  v.  Crosby,  63  N.  H.  583,  164 

Osborn  v.  Bank,  9  Wheat.  737,  976,  979 

Osborn  v.  Hart,  24  Wis.  89,  1337 

Osborn  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  Co.,  40  Conn. 

498,  1068, 1069 

Osborn  v.  Heyer,  2  Paige  342,  751 

Osborn  v.  New  York,  etc.,  40  Conn.  491,  1062 
Osborn  v.  People,  103  111.  224,  550 

Osborne  v.  Detroit,  32  Fed.  B.  36,  2714 

Osborne  v.  Jackson,  L.  B.  11  Q.  B.  D.  619, 

2119,  2120 
Osborne  v.  Jersey  City,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  27 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  589,  1656,  1658,  1665 

Osborne  v.  Knox,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  68  Me.  49, 

305,2060 

Osborne  v.  McMasters,  40  Minn.  103,  2475 

Osborne  v.  Missouri  Pacific  B.  Co.,  147 

U.  S.  248,  900,  1651 

Osborne  v.  Missouri  Pac.  B.  Co.,  (C.  C.  E. 

D.  Mo.)  35  Fed.  B.  84,  .898 

Osborne  v.  Mobile,  16  Wall.  479, 

1076, 1083,  2643 

Osborne  v.  Monks,  (Ky.)  21  S.  W.  B.  101,  725 
Osborne  v.  Morgan,  130  Mass.  102,  2106 

Osborne  v.  Schutt,  67  Mo.  712,  1477 

Osborne  v.  State,  33  Fla.  162,  1073 

Oscanyan  v.  Arms  Co.,  103  U.  S.  261,  530,  2640 
Osgood  v.  Groning,  2  Campl.  466,  2290 

Osgood  v.  King,  42  Iowa  478,  131,  132, 166 

Osgood  v.  Laytin,  48  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  463,  434 
Osgood  v.  Laytin,  3  Keyes  (N  Y.)  521,  433 
Osgood  v.  Ogden,  4  Keyes  (N.  Y.)  70,  796 

O'Shields  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  83  Ga. 

621,  2143 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXXXV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-JUS,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263- 


Oshkosh  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  74  Wis. 

534,  915, 1010, 1642,  1667 

Oslikosh,  etc.,  Co.,  Re,  77  Wis.  366,  239 

Oshkosh  City  R.  Co.  v.  Winnebago 

County,  89  Wis.  435,  1110 

Ossipee,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Canney,  54  N.  H. 

295,  487, 538 

Osterberg  v.  Union  Trust  Co.,  93  U.  S. 

424,  702 

Ostertag  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  64  Mo. 

421,  1980 

Ostrander  v.  Brown,  15  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  39, 

2353,  2354,  2370,  2377 
Oswego  Falls  B.  Co.  v.  Fish,  1  Barb.  Ch. 

547,  48 

Otis,  In  re,  101  N.  Y.  580,  822 

Otis  v.  Gardner,  105  111.  436,  144 

Otis  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  71  Fed.  R.  2157, 

2158,  2159 
Otis  Company  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  112 

Mo.  622,  2184 

Otoe  County  v.  Baldwin,  111  U.  S.  1, 

1171,  1172 
O'Toole  v.  Central  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 

N.  Y.  S.  R.  591,  2477 

O'Toole  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158  Pa. 

St.  99,  1791,  1799,  2547 

Ottaquechee  Wollen  Co.  v.  Newton,  57  Vt. 

451,  79 

Ottawa  v.  Carey,  108  U.  S.  110,    1167, 1216, 1232 
Ottawa  v.  McCaleb,  81  111.  559,  1056 

Ottawa  v.  Nat.  Bank,  105  U.  S.  342,  1239 

Ottawa  v.  People,  48  111.  233,  2671 

Ottawa,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Black,  79  111.  262, 

157,  453,  454,  612, 1254 
Ottawa,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  HaU,  1  Bradw.  (111.) 

612,  172 

Ottawa,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murray,  15  111.  :«6,    642 
Otter  v.  Brevoort,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Barb.  (N  Y.) 

247,  133, 141 

Ottinger  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Iii- 

terst.  Com.  Com.  R.  144,  2683 

Ottumwa,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McWilliams,  71 

Iowa  164,        561,  562,  563, 1293,  1297,  1298,  1303 
Ouimit  v.  Henshaw,  35  Vt.  605, 

2186,  2278,  2609,  2610,  2617,  2628,  2629 
Over  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Fed.  R. 

34,  933 

Overby  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  W. 

Va.  524,  2720 

Overend  v.  Gibb,  L.  R.  5  H.  L.  480,  384 

Overend  v.  Gurney,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  701,  384 

Overholtv.  Vieths,  93  Mo.  422,  1973 

Overland  Express  Co.  v.  Carroll,  7  Colo. 

43,  2178,  2317,  2338 

Overman  v.  May,  35  Iowa  89,  1628 

CORP. — xxii 


.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 

Overmyer  v.  Williams,  15  Ohio  St.  26,    536, 539 
Overton  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Fed. 

R.  866,  735,  738,  739,  746,  755,  830 

Overton  Bridge  Co.  v.  Means,  33  Neb.  857,   696 
Oviatt  v.  Dakota,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Minn. 

300,  2449,  2471,  2474,  2552 

Owen  v.  Brockschmidt,  54  Mo.  285,  2148 

Owen  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 

L.  J.  Q.  B.  486,  2478 

Owen  v  Homan,  4  H.  L.  Cas.  997,  736 

Owen  v.  Homan,  3  Macn.  &  G.  378,  738 

Owen  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Ky. 

626,   2067,  2340,  2:342,  2356,  2408,  2409,  2410,  2654 
Owen  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mo. 

454,  2429 

Owen  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Lans. 

(N.  Y.)  108,  2004 

Owen  v.  Phillips,  73  Ind.  284,  904 

Owen  v.  Smith,  31  Barb.  641,  565 

Owen  v,  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mo.  454,  2435 
Owen  Sound  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  17  Ont.  R.  691,  509 

Owens  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Mo. 

386,  1852,  1855,  1858,  1875,  2157 

Owens  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  67  Tex.679,  1404 
Owens  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  187, 

1741, 1733, 1775, 1957 
Owens  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  C. 

502,  1766, 2069 

Owensboro,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Todd,  91  Ky. 

175,  967 

Owensborough,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sutton, 

(Ky.)  13  S.  W.  R.  1086,  1613 

Owings  v.  Speed,  5  Wheat.  420,  364 

Owmsbee  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  R.  I. 

102,  1773 

Owners  of  Brig  James  Gray  v.  Owners, 

etc.,  21  How.  184,  2647 

Owners  of  Steamboat  Farmer  v.  McCraw, 

26  Ala.  189,  2696 

Owsley  v.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Ala. 

560,  1020 

Oxford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bnnnel,  6  Conn.  552,  146 
Oxford  Iron  Co.  v.  Spradley,  42  Ala.  24,  882 
Oxford  Iron  Co.  v.  Spradley,  51  Ala.  171,  485 
Oxlade  v.  Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  C. 

B.  (N.  S.)  454,  2671,  2672,  2687 

Oxlade  v.  Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Nev. 

&  MacN.  R.  Cas.  72,  2285 

Oxlade  v.  Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  C. 

B.  (N.  S.)  896,  2167 

Oxlade  v.  Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  C. 

B.  (N.  S.)  680,  411,  2280 

Oxley  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Mo.  629, 

2341,2402,2697 


CCCXXXV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  J-442,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-m2,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  126S-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Pacific,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Maguire,  20  Wall.  36, 

1063, 1087 
Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Black,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

363,  2182 

Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Darnell,  (Tex.)  6  S. 

W.  R.  765,  2342 

Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Foley,  46  Kan.  457, 

2320,2330 

Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Seibert,  142  U.  S.  339, 

995,  1059,  1095, 1097 
Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Seibert,  44  Fed.  R. 

310,  2178 

Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Shearer,  160  111.  215,  2382 
Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Shearer,  (111.)  43  N.  E. 

R.  816,  2364 

Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Wallace,  60  Ark.  100,  2213 
Pacific  Fruit  Co.  v.  Coon,  (Cal.)  40  Pac. 

R.  542,  128,253 

Pacific  Postal  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Union 

Tel.  Co.,  50  Fed.  R.  493,  531 

Pacific  R.  Commission,  In  re,  32  Fed.  R. 

217,  980, 983 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Railroad 

Com.,  9  Sawyer  253,  995 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Railroad 

Com.,  18  Fed.  R.  10,  994,  2645,  2655 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chrystal,  25  Mo.  544, 

1427,  1444 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cutting,  Jr.,  27  Fed. 

R.  638,  434 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Evans,  71  Tex.  361,  2576 
Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Foley,  46  Kan.  457,  2338 
Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes,  22  Mo.  291, 

71,  350, 1850 
Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ketchum,  101  U.  S. 

289,  687,  714,  726,  760 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Leavenworth  City, 

1  Dillon  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  393,  1616,  1621 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lasker  Real  Estate 

Assn.,  81  Tex.  81,  1929 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry. 

Co.,  1  McCrary  647,  762 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pacific 

R.  Co.,  15  Am.  R.  W.  R.  80,  760 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  2  McCrary  (U.  S. )  227,  877 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  23  Fed.  R.  565,  936 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perkins,  36  Neb. 

456,  35 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Porter,  74  Cal.  261,  1531 
Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Renshaw,  18  Mo. 

210,  71,  89, 1224 


Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seely,  45  Mo.  212, 
57,  184,  376,  381,  495,  512,  527.  529,  536,  1279, 

1280,1308 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  (Tex.)  16  S. 
"W.  R.  998,  1929 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  19  Kan. 

256,  316,  324,  405 

Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wade,  91  Cal.  449, 

1268,  1627 
Pacific  Railroad  Removal  Cases,  115  U.  S. 

1,  942, 976 

Pacific  Rolling  Mill  v.  Dayton,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  5  Fed.  R.  852,  642 

Pacific  Trust  Co.  v.  Dorsey,  72  Cal.  55,         165 
Pack  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  W.Va. 

118,  1463 

Packard  v.  Bergen,  etc.,  Co.,  54  N.  J.  Law 

553,  1424, 1530 

Packard  v.  Getman,  6  Cow.  (N.  W.)  757, 

2182,  2190,  2191,  2274,  2277 
Packard  v.  Jefferson  County,  2  Colo.  338,  1182 
Packard  v.  Taylor,  35  Ark.  402, 

2238,  2261,  2262,  2265,  2268 
Packer  v.  Sunbury,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  19  Pa. 

St.  211,  59 

Packet  Co.  v.  Cattlesburg,  105  U.  S.  559|      952 
Packet  Co.  v.  McCue,  17  Wall.  553,  2079 

Paddock  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Fed. 

R.  481,  2534 

Paddock  v.  Fletcher,  42  Vt.  389,      20,  384,  2574 
Paddock  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  1  Mo. 

App.  R.  87,  2406 

Paducah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

80  Ky.  147,  1036,  1040,  1659,  1665,  1674 

Paducah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoehl,  12  Bush 

(Ky.)  41,  1763,  1979,  2069 

Paducah  Land,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Mulholland, 

15  Ky.  Law  R.  22,  18 

Paducah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parks,  86  Tenn. 

554,  168, 182 

Paducah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stovall,  12  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  1,  1425, 1428, 1429, 1487 

Page  v.  Allen,  58  Pa.  St.  338,  1141 

Page  v.  Chicago,  60  IU.  441,  1110 

Page  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  IU.  324,     1438 
Page  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Dak.)  64  N. 
W.  R.  137,  2225,  2229,  2233 

'age  v.  Contoocook  Valley  R.  Co.,  21  N.  H. 
438,  248 

age  v.  Fall  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Fed.  R. 
257,  398, 642 

age  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  L.  T. 
Rep.  585,  3845 

age  v.  Heineberg,  40  Vt.  81,     538,542,1292,1302 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXXX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-ltltf,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Page  v.  Munro,  1  Holmes  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  232, 

2420 
Page  v.  North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  71  N.  Car. 

222,  1869 

Page  v.  O'Toole,  144  Mass.  303,  1387 

Page  v.  Sumpter,  53  Wis.  652,  1880 

Pagels  v.  Oaks,  64  Iowa  198,  1558 

Paige  v.  Smith,  99  Mass.  395, 

803,  804,  812,  813,  2108,  2168 
Paine  v.  Boston,  4  Allen  (Mass.)  168,  1513 
Paine  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Wis.)  64 

N.  W.  R.  1005,  2044 

Paine  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Ind. 

283,  38,  373,  375,  377,  456, 1568 

Paine  v.  Stewart,  33  Conn.  516,  270 

Paine  v.  Wright,  6  McLean  359,  1061 

PainsviUe,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  King,  17  Ohio  St. 

534,  124,  435,  436,  441,  442,  911 

Painter  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  702,  2684 

Pakalinski  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82 

N.  Y.  424,  1753,  1754,  1764,  1779 

Paland  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  La. 

Ann.  1003,  2033,  2071 

Palatka,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  23  Fla.  546, 

1641, 1650, 1656, 1665,  1666 

Palliser,  In  re,  136  U.  S.  257,  2688 

Palmer,  The  Hettie,  63  Fed.  R.  1015,  2355 

Palmer  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Cal. 

187,  2248,  2330,  2416,  2699 

Palmer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Ind. 

250,  1736,  1739,  1792,  1947,  1969,  2721 

Palmer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Conn. 

137,  2229, 2236 

Palmer  v.  Clark,  4  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  25, 

750,  751 

Palmer  v.  Clement,  49  Mich.  45,  1535 

Palmer  v.  Conly,  4  Den.-(N.  Y.)  374,  1030 

Palmer  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Hun 

486,  2466 

Palmer  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  120  N.  Y. 

170,  2470 

Palmer  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich.  1, 

1767 
Palmer  v.  Forbes,  23  111.  237, 

46,  535,  536,  645,  654 

Palmer  v.  Forsyth,  4  Barn.  &  C.  401,  1558 

Palmer  v.  Grand  Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  M.  &  W.  749,  2166,  2167,  2171,  2398,  2399 

Palmer  v.  Great  Western  Railway  Co.,  L. 

R.  6  C.  P.  194,  2688 

Palmer  v.  Lawrence,  3  Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  161, 

28 
Palmer  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  6  C. 

P.  194,  2668 

Palmer  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1  C. 

P.  588,  2670 


Palmer  v.  McMahon,  133  U.  S.  660,  1091 

Palmer  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Mich. 

363,  2081 

Palmer  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 

N.  Y.  234,  1752,  1755,  2138 

Palmer  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  Ill  N.  Y.  488, 

2468 
Palmer  v.  Railroad  Co.,  3  S.  Car.  580, 

2492,2505 
Palmer  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Minn. 

415,  1856 

Palmer  v.  Stumph,  29  Ind.  329,  1100 

Palmer  v.  Utah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Idaho  350, 

611,  612,  2076 
Palmer  v.  Utah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Idaho  290, 

570, 1472,  2087 

Palmer  v.  Woodbury,  14  Cal.  43,  927 

Palmer  &  Hungerford  Market  Co.,  Mat- 
ter of,  9  Ad.  &  El.  463,  1489 
Palmer  &  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re, 

L.  R.  1  C.  P.  588,  2281 

Palmeri  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133 

N.  Y.  261,  1992,  2578 

Palmeter  v.  Wagner,  etc.,  Co.,  11  Alb.  L. 

J.  149,  2535,  2536 

Palmyra  v.  Morton,  25  Mo.  593,  275,  1100, 1102 
Palys  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  604,  1773 
Palysv.  Jewett,  32  N.  J.  Eq.  302,  802 

Pana  v.  Bowler,  107  U.  S.  529,  1241,  1243 

Pana  v.  Lippincott,  2  Brad.  (111.)  466,  1182 
Panama  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  63  Hun  629,  1053 
Panama,  etc.,  Royal  Mail  Co.,  In  re, 

L.  R.  5  Ch.  318,  650 

Panghorn  v.  Citizens',  etc.,  Assn.,  35  N.  J. 

Eq.  341,  382 

Pankey  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Interst.  Com.  Rep.  33,  2236,  2237 

Pannell  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Ala. 

298,  1781 

Pantam  v.  Isham,  1  Salk.  19,  1888 

Paola,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  16 

Kan.  302,  360,  1211 

Pappenheim  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Rail- 
road, 128  N.  Y.  463,  1450 
Paquet  v.  Mt.  Tabor  St.  R.  Co.,  18  Ore. 

233,  900,  901, 1628 

Paradine  v.  Jane,  Aleyn  26,  2290 

Paramore  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  53  Ga.  383, 

2292,2295 
Pardington  v.  South  Wales  R.  Co.,  1  H. 

&  N.  392,  2398 

Parham  v.  Justices,  9  Ga.  341,  1336 

Paris  v.  Mason,  37  Tex.  447,  1425 

Paris  v.  Paris,  10  Vesey,  Jr.,  185,  424 

Paris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson,  89  111.  86, 

178, 183 


cccxl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Paris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nesbitt,  (Tex.)  33  S. 

W.  R.  280,  1895 

Parish  v.  Golden,  35  N.  Y.  462,  1104 

Parish  v.  Wheeler,  22  N.  Y.  494,  517,  647 

Park  v.  Grant  Locomotive  Works,  40  N.  J. 

Eq.  114,  429 

Park  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Fed.  R. 

799,  821 

Park  v.  O'Brien,  23  Conn.  339,  1766,  2069 

Park  v.  Preston,  108  N.  Y.  434,  2325 

Parke's  Appeal,  64  Pa.  St.  137,  1265 

Parke  v.  Seattle,'5  Wash.  1,  1406, 1566 

Parker,  Petitioner,  36  N.  H.  84,  1487 

Parker  v.  Barnard,  135  Mass.  116,  1949 

Parker  v.  Bethel,  etc.,  Co.,  (Tenn.)  34  S. 

W.  R.  209,  144 

Parker  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Gush. 

(Mass.)  107,  1358, 1409 

Parker  v.  Catholic  Bishop,  146  111.  158,       1631 
Parker  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Exch. 

702,  2429, 2431 

Parker  v.  Browning,  8  Paige  (N.  Y.)  388, 

776,  787,  803 

Parker  v.  Clarkson,  39  W.  Va.  184,  945 

Parker  v.  Dacres,  130  U.  S.  43,  s.  c.  9  Sup. 

Ct.  R.  433,  715 

Parker  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Iowa 

399,  1852 

Parker  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 

Lea  (Tenn.)  669,  1545 

Parker  v.  Flagg,  26  Me.  181,  2264,  2350 

Parker  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Tex. 

333,  1500, 1528 

Parker  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Ga.  539,    2037 
Parker  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  7  M.  & 

G.  253,  2431,  2668,  2670 

Parker  v.  Lake  Shore,  R.  Co.,  93  Mich. 

607,  1880 

Parker  v.  Mason,  8  R.  I.  427,  422,  441 

Parker  v.  Massachusetts  R.  Co.,  115  Mass. 

580,  1596 

Parker  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Wis. 

689,  2355, 2372 

Parker  v.  New  Orleans,  B.  R.  &  V.  R.  R. 

Co.,  33  Fed.  R.  693,  650,  651,  653 

Parker  v.  Nickerson,  137  Mass.  487,  378 

Parker  v.  Nightingale,  6  Allen  341,  498 

Parker  v.  Northern  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. ,33 

Mich.  23,  155 

Parker  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  R.  I. 

773,  208, 2005 

Parker  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  134  Ind.  673, 

1952, 1955,  1968,  1970 
Parker  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Me. 

173,  1948 

Parker  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

Barb.  315,  615, 1837 


Parker  v.  Smith,  3  Bradw.  (111.)  356,  1250 

Parker  v.  South  Eastern  Co.,  L.  R.  2  C. 

P.  Div.  416,  2313,  2633 

Parker  v.  Thomas,  19  Ind.  213,  173,  192 

Parker  v.  Thomas,  81  Am.  Dec.  385, 

157, 160,  163,  168,  174,  252 

Parker  v.  Waycross  &  F.  R.  Co.,  81  Ga.  387,   302 
Parker  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  N. 

Car.  221,  1756,  1968 

Parkersburg  v.  Brown,  106  U,  S.  487, 

324,  507, 510,  1140,  1168 
Parkinson  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

L.  R.  6  C.  P.  554,  2668,  2670 

Parkinson  Sugar  Co.  v.  Riley,  50  Kan. 

401,  2057 

Parkhurst  v.  Capital  City  Ry.  Co.,  23  Ore. 

471,  1615 

Parkhurst  v.  Northern  Central  R.  R.  Co., 

19  Md.  472,  648 

Parkhurst  v.  Watertown,  etc.,  Co.,  107 

Ind.  594,  675 

Parks  v.  Boston,  15  Pick.  198,  1525 

Parks  v.  Boston,  8  Pick.  218,  1192 

Parks  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Ind. 

567,  173,  174,  175,  200 

Parks  v.  Jacob  Dold,  etc.,  Co.,  27  N.  Y. 

Supp.  289,  2434 

Parks  v.  Loche,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  25  S.  W. 

R.  702,  1600 

Parks  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Lea  1, 

1029, 1031, 1045 

Parks  v.  Ross,  11  How.  362,  1768 

Parks  v.  Wisconsin  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  33 

Wis.  413,  1435 

Parmelee  v.  Associated,  etc.,  11  Misc.  363,    399 
Parmelee  v.  Fischer,  22  111.  212,  2608 

Parmelee  v.  Lowitz,  74  111.  116,  2208 

Parmelee  v.  Oswego,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  N.  Y. 

74,  1306 

Parmley  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Dill. 

13,  1061 

Parmly  v.  Tenth  Ward  Bank,  3  Edw.  Ch. 

395,750 

Parr  v.  Spartansburg,  etc.,  Co.,  43  S.  C. 

197,  611 

Parrish  v.  Gilmanton,  11  N.  H.  293,  1535 

Parrish  v.  Wheeler,  22  N.  Y.  494,  503,  507 

Parrott  v.  Byers,  40  Cal.  614,  239,  240 

Parrott,  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Railway  Co., 

10  Ohio  St.  624,  904,  1037,  1634 

Parrott  v.  City,  44  Conn.  180,  1009 

Parrott  v.  Housatonic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47 

Conn.  575,  1929, 1332 

Parrott  v.  Wells,  15  Wall.  524,  2467 

Parry  v.  American  Opera  Co.,  12  Civ.  Pro. 

B.  (N.Y.)  194,  107 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccxli 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  ii,  pp.  iw-nev,  Vol. 

Parsons  v.  Charter  Oak  Ins.  Co.,  31  Fed.  R. 

305,  773, 797 

Parsons  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Fed. 

R.  903,  2668,  2669,  2678,  2679 

Parsons  v.  Eureka  Powder  Works,  48  N.  H. 

66,  853 

Parson  v.  Hardy,  14  Wend.  215, 

<266,  2302,  2304,  2427 

Parsons  v.  Howe,  41  Me.  218,  1565 

Parsons  v.  Jackson,  99  U.  S.  434,  626,  630 

Parsons  v.  Joseph,  92  Ala.  403,  130,  242 

Parsons  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Mo. 

286,  2717 

Parsons  v.  Monteath,  13  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

353,  2329 

Parsons  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  113 

N.  Y.  355,  1784,  2481 

Parsons  v.  Robinson,  122  U.  S.  112,  689 

Parsons  v.  Russell,  11  Mich.  140,  963 

Partridge  v.  Badger,  25  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  146,    163 
Partridge  v.  Phoenix,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  15 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  573,  949 

Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  469,  482,  2643 

Passenger  Tariff,  Re,  2  Interst.  Com.  R. 

445,  2686 

Passenger  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  21  Ohio  St. 

518,  2581 

Passmaneck  v.  Louisville  R.  C.,  (Ky.)  32, 

S.  W.  R.  620,  2144 

Patchell  v.  Irish,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Irish  Rep. 

C.  L.  2476, 

Patchin  v.  Hunter,  38  Fed.  R.  51,  939 

Patee  v.  Adams,  37  Kan.  133,  2651 

Patent,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  83,        564 
Patnode  v.  Warren,  etc.,  Mills,  157  Mass. 

283,  2057 

Patrick  v.  Eells,  30  Kan.  680,  792 

Patrick  v.  Reynolds,  1  Com.  B.  N.  S.  727,       19 
Patrick  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  N.C. 

422,  403 

Paterson  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Ga. 

653,  2547, 2555 

Paterson  v.  Society,  24  N.  J.  L.  385,    1102, 1105 
Paterson  Ry.  Co.  v.  Grundy,  51  N.  J.  Eq. 

213,  12,  1621,  1629 

Paterson  Ry.  Co.  v.  Grundy,  (N.  J.)  26  Atl. 

R.  788,  12 

Paterson,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kamlah,  42  N.  J. 

Eq.  93,  1541 

Patridge  v.  Scott,  3  Mees.  &  W.  220,  1891 

Patscheider  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  3  Ex.  Div.  153,  2616,  2624 

Patten's  Petition,  16  N.  H.  283,  1472 

Patten  v.  Accessory  Transit  Co.,  4  Abb. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)235,  747 

Patten  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa 
459,  1839 


III,  pp.  7263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-2725.] 

Patten  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Wis. 

524,  2479 

Patten  v.  Northern  Central  R.  Co.,  33  Pa. 

St.  426,  1428, 1443 

Patten  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  29  Fed  R. 

590,  2237,  2242,  2249,  2253,  2441 

Patterson  v.  Binghamton,  88  Hun  272,        1485 
Patterson  v.  Clyde,  67  Pa.  St.  500,  2348 

Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U.  S.  501, 

966,  2650,  2654 

Patterson  v.  Lynde,  112  111.  196,       257,  770,  771 
Patterson  v.  Lynde,  106  U.  S.  519,  261 

Patterson  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Houst.  103,  1736 

Patterson  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76 

Pa.  St.  389,  1997,  2039,  2083 

Patterson  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Ala. 

318,  1728 

Patterson  v.  Townsend,  (Iowa)  59  N.  W. 

R.205,  1649 

Patterson  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 

Mich.  91,  608,  609 

Pattison  v.  Blanchard,  5  N.  Y.  186,     2243,  2244 
Pattison  v.  Culton,  33  Ind.  240,  2392 

Pattison  v.  Shaw,  6  Ind.  377,  680 

Patton  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa 

306,  2002 

Patton  v.  Clark,  9  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  268,    1476, 1554 
Patton  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89 

Tenn.  370,  1967 

Patton  v.  McGrath,  Dudley  Law  (S.  Car.) 

159,  2269 

Patton  v.  Railway  Co.,  89  Tenn.  370,  1764 

Patton  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Mo. 

117,  1924, 1940 

Patton  v.  West  End,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Mo. 

App.  589,  1833 

Patton  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  N.  Car. 
'    455,  2020,2077 

Patty  v.  Hillsboro,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  224,  156 

Paul  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Fed.  R. 

513,  936 

Paul  v.  Connersville,  etc.,R.  Co.,  51  Ind. 

527,  1310, 1451 

Paul  v.  City  of  Detroit,  32  Mich.  108, 

1419, 1470,  1480 

Paul  v.  Frost,  40  Me.  293,  1608 

Paul  v.  Kenosha,  22  Wis.  266,  1252 

Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  168, 

32,  1085, 1093,  2140 

Paule  v.  Florence,  etc.,  Co.,  80  Wis.  350,     2059 
Paulding  v.  Chrome  Steel  Co.,  94  N.  Y. 

334,  853, 855 

Pauling  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Exch. 

867,  480 


cccxlii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Paulmier  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  N.  J.  L. 

157,  2051 

Paulsen  v.  Portland,  16  Ore.  450,  1477 

Paulsen  v.  Portland,  149  U.  S.  30,  1091 

Pavitt  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153  Pa.  St. 

302,  2341, 2345 

Pawlet,  Town  of,  v.  Clark,  9  Cranch 

292,  2639 

Pawlet,  Town  of,  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

28  Vt.  297,  1582 

Paxon  v.  Sweet,  13  N.  J.  Law  196,        277, 1625 
Paxton  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Co.,  45  Neb.  884, 

2652,2684 
Paxton  Cattle  Co.  v.  First  Nat.  Bank, 

21  Neb.  621,  21 

Payne  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  Mo. 

405,  1786 

Payne  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Iowa 

236,  1751 

Payne  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Iowa 

523,  1678,  1792 

Payne  v.  Elliott,  54  Cal.  339,  114 

Payne  v.  Forty-second  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

40  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  8,  2050 

Payne  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  58  N.  H. 

611,  1794 

Payne  v.  Hook,  7  Wall.  425,  2141 

Payne  v.  Humeston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Iowa 

584,  1969 

Payne  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Fed.  R. 

546,  896, 1415, 1513 

Payne  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72 

Iowa  214,  1845 

Payne  v.  Morgan's,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  La. 

Ann.  981,  1328, 1552 

Payne  v.  Morgan's  La.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

La.  Ann.  164,  1405,  1566 

Payne  v.  New  South  Wales,  etc.,  Co.,  10 

Ex.  283,  20 

Payne  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  N.  Y.  572,    1795 
Payne  v.  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Lea 

(Tenn.)  507,  299 

Payson  v.  Stoever,  2  Dill.  (U.  S.)  233,    126, 264 
Peabody  v.  Chicago  Gas  Trust  Co.,  130  IU. 

268,  -502 

Peabody  v.  Maguire,  79  Me.  572,  2388 

Peabody  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Ore. 

121,  2487,  2573,  2578,  2717 

Peake  v.  Wabash,  R.  Co.,  18  IU.  88,  207 

Pearce  v.  Madison,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  21 

How.  (U.  S.)  441, 

70, 104,  235,  443,  475,  484,  511,  514,  524,  579,  631, 

2244 
Pearce  v.  The  Thomas  Newton,  41  Fed.  R. 

106,    •  2265,2276,2305 

Pearley  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Mass. 

414,  1894 


III,  pp.  1263-216i,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Pearly  v  Smith,  3  Atk.  260,  424 

PearsaU  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  74  Mich. 

558,  1480 

PearsaU  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

73  Fed.  R.  933,  30 

PearsaU  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.,  161  U.  S. 

646,  2652, 2653 

PearsaU  v.  Post,  20  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  Ill,       1318 
PearsaU  v.  Western  U.  Tel.  Co.,  44  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  532,  247 

Pearson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Minn. 

9,  2111 

Pearson  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  N.  H. 

537,  142, 162,  339,  348,  380,  381 

Pearson  v.  Duane,  4  WaU.  (U.  S.)  605, 

2282,  2451, 2454,  2455 
Pearson  v.  London,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  14  Sim. 

541,  120 

Pearson  v.  Milwaukee  R.  Co.,  45  Iowa 

497,  1864 

Pease  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Wis.  163, 

2051,  2053,  2054,  2065 
Pease  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  101  N.  Y. 

367,  2574 

Pease  v.  Gloahec,  L.  R.  1  Priv.  C.  App. 

219,  2219 

Peaslee  v.  Fitchburgh  Ry.  Co.,  152  Mass. 

155,  2025 

Peavey  v.  Calais  R.  Co.,  30  Me.  498,       63, 1386 
Peavy  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ga.  485, 

2574,  2577 

Peavy  v.  Wolfborough,  37  N.  H.  286,  1472 

Peck  v.  Coalfield  Coal  Co.,  11  IU.  App.  88, 

133,166 

Peck  v.  Cooper,  112  111.  192,  387 

Peck  v.  Dinsmore,  4  Porter  (Ala.)  212, 

2203,2209 

Peck  v.  Doran  &  W.  Co.,  57  Hun  343,  509 

Peck  v.  LouisviUe,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Ind. 

366,  1320, 1369 

Peck  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  57  Mich.  3, 

1755 

Peck  v.  Miller,  39  Mich.  594,  1594 

Peck  v.  Neil,  3  McLean  22,  2473 

Peck  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  Y. 

587,  285, 2573 

Peck  v.  New  York,  etc.,  S.  S.  Co.,  3  Bosw. 

(N.  Y.)  622,  259 

Peck  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  How. 

(N.  Y.)  Pr.  419,  706 

Peck  v.  Providence  Gas  Co.,  17  R.  I.  275,     139 
Peck  v.  Weeks,  34  Conn.  145,  2268,  2322 

Peck  v.  Whitney,  6  B.  Mon.  117,  1553 

Peckham  v.  Dutchess  County,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  20  N.  Y.  Supp.  39,  1728 

Peckham  v.  Dutchess,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145 

N.  Y.  385,  816, 1724 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccxliii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216^,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S7t5.] 


Peckham  v.  Van  Wagenen,  83  N.  Y.  40, 

421,427 
Peddicord  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

Md.  463,  1633 

Peden  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa 

328,  1315 

Peebles  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Mass. 

498,  2207 

Peed  v.  Millikan,  79  Ind.  86,  1191, 1208 

Peek  v.  Derry,  L.  R.  37  Ch.  Div.  541,  387 

Peek  v.  Gurney,  L.  R.  6  H.  L.  377,  387 

Peek  v.  North,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  H.  L.  Gas. 

473,  2279,  2315,  2326 

Peel  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Wis.  594,   2370 
Peel  v.  City  of  Atlanta,  85  Ga.  138,  1410 

Peel  v.  Tatlock,  1  Bos.  &  Pull.  419,  328 

Peoples  v.  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Ga. 

281,  1991, 2583 

Peerless  Stone  Co.  v.  Wray,  (Ind.)  42  N. 

E.  R.  927,  2067 

Peet  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Wis.  118, 

2225,2232 
Peet  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Wis.  594, 

2280,2282 

Peete  v.  Morgan,  19  WaU.  581,  2650 

Pegler  v.  Highway  Commissioners,  34 

Mich.  359,  1511 

Pegler  v.  Monmouthshire  R.  Co.,  6  H.  & 

N.  644,  2435,  2667,  2668,  2670 

Pegram  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  N. 

Car.  696,  413 

Pegram  v.  Commissioners  Cleveland 

County,  64  N.  C.  557,  1259 

Pegram  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  147  N.Y. 

135,  1450 

Peik  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  U.  S.  164, 

4,  37,  469,  916,  978, 1331,  2654 
Pekin,  City  of,  v.  McMahon,  154  111.  141,  1978 
Pellard  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  7  Mont. 

L.  R.  (S.  C.)  131,  2631 

Pellatt's  Case,  L.  R..2  Ch.  527,  170 

Pelsall,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  L.  R.  23  Q.  B.  D.  536,  1016 

Pelt  v.  Payne,  (Ark.)  30  S.  W.  R.  426,          1197 
Peltier  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.) 

29  S.  W.  R.  30,  1764 

Pelton  v.  Bank,  101  U.  S.  143,  1069 

Pelton  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y. 

214,  2368 

Pelton  v.  Transportation  Co.,  37  Ohio  St. 

450,  885 

Pelzer,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hamburg,  etc.,  Ins.  Co., 

62  Fed.  R.I,  932 

Pemberton  v.  Dooley,  43  Mo.  App.  176,        1628 
Peinberton  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

104  Mass.  144,  2320 


Pembina,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  125 

U.  S.  181,  31,  32,  36,  954, 1092,  2641 

Pembroke  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Mo.  App.  61,  2509 

Pemigewassett  Bank  v.  Rogers,  18  N.  H. 

255,  366 

Pendall  v.  Rench,  4  McLean  (U.  S.)  259,  2200 
Fender  v.  Lushington,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  D.  70,  250 
Pendergast  v.  Adams  Ex.  Co.,  101  Mass. 

120,  2233 

Pendergast  v.  Bank,  1  Sawy.  (U.  S.)  108,  149 
Pendergast  v.  Yandes,  3  Lewis  Am.  R.  R.  & 

Corp.  Gas.  645,  858 

Pendergast  v.  Yandes,  124  Ind.  159, 

267,  857,  858 

Pendleton  v.  Kinsley,  3  Cliff.  416,  2474,  2580 
Pendleton  v.  Russell,  144  U.  S.  640,  s.  c.  12 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  743,  732 

Pendleton  County  v.  Amy,  13  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

297,  1239,  1245, 1246, 1247 

Pendleton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shires,  18  Ohio 

St.  255,  2478 

Pendleton  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Stallman,  22  Ohio 

St.  1,  1645 

Pengra  v.  Munz,  29  Fed.  R.  830,  1125, 1133 

Peninsular,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Shand,  3  Moore  P. 

C.  (N.  S.)  272,  2330 

Peninsular,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Black,  etc.,  Co., 

(Mich.)  63  N.  W.  R.  198,  132 

Peninsular  Iron  Co.  v.  Eells,  68  Fed.  R. 

24,  657 

Peninsular  R.  Co.  v.  Duncan,  28  Mich.  130, 

153,  156 
Peninsular  R.  Co.  v.  Howard,  20  Mich.  18, 

248,  1473,  1484 
Peninsular  R.  Co.  v.  Tharp,  28  Mich.  506, 

446,  451 
Peniston  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  La. 

Ann.  777,  2479,  2546 

Penn  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  204, 

2400,2410 

Penn  v.  Calhoun,  121  U.  S.  251,  710 

PenneU  v.  Grubb,  13  Pa.  St.  552,  890 

Pennewill  v.  Cullen,  5  Harr.  (Del.)  238,  2167 
Penn  Gas  Coal  Co.  v.  Versailles  Fuel  Gas 

Coal  Co.,  131  Pa.  522,  1388 

Pennington  v.  Baehr,  48  Cal.  565,  630 

Pennington  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

62  Md.  95,  496,  2484,  2497,  2498,  2503 

Penn  Match  Co.  v.  Hapgood,  141  Mass. 

145,  21 

Penn  Mutual  Ins.  Co.  v.  Heiss,  141  111.  35, 

710,  1333,  1459 
Penn  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Semple,  38  N.  J.  Eq. 

314,  761 

Pennock  v.  Coe,  23  How.  (U.  S.)  117, 

46,  536,  651,  654,  755 


cccxliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-JU2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-l£6i,  Vo 

Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  2  Pet.  1,  2670 

Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  714,  887, 1478 

Pennsylvania  v.  Langdon,  92  Pa.  St.  21,     2038 
Pennsylvania  v.  McCann,  (Ohio)  42  N.  E. 

R.  768,  "2108 

Pennsylvania  Co.,  etc.,  v.  Bauerle,  143  111. 

459,  543 

Pennsylvania  Co.,  etc.,  v.  Jacksonville, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Fed.  R.  131,  754 

Pennsylvania  Coal  Co.  v.  Delaware,  etc., 

Co.,  1  Keyes  (N.  Y.)  72,  490 

Pennsylvania  College  Cases,  13  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  190,  450,  1089 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  Ex  parte,  137  U.  S. 

451,  940 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  In  re,  137  U.  S.  451,    929 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  80  Pa.  St. 

265,  367 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  86  Pa.  St. 

80,  144 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  93  Pa.  St. 

150, 

108, 1268, 1347, 1374, 1376, 1392,  1546, 1688, 1698 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  115  Pa.  St. 

514,  1546 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  116  Pa.  St. 

55,  1612,  1693 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Ackermann,  74  Pa. 

St.  265,  1761 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Allegheny,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  25  Fed.  R.  113,  947 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Allegheny,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  48  Fed.  R.  139,  667 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  American  Oil 

Works,  126  Pa.  St.  485,  2442,  2444 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Angel,  41  N.  J.  Eq. 

316,  901,  903, 1036, 1397, 1629 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Aspell,  23  Pa.  St. 

147,  2592 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Atha,  22  Fed.  R. 

920,  1950 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  60  Md.  263, 

48, 49,  66, 1336, 1372,  1418, 1419, 1467, 1470, 1627, 

1686 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Barnett,  59  Pa.  St. 

259,  1748,  1987 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Beale,  73  Pa.  St. 

504,  1774,  1777, 1781 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Bell,  (Pa.  St.)  15 

Atl.  R.  561,  2550 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Bell,  122  Pa.  St. 

58,  2145 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Bender,  148  U.  S. 

255,  936 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Berry,  68  Pa.  St. 

272,  2225 


are  to  Pages.] 

1.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27S5.] 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Books,  57  Pa.  St. 

339,  2456, 2464 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Boylan,  104  111. 

595,  1795 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Braddock,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  152  Pa.  St.  116, 

1671, 1693, 1694, 1696,  1697,  1713, 1714 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Bray,  125  Ind.  229, 

2485,  2488,  2490,  2496 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Bruner,  55  Pa.  St. 

318,  1527, 1530 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Brush,  130  Ind. 

347,  2005 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Bunnell,  81  Pa. 

St.  414, 

1436, 1440, 1441,  1493,  1512, 1520, 1552,  1930 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Butler,  57  Pa.  St. 

335,  2151 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Canal  Com'rs,  21 

Pa.  St.  9,  56 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  144  111.  197,  2257 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  2  Ind.  App. 

146,  2166,  2210,  2415,  2695 

Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cleary,  125 

Pa.  St.  442,  1516 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

(Pa.)  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  145,  526 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

(Pa.)  7  Atl.  R.  368,  134 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Congdon,  134  Ind. 

226,  2009, 2052 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Connell,  112  111. 

295,  2487,  2490,  2493,  2578 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Conshohocken  R. 

Co.,  15  Pa.  Co.  454,  1713 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Consolidation  Coal 

Co.,  55  Md.  158,  907, 1698 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Dolan,  6  Ind.  App. 

109,  52$ 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Dovey,  64  Pa.  St. 

260,  422 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Dunlap,  112  Ind. 

93,  1859 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.v.  Duquesne  Borough, 

46  Pa.  St.  223,  1643 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Eby,  107  Pa.  166, 

1483, 1488, 1543 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Ellett,  132  111.  654, 

2260 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
108  Pa.  St.  621,  496,  600, 1315 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Fairchild,  69  111. 
260,  2312, 2330 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Finney,  (Ind.)  42 
N.  E.  R.  816,  1999,  2001 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccxlv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
{Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  First  German  Lu- 
theran Congregation,  53  Pa.  St.  445, 

1421,  1465,  1473 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Frund,  4  Ind.  App. 

469,  1674 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Gallentine,  77  Ind. 

322,  1917,  1918,  1934 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Goodenough, 

(N.  J.)  28Atl.  R.  3,  1792 

Pennnsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Goodman,  62  Pa. 

St.  329,  1737 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Graham,  63  Pa. 

St.  290,  1984 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Hammill,  56  N.  J. 

L.  370,  1742 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Hammond,  1  Ohio 

Dec.  298,  2048 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Harkins,  149  Pa. 

St.  121,  456 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Heister,  8  Pa.  St. 

445,  1424,  1485 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson,  51  Pa. 

St.  315,  1796,  2479,  2514,  2515,  2590 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Hensil,  70  Ind.  569, 

1025, 1026, 1745,  1746,  1753,  1756, 1761,  1986,  2066 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Hine,  41  Ohio  St. 

276,  2494, 2496 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Hoagland,  78  Ind. 

203,  300,  2549,  2562 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Holderman,  69 

Ind.  18,  2195,  26D5,  2699,  2700 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Hope,  80  Pa.  St. 

373,  1909,  1910 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Horton,  132  Ind. 

189,  1745,  1746,  2065 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Keifer,  22  Pa.  St. 

356,  1523 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  Co., 

131  U.  S.  371,  324 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Krick,  47  Ind.  368, 

1678, 1736, 1857 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Lacey,  89  Pa.  St. 

458,  1942 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Langdon,  92  Pa. 

St.  21,  285,  2021,  2454,  2463,  2560,  2595 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Leary,  56  N.  J.  L. 

705,  1773 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Leuffer,  84  Pa.  St. 

168,  267,  858, 1604 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  79  Pa.  St. 

33,  971,  1044, 1749 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Lippincott,  116 

Pa.  St.  472,  1037, 1411,  1632 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Lippincott,  119 

Pa.  St.  541,  904 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Liveright,  (Ind. 

App.)  41  N.  E.  R.  350,  2346 


Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Long,  94  Ind.  250,  2043 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Lynch,  90  111.  383,  2058 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Lyons,  129  Pa.  St. 

113,  2548, 2595 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  MacKinney,  124 

Pa.  St.  462,  2472,  2569,  2597,  2615,  2704 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Marchant,  119  Pa. 

St.  541,  1037, 1411 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Marion,  104  Ind. 

239,  2478, 2589 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Mason,  109  Pa.  St. 

296,  2003,  2051,  2064,  2083 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Matthews,  36  N.  J. 

L.  531,  1748, 1752, 175» 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  McCaffrey,  139 

Ind.  430,  2028,  2036,  2048 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  McCann,  (Ohio 

St.)  42  N.  E.  R.  768,  213* 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  McCloskey,  23  Pa. 

St.  526,  2516,  2600 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  McMullen,  132  Pa. 

St.  107,  1973, 1976 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Meyers,  136  Ind. 

242,  1646, 1741, 1948, 1952, 1957,  1968,  2144 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  35  Ohio  St. 

541,  2611 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  112  Pa.  St. 

34,  61, 1402 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  132  U.  S. 

75,  2653 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  129  Pa.  181,  67 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  124  Ind. 

473,  183S 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Montgomery,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  167  Pa.  St.  62,  1617,  1635 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Morel,  40  Ohio  St. 

338,  1777 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Morgan,  82  Pa.  St. 

134,  1969 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Nat.,  etc.,  Co., 

(N.  J.)  32  Atl.  R.  220,  142$ 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  National  Docks, 

etc.,  Co.,  (N.  J.)  30  Atl.  R.  183,  1292,  1391 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  National,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  441,  4& 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  National  Docks, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Fed.  R.  697,  908,  1699 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Newmeyer,  129 

Ind.  401,  2552,  2553,  2713 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Ogier,  35  Pa.  St. 

60,  1738, 1757 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  O'Shaughnessy, 

122  Ind.  588,  2069 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Parry,  55  N.  J.  L. 

551,  2485, 2491 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Pennock,  51  Pa. 

St.  244,  888,  892,  2388. 


cccxlvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1S62,  Vol 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Peoples,  35  Ohio 

St.  537,  887 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Peoples,  31  Ohio 

St.  537,  2697 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  Pa.  St.  334,  1632 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  625,  56 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia  Co., 

47  Pa.  St.  189,  1153, 1175 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  157  Pa.  St.  42,  906, 1619 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  160  Pa.  St.  277,  1696 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Platt,  47  Ohio  St. 

366,  1460 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Poor,  103  Ind.  553, 

2694,  2700 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Porter,  29  Pa.  St. 

165,  1494, 1WO,  1502 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Price,  96  Pa.  St. 

256,  1961, 2456 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Raiordon,  119  Pa. 

St.  577,  2320,  2321,  2348,  2404,  2633 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Rathgeb,  32  Ohio 

St.  66,  1746, 1771 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Reading  Paper 

Mills,  149  Pa.  St.  18,  1388 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Reichert,  58  Md. 

261,  1032,  1418, 1530 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Riblet,  66  Pa.  St. 

164,  958,  967, 1622, 1822 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Roney,  89  Ind.  453, 

2048 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Roy,  102  U.  S.  451, 

2069,  2083,  2151,  2153, 2470,  2529,  2530,  2541,  2587 
Pennsylvania  v.  Schwartzenberger,  45  Pa. 

St.  208,  2493,  2626, 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Sears,  136  Ind.  460, 

2003 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Sellers,  127  Pa.  St. 

406,  612 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Sinclair,  62  Ind. 

301,  1955,  1970 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Sloan,  1  Bradw. 

(111.)  364,  271 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Sly,  65  Pa.  St.  205, 

449,  599,  608 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  98  Ind.  42,    1955 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Spaulding,  112  Ind. 

47,  1834, 1840, 1842, 1843 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Spicker,  105  Pa. 

St.  142,  2495 

Pennsylvania  R.  C.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  118  U.  S.  290, 

7,  42,  43,  44, 104,  324,  475,  492,  503,  510,  514,  517, 
524,  525,  569,  570, 572,  584,  620,  692,936,  2451 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Stanley,  10  Ind. 

App.  421,  1630, 1633 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  State,  61  Md.  108,    1764 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  State,  142  Ind.  428, 

957;  1043 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Stegemeier,  118 

Ind.  305, 

1025, 1745, 1749, 1752, 1754, 1762,  1782,1784, 1788, 

2722 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Stern,  119  Pa.  St. 

24,  2215,  2216,  2236,  2360,  2371,  2382 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  45  N. 

J.  Eq.  870,  547, 1613 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Toomey,  91  Pa. 

St.  256,  1962,  2577 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Vandiver,  42  Pa. 

St.  365,  2577,  2578 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Wachter,  60  Md. 

395,  2048 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Walsh,  124  Pa.  St. 

544,  1411,  1632,  1633 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Watson,  81  Vi  Pa. 

St.  293,  1942 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Weber,  76  Pa.  St. 

157,  2718 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Weddle,  100  Ind. 

138,  299,  304,  1992 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Wentz,  37  Ohio  St. 

333,  2454 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Whitcomb,  111 

Ind.  212,  2016,  2021 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  White,  88  Pa.  St. 

327,  2546, 2550 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Whitlock,  99  Ind. 

16,  1910 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Woodworth,  26 

Ohio  St.  585,  2602 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Zebe,  33  Pa.  St. 

318,  2145 

Pennsylvania  Steel  Co.  v.  Georgia,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  94  Ga.  636,  2444 

Pennsylvania  Steel  Co.  v.  J.  E.  Potts,  etc., 

Co.,  63  Fed.  R.  11,  1595 

Pennsylvania  Tel.  Co.  v.  Varnau,  (Pa. 

St.)  15Atl.  R.624,  4788 

Pennsylvania  Transp.  Co.'s  Appeal,  101 

Pa.  St.  576,  449,  703,  714,  724 

Penobscot  B.  Co.  v.  Lamson,  16  Me.  224,         21 
Penny,  In  re,  7  El.  &  Bl.  660,  1428, 1558 

Penobscot,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  12 

Gray  (Mass.)  244,  158,  214 

Penobscot,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dummer,  40  Me. 

172,  154,  204,  206,  210,  338 

Penobscot,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  39  Me. 

587,  169, 170,  176,  206,  578 

Penrose  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  56  Pa.  St.  46,        107 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccxlvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-216&,  Vol.  IV  pp.  S165-S725.] 


Pensacola,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  25  Fla. 

310,  2487 

Pensacola  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  U.  Tel.  Co., 

96  U.  S.  1,  36,  44,  532,  916,  967, 1093,  2637,  2661 
Penton  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  28  U.  C.  Q., 

B.  367,  2629 

Pentz  v.  Hawley,  1  Barb.  Chan.  (N.  Y.) 

122,  262 

People  v.  Adams,  16  Hun  (N.  Y.)  549, 

1049, 1050 

People  v.  Adams,  34  N.  Y.  S.  579,  1672 

People  v.  Adams,  88  Hun  (N.  Y.)  122,          1674 
People  v.  Albany,  11  Wend.  539,  1020 

People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Abb. 

Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  265,  773 

People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y. 

261,  76,  77,  596,  917,  2692 

People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  344,  133,  237,  249,  250, 251,  339,  340,  975 
People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  N.  Y.  232,  569 
People  v.  Albertson,  55  N.  Y.  50,  983 

People  v.  Allen,  52  N.  Y.  538,  1212 

People  v.  Assessors,  1  Hill  (N.  Y.)  616,          22 
People  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  125  N.Y. 

513,  76,  80,  81 

People  v.  Auditor,  33  111.  9,  362 

People  v.  Babcock,  16  Hun  313,  2691 

People  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  117  N.  Y. 

150,  1370 

People  v.  Bank  of  Hudson,  6  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

217,  85 

People  v.  Bank  of  Niagara,  6  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

196,  86 

People  v.  Barker,  39  N.  Y.  S.  88,  30 

People  v.  Barnard,  110  N.  Y.  548,         1621, 1622 
People  v.  Barnett,  91  111.  422,  785 

People  v.  Barrett,  18  Hun  (N.  Y.)  206,         1193 
People  v.  Batchelor,  22  N.  Y.  128,  237,  359 

People  v.  Batchellor,  53  N.  Y.  128, 

1150,  1173,  1212 

People  v.  Beach,  19  Hun  (N.  Y.)  259,  26 

People  v.  Board  of  Trustees,  80  Hun  385,    1465 
People  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  16  N.  Y. 

424,  965 

People  v.  Board  of  Assessors,  76  N.  Y.  202,    439 
People  v.  Board,  etc.,  72  Mich.  234,  1497 

People  v.  Board,  100  111.  495,  60 

People  v.  Bogart,  45  Cal.  73,  81 

People  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  Y.  569, 

917, 1007, 1009, 1044, 1659 

People  v.  Brady,  90  Mich.  459,  1022 

People  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  Co.,  23  Wend.  (N.Y.) 

222,  76 

People  T.  Broadway  R.  R.  Co.,  126  N.  Y. 

29,  56,  59,  75 

People  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  N.  Y. 

75.  2, 106,  697, 1270 


People  v.  Brooks,  40  Mich.  333,  892 

People  v.  Canal  Commissioner,  5  Denio 

401,  1133 

People  v.  Cass  County,  77  111.  438,  1200 

People  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Mich.  166,  431 
People  v.  Central  City  Bank,  53  Barb. 

(N.Y.)  412,  787 

People  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  83  Cal.  393,  875 
People  v.  Chambers,  42  Cal.  201,  25,  27, 160 
People  v.  Cheeseman,  7  Colo.  376, 

2,  25,  53,  2260 

People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  116  111.  181,  1069 
People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fed.  R. 

706,  942 

People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  111. 

App.  125,  103, 1618 

People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  111.  95, 

411,  917 
People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  111.  118, 

919, 1007, 1040, 1111,  1641,  1642, 1666,  1667,  1672 
People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  118  111. 

113,  1618 

People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  111. 

175,  918,  921,  958, 1002, 1007 

People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Am.  & 

Eng.  R.  Cas.  462,  922 

People  v.  Chicago  Gas  Trust  Co.,  130  111. 

268,  111,  143,  162,  348 

People  v.  City  of  Rochester,  50  N.  Y.  526,  1346 
People  v.  City  of  St.  Louis,  5  Gil.  (111.) 

351,  903 

People  v.  Clark,  14  N.  Y.  Supp.  642,  968,  1045 
People  v.  Clark,  1  Cal.  406,  1170 

People  v.  Clark  County,  50  111.  213,  1259 

People  v.  Cline,  63  111.  394,  1180, 1250 

People  v.  Coleman,  126  N.  Y.  433,  111 

People  v.  Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Fed. 

R.  638,  595,  918,  923,  926,  930, 1262 

People  v.  Commissioners,  23  N.  Y.  192,  111 
People  v.  Commissioners,  2  Black  620,  2643 
People  v.  Common  Council,  140  N.  Y. 

300,  1168 

People  v.  Compagnie,  etc.,  107  U.  S.  59, 

1083,  2641 

People  v.  Conner,  46  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  333,  1475 
People  v.  Cook,  8  N.  Y.  67,  87,  926 

People  v.  Cook,  110  N.  Y.  443,  701,  720 

People  v.  Cook,  148  U.  S.  397,  719, 1064 

People  v.  Coon,  25  Cal.  635,  1216 

People  v.  County  Board  of  Cass  County, 

77  111.  438,  1201,  1249, 1250 

People  v.  County  of  Tazewell,  22  111.  147,  1160 
People  v.  Crockett,  9  Cal.  112,  277 

People  v.  Crossley,  69  111.  125,  233 

People  v.  Cummings,  72  N.  Y.  433,  236 

People  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mich. 

471,  1668, 1723, 1724 


cccxlviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[.References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-H725.] 


People  v.  District  Court,  11  Colo.  147, 

1271, 1337 

People  v.  Downer,  7  Cal.  169,  1083 

People  v.  Dunkel,  39  Mich.  255,  1049 

People  v.  Dupuyt,  71  111.  651,  1178 

People  v.  Dutcher,  56  111.  144,  1185, 1212 

People  v.  Dutchess,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  N.  Y. 

152,  919,  924, 1642,  1665,  1668 

People  v.  Eel  River  &  E.  R.  Co.,  98  Cal. 

665,  322,  481,  565 

People  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  54  How.  (N.  Y.>Pr. 

59,  844 

People  v.  Excelsior,  etc.,  Co.,  3  How.  Pr. 

N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  137,  852 

People  v.  Fire  Ass'n,  92  N.  Y.  311,  45,  1093 

People  v.  Fire  Department,  31  Mich.  458,    277 
People  v.  First  Judge,  etc.,  2  Hill  (N.  Y.) 

398,  1472 

People  v.  Fishkill.etc.,  Co.,  27  Barb.(N.Y.) 


445, 


79 
1212 


People  v.  Fort  Edward,  70  N.  Y.  28, 
People  v.  Fort  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Mich. 

413,  1641 

People  v.  Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92 

Mich.  522,  1638 

People  v.  Franklin,  5  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  129,      1193 
People  v.  Fredericks,  48  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

173,  35 

People  v.  Galligher,  93  N.  Y.  438,  2643 

People  v.  Getzendaner,  137  111.  234,  1212 

People  v.  Gilon,  121  N.  Y.  551,  1476 

People  v.  Gillson,  109  N,  Y.  389,  960 

People  v.  Glann,  70  111.  232,  1213 

People  v.  Goss,  etc.,  Co.,  99  111.  355,  147 

People  v.  Green,  64  N.  Y.  499,  2692 

People  v.  Hamill,  134  111.  666,  1159 

People  v.  Haug,  (Mich.)  37  N.  W.  R.  21,       965 
People  v.  Hawkins,  46  N.  Y.  9,  1258 

People  v.  HiUsdale,  etc.,  Co.,  23  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  254,  78,  81 

People  v.  HiUsdale,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Johns. 

(N.  Y.)  190,  81 

People  v.  Hitchcock,  2  T.  &  C.  (N.  Y. 

Supp.)  134,  1197,  1198 

People  v.  Holdan,  91 IU.  446,  1212, 1213 

People  v.  Hughitt,  5  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  89, 

1192, 1193 

People  v.  Hulbert,  59  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  446,      1192 
People  v.  Humphrey,  23  Mich.  471,  1334 

People  v.  Hurlburt,  46  N.  Y.  110,  1218 

People  v..Hynds,  30  N.  Y.  470,  1468 

People  v.  Improvement  Co.,  103  111.  491,       12fJ 
People  v.  Jackson  County,  92  111.  441, 

1174, 1242,  1262 
People  v.  Jackson  P.  R.  Co.,  9  Mich.  285, 

81,  85,  962 
People  v.  Kankakee,  etc.,  Co.,  103  IU.  491,      76 


People  v.  Keeler,  99  N.  Y.  463,  9&r 

People  v.  Kerr,  27  N.  Y.  188,  1635 

People  v.  Kerr,  37  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  357,  1399 

People  v.  King,  110  N.  Y.  418,  2644 

People  v.  Kingston  Turnpike  R.  Co.,  23 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  193,  76,  77 

People  v.  Kip,  4  Cowen  (N.  Y.)  382,       228,  24& 
People  v.  Kniskern,  54  N.  Y.  52,  1467 

People  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Hun 

1,  248 

People  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

Mich.  277,  954, 1660 

People  v.  Levine,  85  Cal.  39,  2714 

People  v.  Lippincott,  81  IU.  193,  1248 

People  v.  Loew,  102  N.  Y.  471,  1273 

People  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  31  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  125, 

923, 1044, 1170,  1182,  1200,  1210,  1212, 1213 
People  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  134  N.  Y 

506,  1677 

People  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  111. 

48,  459,  570,  704,  920,  968,  1315,  2671 

People  v.  Lynch,  51  Cal.  15,  1197 

People  v.  Manhattan  Co.,  9  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

351,  861 

People  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Barb. 

136,  2692 

People  v.  Marx,  99  N.  Y.  377,  965 

People  v.  May,  27  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  238,  1555 

People  v.  Mayor,  4  N.  Y.  419, 

1100, 1102, 1177,  1331 

People  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  10  Wend.  393,  101& 

People  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  New  York,  32 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  102,  1333 

People  v.  McCreey,  34  Cal.  432,  1058 

People  v.  McDonald,  69  N.  Y.  362,  1419 

People  v.  Medical  Society,  24  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

570,  277 

People  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Mich. 

496,  1465, 1473 

People  v.  Milk  Exchange,  1&3  N.  Y.  565,    75,  78 
People  v.  MitcheU,  35  N.  Y.  551, 

3, 1140,  1172,  1173 
People  v.  Montecito  Water  Co.,  (Cal.)  33 

Am.  St.  R.  172,  29 

People  v.  Montecito,  etc.,  Co.,  97  Cal.  276, 

27,  53,  81 
People  v.  Mott,  1  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  247, 

248,369 

People  v.  Murray,  5  Hill  468,  1460 

People  v.  Nassua,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Hun  128,       364 
People  v.  Nassau  Ferry  Co.,  33  N.  Y.  Supp. 

244,  247 

People  v.  National  Trust  Co.,  82  N.  Y. 

•,.o3,  866, 868 

People  v.  Newton,  112  N.  Y.  396,       13,  59, 1620- 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccxlix 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  ltlS-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


People  v.  New  York,  etc., 

533, 
People  v.  New  York,  etc., 

543, 
People  v.  New  York,  etc., 

409, 
People  v.  New  York,  etc., 

(N.  Y.)  199, 
People  v.  New  York  Cent. 

(N.  Y.)  123, 
People  v.  New  York,  etc., 

(N.  Y.)  73, 
People  v.  New  York,  etc., 

78, 
People  v.  New  York,  etc., 

302,     919, 1036,  1265,  1266 


K.  Co.,  22  Hun 

920,  2691,  2692 
R.  Co.,  28  Hun 

570,  596,  920,  2691 
R.  Co.,  55  Hun 

968,  1045 
R.  Co.,  25  Barb. 

1041,  1042,  1757 
R.  Co.,  34  Barb. 

1335 
R.  Co.,  45  Barb. 

1285 
R.  Co.,  13  N.  Y. 

1042 

R.  Co.,  74  N.  Y. 
,  1665,  1667,  1670,  1671 
1674 

People  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  N.  Y. 

266,  1040 

People  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  N.  Y. 

58,  918,  922,  925,  958,  978, 1009 

People  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  N.  Y. 

474,  459,  464,  470 

People  v.  New  York  Central  Underground 

R.  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  606,  73,  78,  86 

People  v.  North  Chicago  Ry.  Co.,  88  111. 

537,  79 

People  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  R. 

471,  248 

People  v.  Northern  R.  R.  Co.,  42  N.Y.  217,  743 
People  v.  Northern  R.  R.  Co.,  53  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  98,  77,  79 

People  v.  North  River,  etc.,  Co.,  22  Abbott 

New  Cas.  164,  s.  c.  2  L.  R.  A.  33,  515 

People  v.  North  River  Sugar  Refining 

Co.,  121  N.  Y.  582,  74,  515 

People  v.  North  River  Sugar  Ref.,  19  X.Y. 

St.  R.  853,  78 

People  v.  Norton,  1  Paige  (N.Y.)  17,  774,  775 
People  v.  Oakland  County  Bank,  1  Dougl. 

(Mich.)  282,  83 

People  v.  O'Brien,  45  Hun  (N.  Y.)  519  92 

People  v.  O'Brien,  7  Am.  St.  R.  684,  865 

People  v.  O'Brien,  111  N.  Y.  1, 

67, 103,  445,  639,  776,  866,  868, 1476,  1615,  1618 
People  v.  Ohio  Grove  Township,  51  111. 

191,  1257 

People  v.  Oldtown,  88  111.  202,  1242,  1257 

People  v.  Oliver,  1  T.  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  570,  1193 
People  v.  Osborn,  20  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  186,  1556 
People  v.  Ottawa  Hydraulic  Co.,  115  111. 

281,  83 

People  v.  Pacific  Co.,  16  Fed.  R.  344,  1083 
People  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  Co,,  50  Barb.  (N.Y.) 

280,  248 

People  v.  Paton,  5  N.  Y.  St.  R.  316,  147 


People  v.  Peck,  11  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  604, 

238,  359,  360 

People  v.  People's  Ins.  Exch.,  126  111.  466,  2720 
People  v.  People's  Ins.  Exch.,  2  L.  R.  A. 

340,  2723 

People  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Cal. 

694,  1&53 

People  v.  Placerville,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Cal. 

656,  1058 

People  v.  Plymouth,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Mich,  248,    78 
People  v.  Potrero,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Cal. 

166,  1377 

People  v.  President  of  California  College, 

38  Cal.  166,  1615 

People  v.  Preston,  140  N.  Y.  549,  124 

People  v.  Pueblo  County,  2  Colo.  360,  1166, 1196 
People  v.  Rath  bone,  145  N.  Y.  434,  2523 

People  v.  Raymond,  34  Cal.  492,  1083 

People  v.  Remington,  45  Hun  (N.  Y.)  329,    858 
People  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  113,  85,  86, 1377 

People  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.Co.,  30  Am. 

Dec.  33,  88 

People  v.  Richards,  38  Mich.  214,         1477,  1479 
People  v.  Richardson,  4  Cowen  97,  87 

People  v.  Ridgley,  21  111.  65,  22 

People  v.  Robinson,  64  Cal.  373,  228 

People  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y. 

294,  917, 1808 

People  v.  Rock  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 

Fed.  R.  753,  2650 

People  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  N.  Y.  95, 

596,  916,  923,  925,  2692 

People  v.  Salem,  20  Mich.  452,  3 

People  v.  Santa  Anna,  67  111.  57,  1218 

People  v.  Scott,  8 Hun  (N.  Y.)  566, 
People  v.  Selfridge,  52  Cal.  331,  26 

People  v.  Smith,  45  N.  Y.  772, 

1191, 1193,  1220, 1243 

People  v.  Smith,  21  N.  Y.  595,  1338, 1480 

People  v.  Spencer,  55  N.  Y.  1,  1191, 1209 

People  v.  St.  Clair  Circuit  Judge,  31 

Mich.  456,  760 

People  v.  Stanford,  77  Cal.  360,  83,  85 

People  v.  State  Treas.,  23  Mich.  499,  1144 

People  v.  Staton,  73  N.  C.  546,  342 

People  v.  Sterling  Mfg.  Co.,  82  111.  457,         147 
People  v.  Stites,  75  Cal.  570,  1049 

People  v.  Stockton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  CaL 

306,  25,  28,  160,  165 

People  v.  Stratton,  28  Cal.  382,  927 

People  v.  Sturtevant,  9  N.  Y.  263,          811,  902 
People  v.  Supervisors,  27  Cal.  655,  1181 

People  v.  Supervisors,  17  N.  Y.  235,  1335 

People  v.  Supervisors,  88  111.  202,  1193 

People  v.  Supervisors,  88  111.  469,  1197 

People  v.  Taylor,  34  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  481,        1472 


cccl 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-126Z,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-S16U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  21M-S7t5.] 


People  v.  Third  Ave.  Savings  Bank,  50 

How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  22,  781 

People  v.  Thompson,  21  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

235,  76 

People  v.  Thompson,  98  N.  Y.  6,  59,  1611 

People  v.  Throop,  12  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  1&3, 

248,  277,  369 

People  v.  Tibbets,  4  Cowen  (N.  Y.)  358,        233 
People  v.  Tighe,  30  N.  Y.  Supp.  368,  963 

People  v.  Tilton,  37  Cal.  614,  985 

People  v.  Town  of  Bishop,  111  111.  124,        1146 
People  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  427,  1665 

People  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  78  111.  136,  1178 

People  v.  Trustees  of  Geneva  College,  5 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  211,  85 

People  v.  Tubbs,  49  N.  Y.  356,  1468 

People  v.  Ulster,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  128  N.Y.  240, 

74,  78,  83, 1005 
People  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  20  Colo.  186, 

1672, 1674 
People  v.  Utica,  etc.,  Co.,  22  111.  App.  159, 

2265,  2469 
People  v.  Utica  Ins.  Co.,  15  John.  (N.  Y.) 

358,  32,  75,  85, 129,  334,  927 

People  v.  Van  Valkenburg,  63  Barb. 

(N.Y.)  105,  1194 

People  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  111.  476, 

2675 

People  v.  Walter,  2  Hun  385,  1257 

People  v.  Walker,  9  Mich.  328,  248 

People  v.  Walker,  17  N.  Y.  502,  94 

People  v.  Wasson,  64  N.  Y.  167,  1454 

People  v.  Waynesville,  88  111.  469, 

1181, 1185, 1191, 1213 

People  v.  Weaver,  100  U.  S.  539,  1069 

People  v.  Webster,  10  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  554, 

292,337 

People  v.  Weigley,  155  111.  491,  864 

People  v.  Williamsburg,  etc.,  Co.,  47 

N.  Y.  586,  83 

People's  Bank  v.  Fancher,  21  N.  Y.  Supp. 

545,  781 

People's  Bank  v.  Gridley,  91  111.  457,  145 

People's,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Stewart,  3  P.  &  B. 

(19  New  Brans.)  268,  2216 

People's  Gaslight  Co.v.  Chicago  Gaslight 

&  C.  Co.,  20  111.  App.  473,  509 

People's  Gas  Co.  v.  Tyner,  131  Ind.  277,       903 
People's  Home  Sav.  Bank  v.  Superior 

Court,  104  Cal.  649,  233,  277 

People's  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Westeott,  14 

Gray  (Mass.)  440,  205,  238 

People's,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lauderbach, 

(Pa.  St.)  3  Atl.  R.  672,  2570 

People's  Railroad  v.  Memphis  Railroad, 

10  Wall.  38,  99,  1611,  1622 


People's,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Memphis,  16 

S.  W.  R.  973,  1622 

People's  R.  Co.  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

22  Abb.  N.  Gas.  (N.  Y.)  427,  1714 

People's  Rapid  Transit  Co.  v.  Dash,  125 

N.  Y.  93,  11, 12 

Peoria  v.  Johnston,  56  IU.  45,  1417 

Peoria,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

146  IU.  372,  1525 

Peoria,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  HaU,  12  Mich. 

202,  2344 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnum,  107  111. 

160,  1523 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barton,  80  IU.  72, 

1808, 1834, 1837, 1842, 1847,  1872 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Birkett,  62  111.  332,  1448 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Black,  58  IU.  33,  1493 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryant,  57  IU.  473, 

1358,1503 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Champ,  75  IU.  577,    1852 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  109  111.  135,  2168,  2169,  2170,  2175 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  127  U.  S.  200,  822 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coal  VaUey  Min. 

Co.,  68  IU.  489,  459 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Duggan,  109  IU.  537, 

973, 1812, 1878, 1885 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elting,  17  IU.  429, 

71,  215 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frost,  37  IU.  333,       1914 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lane,  83  IU.  448, 

614,  2560 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Laurie,  63  IU.  264,    1498 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lyons,  9  IU.  App. 

350,  1665 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  MitcheU,  74  IU.  394, 

1508 

Peor\a,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  116  111.  401,  1164 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

105  IU.  110,  1553,  1702,  1704 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

66  111.  174,  1373,  1534, 1688 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Preston,  35  Iowa  115, 

71,  168,  169,  234 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Puckett,  42  IU.  App. 

642,  2044 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Puckett,  52  HI.  App. 

222,  2040 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reynolds,  88  IU.  418, 

2472 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rice,  144  IU.  227,      2713 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rice,  75  IU.  329, 

1486, 1508 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ross,  55  I1L  App. 
638,  2005 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccli 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I.  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sawyer,  71  111.  361, 

1436,  1523 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schertz,  84  111.  135,    1559 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Siltman,  88  111.  529, 

1748 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tamplin,  156  111. 

285,  1320 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  103  111. 

187,  129,  508,  628,  645,  698,  699,  715 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States,  etc., 

Co.,  136  111.  643,  2169,  2175,  2193 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States,  28  111. 

App.  79,  2175 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warner,  61  111.  52, 

1476,  1478 

Pepper  v.  George,  51  Ala.  190,  321 

Pepper  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Cal. 

389,  2151 

Peppin  v.  Cooper,  2  B.  &  Aid.  431,  327 

Percy  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  58  Mo. 

App.  75,  2505 

Percy  v.  Millaudon,  9  La.  326  (6  Mart. 

N.  S.  616),  126 

Percy  v.  Millaudon,  8  Mart.  N.  S.  (La.) 

68,  384 

Percy  v.  Millaudon,  3  La.  568,         234,  319,  385 
Pereira  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  66  Cal.  92, 

497,  2226,  2227 

Pereles  v.  City  of  Watertown,  8  Biss.  79,    1458 
Perkins  v.  Corbin,  45  Ala.  103,  983, 1015 

Perkins  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Me. 

307,  1766, 1803 

Perkins  v.  Hendryx,  23  Fed.  R.  418,  949 

F  rkins  v.  Hendryx,  40  Fed.  R.  657,       931,946 
Perkins  v.  Lewis,  24  111.  208,  1143 

Perkins  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  72  Me. 

95,  1328 

Perkins  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Mo. 

201,  299,  2577 

Perkins  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24 

N.  Y.  196,  2322,  2514 

Perkins  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  47 

Me.  573,  65,  296,  412,  490,  642,  2226,  2227 

Perkins  v.  Port  Washington,  37  Wis.  177,    1210 
Perkins  v.  Pritchard,  3  Eng.  Ry.  &  Can. 

Cas.  95,  649 

Perkins  v.  Smith,  1  Wils.  328,        .      2353,  2363 
Perkins  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  103  Mo. 

52,  973, 1812,  1815,  1885,  1886 

Perkins  v.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  12  Allen 

(Mass.)  273,  255 

Perkins  v.  Washington  Ins.  Co.,  4  Cow. 

(N.  Y.)  645,  295 

Perley  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  N.  H.  212, 

1453,  1454, 1456 
Perley  v.  Chandler,  6  Mass.  453,  1628 


.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Perley  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Mass. 

414,  1893,  1909, 1910 

Perley  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  N.  Y. 

374,  2613 

Perrin  v.  Granger,  30  Vt.  595,  214,  225 

Pen-in  v.  New  London,  67  Wis.  416,  1152 

Perrine  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  9 

How.  (U.'S.)  172,  56,  62,  475^ 

Perrine  v.  Fireman's  Ins.  Co.,  22  Ala.  575,   151 
Perry  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  66  Ga.  746,  2545 

Perry  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Iowa 

102>  1818, 1819 

Perry  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Minn.  306,  1597 
Perry  v.  Florida  Cent.  R.  Co.,  3  Interst. 

Com.  R.  740,  2676,  2686 

Perry  v.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  97,  2682 

Perry  v.  Keene,  56  N.  H.  514,  1140 

Perry  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  N.  Y. 

Supp.  140,  1449 

Perry  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Ark. 

383,  20 

Perry  v.  Malarin,  107  Cal.  363,  2468 

Per?y  v.  Michigan  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Wis.)  65  N.  W.  R.  608,  2013,  2050,  2064 

Perry  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Ala.  413, 

1610, 1611,  1633, 1634, 1651 

Perry  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  164  Mass.  296,  2105 
Perry  v.  Pearson,  135  111.  218,  397 

Perry  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  50  Cal.  578, 

1903, 1910 
Perry  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Kan. 

420,  2135*  2142 

Perry  v.  Thompson,  98  Mass.  249,  2325 

Perry  v.  Tuscaloosa,  etc.,  Co.,  93  Ala.  364, 

130,  375 
Perry  County,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newport, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  Pa.  St.  193, 

1682, 1692, 1694, 1695,  1697 

Ferryman  v.  Greenville,  51  Ala.  507,  1480 

Pershing  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Iowa 

561,  2472, 2704 

Peru,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hanna,  68  Ind.  562,    1108, 1111 
Peru,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hasket,  10  Ind.  409, 

1858,1985 
Peruvian  R.  Co.  v.  Thames,  etc.,  Ins.  Co., 

L.  R.  2  Ch.  App.  Cas.  617,  366,  618 

Peschel  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Wis. 

338,  2076 

Peterborough  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  61  N.  H. 

418,  399 

Peters  v.  Lincoln,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Fed.  R. 

319,  576 

Peters  v.  Lincoln,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  R. 

513,  576 

Peters  v.  Lincoln,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  McCrary 

(U.  S.)  275,  525 


ccclii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
(  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-JUS,  Vol.  II,  pp.  i^-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Peters  v  Foster,  56  Hun  (N.  Y.)  607,  771 

Peters  v.  Hastings,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Minn. 

260,  1555 

Peters  v.  Marietta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Ohio 

St.  275,  2431 

Peters  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  La. 

Ann.  222,  2399,  2405,  2406 

Peters  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Mo. 

586,  1580, 1594 

Peters  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Mo. 

107,  1594 

Peters  v.  Stewart,  72  Wis.  133,  1835 

Petersburg  Sav.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lumsden,  75 

Va.  327,  150 

Peterson  v.  Case,  21  Fed.  R.  885, 

2224,  2241,  2248 
Peterson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Iowa 

92,  2244,  2614,  2627 

Peterson  v.  Ferreby,  30  Iowa  327,  1557 

Peterson  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Bradw. 

(111.)  257.  433 

Peterson  v.  Sherry,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Wis.  83,  2034 
Peter  Townsend,  Matter  of,  39  N.  Y.  171,  1347 
Petitioner  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  129  U.  S.> 

840, 
Petition  for  a  Highway,  etc.,  48  N.  H.  433, 

1534 

Petition  of  Brown,  14  R.  I.  371,  422 

Petition  of  Fowler,  9  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.) 

268,  823 

Petition  of  Kennett,  24  N.  H.  139,  1400 

Petition  of  Kerr,  In  re,  42  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

119,  10,  1341,  1380 

Petition  of  LeBlanc,  In  re,  14  Hun  (N.Y.) 

8,  869 

Petition  of  Mount  Washington  Road  Co., 

35  N.  H.  134,      1335,  1429, 1435,  1436, 1465,  1547 
Petition  of  Nashua,  12  N.  H.  425,  1470 

Petition  of  New  Boston,  49  N.  H.  328,  1470 
Petition  of  New  York  El.  R.  Co.,  Matter 

of,  70  N.  Y.  327,  83 

Petition  of  Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

R.  I.  324,  1376,  1463 

Peto  v.  Brighton,  M.  &  T.  W.  By.  Co.,  1  H. 

&  Miller  468,  659,  1299,  1584 

Petrie  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  Co.,  27  S.  C.  63,  308 
Petrie  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  S.  Car. 

303,  1769, 2137 

Petrie  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42 

N.  J.  L.  449,  2488,  2491,  2492 

Petry  v.  Ambrosher,  100  Ind.  510,  2220 

Pettibone  v.  La  Crosse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

Wis.  443,  898, 1454, 1460,  1536, 1540 

Pettigrew  v.  Barnum,  11  Md.  434,  2608 

Pettingill  v.  Androscoggin  R.  Co.,  51  Me. 

370,  891 

Pettingill  v.  Rideout,  6  N.  H.  454,  2127 


Pettia  v.  Atkins,  60  111.  454,  271 

Pettis  v.  Johnson,  56  Ind.  139,  1650 

Pettus  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Woods 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  620,  932 

Petty  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Mo. 

306,  1738 

Petty  v.  Myers,  49  Ind.  1,  1146, 1194 

Petty  v.  Tooker,  21  N.  Y.  267,  927 

Peyton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Iowa 

522,  1835 

Pfaelzer  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Weekly 

N.  C.  240,  2535 

Pfaff  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  Co.,  108  Ind. 

144,  8, 1069, 1303 

Pfingst  v.  Senn,  94  Ky.  556,  903 

Pflegar  v.  Hastings,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Minn. 

510,  1405, 1441 

Pfleger,  In  re,  L.  R.  6  Eq.  426,  1485 

Pfister  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Cal.  169, 

2261,  2281,  2554,  2608,  2609,  2612 
Pfister  v.  State,  82  Ind.  382,  1257 

Pharr  v.  Collins,  35  La.  Ann.  939,  2442 

Phelan,  In  re,  62  Fed.  R.  803,  2688 

Phelan  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Lans. 

(N.  Y.)  258,  1570 

Phelan  v.  Ganebin,  5  Colo.  14,  892 

Phelan  v.  Hazard,  5  Dill.  (U.  S.)  45, 

131, 133,  166 
Phelps  v.  Comber,  L.  R.  29  Ch.  Div.  813, 

2391,2393 
Phelps  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank,  26  Conn. 

269,  111,  251,  419,  428,  442 

Phelps  v.  Illinois  Co.,  94  111.  548,  2282 

Phelps  v.  Lewiston,  15  Blatchf.  131,  1236 

Phelps  v.  London  R.  Co.,  19  C.  B.  (N.  S.) 

321,  2607,  2608,  2609 

Phelps  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Interst. 

Com.  R.  363,  2686 

Phelps  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.Co.,  37  Minn.  485, 

1797 
Phenix,  etc.,  Co,  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  117  U.  S. 

312,  2307, 2655 

Phenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 

134  Ind.  215,  1914 

Phettiplace  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  20  L. 

R.  A.  483,  2506 

Phettiplace  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  84 

Wis.  412,  2507 

Phifer  v.  Carolina  Central  R.  Co.,  72  N. 

Car.  433,  1540, 1556 

Phifer  v.  Carolina  Central  R.  Co.,  89  N. 

Car.  311,  2234 

Philadelphia  v.  Dyer,  41  Pa.  St.  463,          1457 
Philadelphia  v.  Empire  Pass.  R.  Co.,  3 

Brews.  (Pa.)  570,  1641 

Philadelphia  v.  Field,  58  Pa.  St.  320,          1151 
Philadelphia  v.  Friday,  6  Phila.  275,  902 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccliii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  J-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Philadelphia  v.  Greble,  38  Pa.  St.  339,       1112 
Philadelphia  v.  Lombard,  etc.,  Co.,  3 

Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  403,  1622 

Philadelphia  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co., 

33  Pa.  St.  41,  1108, 1109 

Philadelphia  v.  Railway  Co.,  8  Phila. 

648,  902 

Philadelphia  v.  Eidge  Ave.  R.  R.  Co.,  102 

Pa.  St.  190,  112 

Philadelphia  v.  Ridge  Ave.  R.  Co.,  143  Pa. 

St.  444,  1622, 1641  | 

Philadelphia  v.  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  Pa. 

St.  134,  1613 

Philadelphia  v.  Spring  Garden,  etc.,  Co., 

161  Pa.  St.  522,  1641 

Philadelphia  v.  Tryon,  35  Pa.  St.  401,         1102 
Philadelphia  v.  Western  U.  Tel.  Co.,  11 

Phila.  327,  105 

Philadelphia  v.  Wright,  100  Pa.  St.  235,     1458 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  Assn.v.  Hart,  4  Wheat. 

1,  552 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  New  York,  119 

U.  S.  110,  1085 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Towner,  13  Conn. 

249,  504 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  6  Whar- 

ton  (Pa.)  25,  1558,  1633 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  7  Phila. 

461,  1494 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  (Pa.) 

4  A.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  118,  621,  477 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  102 

Pa.  St.  123,  98,  103, 1381,  1382 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson, 

94  Pa.  St.  351,  608,  609,  612,  2264 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  20 

Am.  St.  R.  483,  2599 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  94 

Pa.  St.  351,  2469,  2546,  2549,  2550 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Appeal  Tax 

Court,  50  Md.  397,  593 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnard,  3 

Ben.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  39,  2421 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beck,  125  Pa. 

St.  620,  2229,  2236,  2237,  2308 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bowers,  4 

Houst.  (Del.)  506,  962 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boyer,  97  Pa. 

St.  91,        1025,  1714, 1745, 1752,  1754, 1798,  2594 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R>  Co.  v.  Cake,  95  Pa. 

St.  139,  1528 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carr,  99  Pa. 

St.  505,  1767 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Catawissa  R. 

Co.,  53  Pa.  St.  20,  453 

CORP. — xxiii 


Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Common- 
wealth, 104  Pa.  St.  80,  819 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cooper,  105 

Pa.  St.  239,  1541 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cowell,  28 

Pa.  St.  329,  157,  158, 162,  428,  429 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Derby,  14 

How.  (U.S.)  468, 

282,  301,2163,  2470,  2478,  2508,  2512,  2577,  2580, 

2595 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dows,  15 

Phila.  (Pa.)  101,  2446 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  T.  Ervin,  89  Pa. 

St.  71,  1023,  1745 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fronk,  67  Md. 

339,  1732, 1733, 1740 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gilson,  8 

Watts  (Pa.)  242,  1428 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hagan,  47 

Pa.  St.  244,  1761 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harper,  29 

Md.  330,  2269 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hendrickson, 

80  Pa.  St.  182,  1889,  1923,  1925, 1942 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henrice,  92 

Pa.  St.  431,  2715 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hickman,  28 

Pa.  St.  318,    64, 161,  166,  169,  203,  255,  476,  477 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoelflich,  62 

Md.  300,  2673 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hogeland,  66 

Md.  149,  1737, 1747,  1790, 1799 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Howard,  13 

How.  (U.  S.)  307,  1571, 1581, 1585,  1886 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Huber,  128  Pa. 

St.  63,  2030 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes,  119 

Pa.  St.  301,  2003,  2009,  2064,  2088 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hummell,  44 

Pa.  St.  375,        1736,  1740, 1741,  1948, 1959, 1968 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  54 

Pa.  St.  127,  673,  684 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Killips,  88  Pa. 

St.  405,  1753, 1754, 1783 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Larkin,  47 

Md.  155,  2574 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Layer,  112  Pa. 

St.  414,  1781 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lehman,  56 

Md.  209, 

1035,  2247,  2304,  2354,  2399,  2401,  2415 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  33  Pa. 

St.  33,  618,  619,  628 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  H.  Co.  v.  Long,  75  Pa. 

St.  257,  1983 


cccliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


l^tejerences  are  w  images, j 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

ilnHolnViin    «t/>     R.  Ho.  v.  Trfwo.  125  Pa.  Phillpn  v.  Sanrlforrl    17  TOT    997  V 


Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Love,  125  Pa. 

St.  488,  722 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Maryland,  10 

How.  (U.  S.)  376,  457,  462,  860,  1065 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Obert,  109 

Pa.  St.  193,  1304 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Peebles,  67 

Fed.  B.  591,  1769, 1782 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 

11  Phila.  (Pa.)  358,  1643 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 

9  Phila.  (Pa.)  563,     ,  1371, 1655, 1664 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 

etc.,  E.  Co.,  1  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  B.  73,  1270 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 

etc.,  Co.,  23  How.  (U.  S.)  209,  1566 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Bice,  64  Md. 

63,  2488 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Schultz,  93 

Pa.  St.  341,  1896,  1923, 1942 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Smith,  105 

Pa.  St.  195,  634 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  State,  10  How. 

(U.  S.)  376,  451,  462,  860 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  S.  Co.  v.  Stebbing,  62 

Md.  504,  1026, 1745, 1746, 1761,  2705,  2718 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Stichter,  11 

W.  N.  Gas.  (Pa.)  325,  477 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Stinger,  78 

Pa.  St.  219,  1938 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Troutman, 

(Pa.)  6  Am.  &  Eng.  B.  Cas.  117,  1743 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Troutman,  11 

W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  453,  1957 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Williams,  54 

Pa.  St.  103, 

7, 1270, 1284, 1345,  1385, 1386,  1454,  1489,  1490 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Wireman,  88 

Pa.  St.  264,  2222 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Woelpper,  64 

Pa.  St.  366,  673 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.v.  Woelpper,  64 

Pa.  St.  366,  634,  651 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Yeiser,  8  Pa. 

St.  366,  917 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Yerger,  73  Pa. 

St.  121,  1900, 1937 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  Steamship  Co.  v. 

Pennsylvania,  122  U.  S.  326, 

1078, 1082, 1084,  2653,  2687 

Philips,  etc.,  In  re,  L.  B.  6  Eq.  250,  1485 

Philips  v.  Bailey,  82  Mo.  639,  667 

Philips  v.  Knox,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  20  Ohio 

174,  244 

Philips  v.  Wickham,  1  Paige  (N.  Y.)  590, 

232,233,343 
Phillbrook  v.  Esmwiller,  92  Ind.  590,  562 


Philleo  v.  Sandford,  17  Tex.  227,  22/68- 

Phillips  v.  Albany,  28  Wis.  340,      83, 1194,  1242 
Phillips  v.  Ash,  63  Ala.  414,  2131 

Phillips  v.  Bevans,  23  N.  J.  L.  373,  1028 

Phillips  v.  Burlington  Library  Co.,  141 

Pa.  St.  462,  882 

Phillips  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  64  Wis. 

475,  2070,  2084,  2085 

Phillips  v.  Coffee,  17  111.  154,  555 

Phillips  v.  Dunkirk,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  78  Pa. 

St.  177,  1336,  1651 

PhiUips  v.  Earle,  8  Pick.  182,  2207,  2309 

Phillips  v.  Eastern  B.  B.  Co.,  138  Mass. 

122,  121, 441 

PhiUips  v.  Eyre,  L.  E.  6  Q.  B.  1,  2134 

PhiUips  v.  FoxaU,  L.  B.  7  Q.  B.  666,  328-  • 

PhiUips  v.  Great  Western  B.  Co.,  L.  B.  7 

Ch.  409,  496,  969 

Phillips  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  77 

Wis.  349,  1764,  2719 

PhiUips  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  86  Mo. 

540,  1812, 188S 

PhiUips  v.  Moore,  100  U.  S.  208,  543 

PhiUips  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  84  Hun 

412,  1986 

PhiUips  v.  North  CaroUna  B.  Co.,  78 

N.  C.  294,  410,  2226,  2228,  2230 

PhiUips  v.  Bensselaer,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  49 

N.  Y.  177,  2547 

Phillips  v.  Sherman,  61  Me.  548,  148» 

PhiUips  v.  Watson,  63  Iowa  28,  1271, 1364, 1366 
PhiUips  v.  Winslow,  18  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  431, 

46,  536,  639,  640,  650,  654,  655 
Phipps  v.  Harding,  70  Fed.  B.  468,  2637 

Phipps  v.  London,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  L.  E. 

(1892)  2  Q.  B.  229,  2666 

Phipps  v.  West  Maryland  E.  Co.,  66  Md. 

319,  1634 

Phillipsburgh  Bank  v.  Lackawanna  B. 

Co.,  27  N.  J.  L.  206,  88ft 

Phinizy  v.  Augusta,  etc.,  B.  B.  Co.,  56  Fed. 

E.  273,  41,  82» 

Phinizy  v.  Augusta,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  62  Fed. 

E.  678,  447,  452 

Phinizy  v.  Augusta,  etc.,  E.  B.  Co.,  63 

Fed.  B.  922,  710 

Phinizy  v.  Murray,  83  Ga.  747,  420 

Phoenix,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Batchen,  6 IU.  App. 

621,  1604, 1605 

Phoenix,  etc.,  Insurance  Co.  v.  Erie,  etc., 

Co.,  117  U.  S.  312,  2334,  2543 

Phoenix  Insurance  Co.  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Co., 

10  Biss.  18,  2333 

Phoenix  Insurance  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  E. 

Co.,  134  Ind.  215,  1915, 1916 

Phoenix  Iron  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  113 

Pa.  St.  563,  247 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-U62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1363-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Phoenix,  etc.,  Works  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  139  Pa.  St.  284,  2329,  2349 

Phoenix  Warehousing  Co.  v.  Badger,  67 

N.  Y.  294,  157, 158,  202,  264 

Phosphate  Co.  v.  Erlanger,  L.  R.  5  Ch. 

Div.  73,  16 

Phosphate,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Green,  L.  K.  7  C.  P. 

43,  221, 255 

Phosphate  of  Lime  Co.,  Re,  24  L.  T.  932,     205 
Phosphate  Sewage  Co.  v.  Hartmont,  L.  R. 

5  Ch.  Div.  394,  18 

Picard  v.  Car  Co.,  117  U  S.  34,    1078, 1079,  1081 
Picard  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130 

U.  S.  637,  97, 1067 

Pickard  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  117  U.  S. 

34,  2656 

Pickard  v.  Smith,  10  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  470,        1593 
Pickens  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  N. 

Car.  312,  2574 

Pickering  v.  Ilfracombe  R.  Co.,  37  L.  J. 

(C.  P.)  118,  211 

Pickering  v.  Ilfracombe  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  3 

Com.  P.  235,  649 

Pickering  v.  Busk,  15  East  38,  296,  2214 

Pickert  v.  Ridgefield  Park  R.  Co.,  25  N.  J. 

Eq.  316,  1294, 1325, 1547 

Pickett  v.  Bullock,  52  N.  H.  354,  1607 

Pickett  v.  Abney,  84  Tex.  645,  75, 364 

Pickett  v.  Downer,  4  Vt.  21,  2354 

Pickett  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N. 

Car.)  23  S.  E.  R.  264,  1953 

Pickford  v.  Grand  Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

8  Mees.  &  W.  372,  2279,  2282,  2419,  2693 

Pickford  v.  Grand  Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

10  Mees.  &  W.  399,  2670 

Pickford  v.  Grand  Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

12  Mees.  &  W.  766,  2167,  2187,  2283, 2325 

Pickford  v.  Mayor  of  Lynn,  98  Mass.  491, 

1451, 1558 
Piddock  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Utah, 

612,  1999 

Pieart  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Iowa 

148,  2072 

Piedmont  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  19  S.  C.  353, 

411,  2167,  2173,  2201,  2224,  2229,  2324,  2692 
Piedmont  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Speelman,  67 

Md.  260,  26, 1349, 1545 

Piek  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Biss.  177, 

1014, 1083 

Pier  v.  Finch,  24  Barb.  514,  2498 

Pierce  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141  Mass. 

481,  548, 1287 

Pierce  v.  Burrough,  58  N.  H.  302,  422 

Pierce  v.  Carelton,  12  111.  358,  889 

Pierce  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa  140, 

2122 


Pierce  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Wis.  283,  894 
Pierce  v.  Commonwealth,  104  Pa.  St.  150, 

4,49 
Pierce  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  N.  H. 

590,  1921 

Pierce  v.  Conners,  12  Colo.  178,  2151 

Pierce  v.  County  Comrs.,  63  Me.  252,  1528 

Pierce  v.  Emery,  32  N.  H.  484, 

104, 109,  476,  525,  570,  637,  638,  650,  696,  1351 
Pierce  v.  Evans,  61  Pa.  St.  415,  523 

Pierce  v.  Milwaukee  Construction  Co.,  38 

Wis.  253,  262 

Pierce  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Wis. 

551,  639,  643,  654 

Pierce  v.  New  Hampshire,  5  How.  554,       2637 
Pierce  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.,  9  La. 

397,  475 

Pierce  v.  Randolph,  12  Tex.  290,  288 

Pierce  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  66  Fed.  R.  44, 

2162 
Pierce  v.  Worcester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Mass. 

199,  1442, 1443,  1455,  1544,  1893 

Pierson  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  2 

Disney  (Ohio)  100,  1327 

Pietro  G.,  The,  38  Fed.  R.  148,  2207 

Piggot  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Eng. 

Com.  Law  228,  1888 

Piggot  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  C.  B.  229, 

1936 
Pike  v.  Bangor,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Me.  445, 

202,  204,  206,  210 
Pike  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Fed.  R. 

744,  1757,  1986 

Pike  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Fed. 

R.  255,  1768,  1946 

Pike  v.  Madbury,  12  N.  H.  262,  1028 

Pike  v.  Megoun,  44  Mo.  491,  60 

Pike  County  v.  Rowland,  94  Pa.  St.  238,       360 
Pike  County  v.  State,  11  111.  202,  2671 

Pilcher  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Kan. 

516,  1293, 1388 

Pilgreen  v.  State,  71  Ala.  368,  2195 

Pinch  v.  Anthony,  8  Allen  (Mass.)  536,         659 
Pinchin  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  L.  J. 

N.  S.  Ch.  417,  1388 

Pindell  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Mo. 

App.  675,  2175 

Pindell  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Mo. 

App.  84,  2275,  2278 

Pine  Grove  Township  v.  Talcott,  19  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  666,  3,  1256 

Pine  Lake  Iron  Co.  v.  Lafayette  Car 

Works,  53  Fed.  R.  853,  807 

Pingery  v.  Cherokee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Iowa 

438,  1512, 1517 

Pingree  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Mich. 

143,  2272,  2385,  2413 


ccclvi 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 


Pingree  v.  Leland,  135  Mass.  398,  2113 

Pinkard  v.  Allen,  75  Ala.  73,  706 

Pinkerton  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  Mass. 

527,  1450,  1488 

Pinkerton  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  R,  Co., 

42  N.  H.  424,  145 

Pinkett  v.  Wright,  2  Hare  120,  138 

Pilkinton  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Tex.  226, 

2019,  2037 
Pinney  v.  First  Div.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

19  Minn.  251,  2278,  2368,  2372 

Pinney  v.  Wells,  10  Conn.  104,  2447 

Piollett  v.  Summers,  106  Pa.  St.  95,  1988 

Pioneer  Paper  Co.,  Re,  36  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 

Ill,  226 

Piper  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Wis.  247, 

1745, 1750 
Piper  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Hun 

44,  2564 

Piper  v.  Rhodes,  30  Ind.  309,  26 

Piper  v.  Union  Pac.,  R.  Co.,  14  Kan.  568,    1316 
Pippon  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  N. 

Car.  54,  1870 

Piqua  Branch  Bk.  v.  Knopp,  16  How. 

(U.  S.)  369,  66,  1063 

Pirie  v.  Tyedt,  115  U.  S.  41,  939 

Piscataqua  Bridge  Co.  v.  New  Hampshire 

Bridge  Co.,  7  N.  H.  35,  48, 1381, 1382 

Piscatauqua  Ferry  Co.  v.  Jones,  39  N.  H. 

491,  160, 213 

Pitkin  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Barb.  Ch.  221,  562,  1314 

Pitkin  v.  Springfield,  112  Mass.  509,  1460 

Pitlock  v.  Wells,  etc.,  Co.,  109  Mass.  452, 

2280,2281 

Pitts  v.  Bomar,  33  Ga.  96,  1581 

Pittsburg  v.  Scott,  1  Pa.  St.  309,          1340, 1347 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  Coal  Co.  v.  Bates,  156  U.  S. 

577,  967, 1076 

Pittsburg  Mining  Co.  v.  Spooner,  74  Wis. 

307,  17,  18,  19 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  122  Pa. 

St.  511,  1374,  1380,  1688, 1692 

Pittsburg  Junction  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  (Pa.) 

6  Atl.  R.  564,  1698 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  (Pa.)  28 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  266,  1694 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  Co.'s  Appeal,  4  Atl.  R. 

385,  471, 687 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  105  Ind. 

151,  305,  1957,  2026,  2056 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allegheny 

County,  63  Pa.  St.  126,       57:  104,  124,  435,  569 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allegheny  Co., 

79  Pa.  St.  210,  1210 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  40  Ohio 

St.  206,  1825, 1826, 1829 


Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Andrews,  39  Md. 

329,  2563 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Applegate,  21 W. 

Va.  172,  159, 162 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Backus,  154  U.  S. 

421,  1074, 1077, 1091, 1095 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barret,  36 Ohio 

448,  2189,  2190,  2191,  2274,  2277,  2320 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bedford,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  81%  Pa.  St.  104,  695 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bennett,  9  Ind. 

App.  92,  1784 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bentley,  88  Pa. 

St.  178,  1436, 1489 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benwood  Iron 

Works,  31  W.  Va.  710, 

7,  47,  64,  1331,  1339,  1340, 1365, 1366, 1367, 1386 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Bingham,  29  Ohio 

St.  364,  1950,  1952, 1956,  1966 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Birmingham,  51 

Pa.  St.  41,  1621, 1641 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Go.  v.  Bolner,  57  Ind. 

572,  1860 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  67  Ind. 

45,  1041,  1677 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bruce,  102  Pa. 

St.  23,  1313,  1347, 1387, 1407, 1541 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Caldwell,  74  Pa. 

St.  421,  1785 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  86  111. 

443,  993, 1897, 1920 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  City  of  Chicago, 

(111.)  42  N.  E.  R.  781,  1623 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke,  29  Pa. 

St.  146,  148,  150,  203,  356,  357 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  87  Pa. 

St.  405,  1736 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Columbus,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  8  Biss.  (TJ.  S.)  456,  569 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

66  Pa.  St.  73,  1074 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

101  Pa.  St.  192,  1038,  1040,  1674 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 

104  Pa.  St.  583,  1667 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  County  of  Alle- 
gheny, 63  Pa.  St.  126,  433 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cunningham,  39 

Ohio  St.  327,  '     1834,  1844 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Currant,  61  Ind. 

38,  1860 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Donahue,  70  Pa. 

St.  119,  1990 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  56  Pa.  St. 

280,  1659,  1794 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eby,  55  Ind.  567, 

1841, 1842 


TABLE    OF   -CASES. 


ccclvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[  Vol.  I,  pp.  i-us,  Vol.  ii,  pp.  643-1262,  Vol.  in,  pp.  ms-zm,  vol.  iv,  pp. 


Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Evans,  53  Pa. 

St.  250,  1736 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Garrett,  50  Ohio 

St.  405,  453 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gazzam,  32  Pa. 

St.  340,  154, 157 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  GiUeland,  56  Pa. 

St.  445,  1453, 1456, 1565 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  25  Pa.  St. 

336,  1489,  1528, 1530 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hannon,  60  Ind. 

417,  1860 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harbaugh,  4 

Brewst.  (Pa.)  115,  613 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harden,  137 

Ind.  486,  3,  1156,  1190,  1208,  1209 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hazen,  84  111.  36, 

2270,2348 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hazen,  84  111. 

422,  2270 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  HeiskeU,  38  Ohio 

St.  666,  1818, 1821 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson,  37 

Ohio  St.  549,  287, 2018,  2062 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hennigh,  39  Ind. 

509,  2505 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hine,  25  Ohio  St. 

629,  2143 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hinds,  53  Pa.  St. 
•''  512,  2480,  2584,  2585,  2588 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hixon,  79  Ind. 

Ill,  1902, 1907,  1934 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hixon,  110  Ind. 

225,  1907,  1930, 1937 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hollo  well,  65 

Ind.  188,  2270,  2300,  2348 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  59  Pa.  St. 

433,  1541 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  86  Ind. 

496,  1907, 1923 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  111  Pa. 

St.  204,  1382 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kain,  35  Ind. 

291,  596 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keokuk,  etc., 

Co.,  131  U.  S.  371, 

323,  396,  475,  499,  507,  510,  524,  573,  586 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keokuk,  etc., 

Co.,  155  U.  S.  156,  587 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kirk,  102  Ind. 

399,  299 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Laufman,  78  Ind. 

319,  1838 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lightcap,  7  Ind. 

App.  249,  284,  2463,  2485 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lyon,  123  Pa. 

St.  140,  277,  286,  288,  2454,  2629 


Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marshall,  85  Pa. 

St.  187,  679,  680,  687 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  82  Ind. 

476,  1756, 1783 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCloskey,  110 

Pa.  St.  436,  1426,  1428, 1432 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McClurg,  56  Pa. 

St.  294,  283,  2563 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Methven,  21  Ohio 

St.  586,  1826, 1862 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  33  Ohio 

St.  384,  449,  2710 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moses,  2  Alt.  R. 

188,  1653,  1669 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morton,  61  Ind. 

539,  411,  2225,  2234,  2280,  2281,  2293,  2693 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nash,  43  Ind. 

423,  2357 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  51  Ind. 

150,  1895, 1917, 1926 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Noel,  77  Ind.  110, 

1895,  1917,  1926,  1934, 1937 
Pittsburg,  «tc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nuzum,  60  Ind. 

533,  2461 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nuzum,  50  Ind. 

141,  288,  2484,  2485 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patterson,  107 

Pa.  St.  461,  1512 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pearson,  72  Pa. 

St.  169,  1983 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peet,  152  Pa.  St. 

488,  1506,  1509 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pillow,  76  Pa. 

St.  510,  285,  2480,  2584 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pittsburg,  80  Pa. 

St.  72,  1641 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pittsbnrg,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  159  Pa.  St.  331,         65, 1276,  1277, 1278 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Porter,  32  Ohio 

St.  328,  1471 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Point  Bridge 

Co.,  165  Pa.  St.  37,  13, 1408 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ramsey,  22 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  322,        934,  2293,  2302,  2409,  2692 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Redding,  140  Ind. 

141,  1781, 1962 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reed.  (Pa.  St.) 

28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  233,  1517 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reed,  (Pa.  St.)  6 

Atl.  R.  838,  1507 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reich,  101  111. 

157,  1036, 1411, 1430,  1638 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson,  95  Pa. 

St.  426,  1427, 1517,  1520, 1521 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rose,  74  Pa.  St. 

362,  1425, 1431, 1436, 1444, 1512,  1516,  1522 


ccclviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Place  v.  Union  Ex.  Co.,  2  Hilton  19, 


Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.Rothsckild,  (Pa.) 

26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  50,  37,  447,  471 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ruby,  38  Ind. 

294,  321 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Russ,  57  Fed.  R. 

822,  2578 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sentmeyer,  92  Pa. 

St.  276,  2004,  2058 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shaeffer,  59  Pa. 

St.  350,  328 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shaw,  (Pa.)  13 

Cent,  R.  220, 14  Atl.  R.  323,  509 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shaw,  (Pa.)  36 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  453,  63 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shields,  47  Ohio 

St.  387,  303 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shields,  (Ohio) 

31  Cent.  L.  J.  168,  1973, 1977, 1989 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  38  Ohio 

St.  410,  1816, 1817, 1865 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southwest,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  77  Pa.  St.  173,  1374, 1693 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spencer,  98  Ind. 

186,  1798, 2570 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  49  Ohio 

St.  189,  1060 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stewart,  41  Pa. 

St.  54,  171, 175 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stuart,  71  Ind. 

500,  1803, 1863 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  141 

Ind.  83,  318,  319,  2162 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Swinney,  97  Ind. 

586,  1489,  1504, 1505, 1506,  1507 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Theobald,  51  Ind. 

246,  308,  2581,  2703 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  56 

111.  138,  2151,  2471 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vance,  115  Pa. 

St.  325,  1435, 1512, 1514 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vandyne,  57  Ind. 

573,  2455,  2506,  2585 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vining,  27  Ind. 

513,  1982, 2140 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  74  Ind. 

462,  1797,  2552,  2567 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woolley,  12  Bush 

(Ky.)  451,  396 

Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yundt,  78  Ind. 

373,  1743, 1748,  1753, 1754 

Pittston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McNulty,  125  Pa.  St. 

4U,  2003, 2064 

Pitzman  v.  Freeburg,  92  111.  Ill, 

1139, 1158, 1165 

Pixley  v.  Roanoke,  etc.,  Co.,  75  Va.  320,       550 
Pixley  v.  Western  Pac.  R.  Co.,  33  Cal.  183, 

64,396,553 


2178,  2290,  2419 
Plainview  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Minn. 

505,  455,  1211, 1233 

Plaisled  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Me.  132, 

2299,2300 
Planet,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

115  Mo.  613,  896, 1246 

Plank's  Tavern  Co.  v.  Burkhard,  87  Mich. 

182,  156 

Plantation,  Inhabitants  of,  v.  Hall,  61  Me. 


517, 


2233 

855 


Planters'  Bank  v.  Whittle,  78  Va.  737, 
Planters',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Clossey,  1  Stew. 

(Ala.)  201,  330 

Planters',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Leavens,  4  Ala. 

753,  891 

Planters',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Padgett,  69  Ga. 

159,  271, 877 

Planters',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Merchants',  etc., 

Bank,  78  Ga.  574,  416 

Planters',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Selma  Sav.  Bank, 

63  Ala.  585,  134, 149 

Planters,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  161  U.  S.  193,        95 
Planz  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  157  Mass. 

377,  1959, 1961,  2465 

Plaquemines,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Buck,  (N.  J.)  27 

Atl.  R.  1094,  18 

Plaster  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Iowa 

449,  1851 

Platt  v.  Archer,  9  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  559,         867 
Platt  v.  Birmingham  Axle  Co.,  41  Conn. 

255,  149 

Platt  v.  Bright,  29  N.  J.  Eq.  128,  1452 

Platt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Iowa 

694,  1999 

Platt  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Conn. 

544,  849, 865 

Platt  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Fed. 

R.  569,  769,  774 

Platt  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Fed. 

R.  872,  728 

Platt  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Fed. 

R.  660,  792 

Platt  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  43  Ohio  St.  228, 

1389, 1409,  1460 
Platt  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N.  Y. 

358,  2334 

Platt  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  99  U.  S.  48, 

638,1123 
Platt  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  17  Fed.  R. 

273,  489 

Platteville  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Wis. 

493,  1186, 1195, 1210 

Plattsmouth  v.  Fitzgerald,  10  Neb.  401,      1245 
Pleasants  v.  Fant,  22  WalL  116,  2720 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Pleasants,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ross,  1  Wash.  (Va.) 

156,  1575 

Pleasant  Township  v.  Aetna  Life  Ins.  Co., 

138  U.  S.  67,  1143,  1145 

Plessy,  Ex  parte,  45  La.  Ann.  80,          285,  2643 
Plessy  v.  Ferguson,  163  U.  S.  537, 

2643,  2644,  2650 

Plimpton  v.  Bigelow,  93  N.  Y.  592,          112,  418 
Plott  v.  Western  North  Carolina  R.  Co., 

65  N.  Car.  74,  1538 

Plumb  v.  Bank,  48  Kan.  484,  145,  256 

Plumb  v.  City  of  Grand  Rapids,  81  Mich. 

381,  1133 

Plumer  v.  Wausa,  etc.,  Co.,  49  Wis.  449,     1451 
Plumley  v.  Birge,  124  Mass.  57,  1978 

Plumley  v.  Commonwealth,  155  U.  S.  461, 

966,2650 

Plummer  v.  Dill,  156  Mass.  426,  1951 

Plummer  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  168 

Pa.  St.  62,  1782 

Plymouth  v.  Painter,  17  Conn.  585,  341 

Plymouth  R.  Co.  v.  Colwell,  39  Pa.  St.  337, 

105,  512, 1115 
Plymouth  Tp.  v.  Chestnut  Hill,  etc.,  Co., 

168  Pa.  St.  181,  1621 

Plympton  v.  Preston,  4  La.  Ann.  356,  321 

Poeppers  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Mo. 

715,  1909, 1910 

Poindexter  v.  Qreenhow,  114  U.  S.  270,       1133 
Polack  v.  Pioche,  35  Cal.  416,  2300 

Polack  v.  Trustees,  48  Cal.  400,  1631 

Poland  v.  Lamoille  Valley  R.  Co.,  52  Vt. 

144,  656,  659,  722,  818, 1608 

Polar  Star  Lodge  v.  Polar  Star  Lodge,  16 

La.  Ann.  53,  378,  862 

Poler  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  N.  Y. 

476,  1818,  1823, 1865 

Polhans  v.  Atehison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  Mo. 

535,  1933 

Polhemus  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  123  N.  Y. 

502,  455, 466 

Poling  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  38  W.Va.  645, 

1965,  2723 

Police  Jury  v.  Britton,  15  Wall.  566,  1148 

Police  Jury  v.  McDonough,  8  La.  Ann. 

341,  1144, 1147 

Pollard  v.  Bailey,  20  Wallace  520,  266 

Pollard  v.  City  of  Pleasant  Hill,  3  Dill. 

195,  1241 

Pollard  v.  Hogan,  3  How.  (U.  S.)  212, 

1331, 1332 
Pollard  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  L.  T.  R. 

(N.  S.)  551,  2384 

Pollard  v.  Maddox,  28  Ala.  321,        101,  546,  639 
Pollard  v.  Vinton,  105  U.  S.  7, 

2198,  2200,  2203,  2204,  2276 
Pollett  v.  Long,  56  N.  Y.  200,  1909 


Pollitz  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  53  Fed.  R. 

210,  669,  718,  723,  724,  729 
Pollock  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  124  Mass.  158,    1763 
Polly  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  449,  1273, 1478, 1511 

Pomeroy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Wis. 

641,  1487 

Pomeroy  v.  Lappeus,  9  Ore.  363,  2710 

Pomeroy  v.  Winship,  12  Mass.  513,  663 

Pomeroy  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Blatch.  (U.  S.)  120,  36,  935 

Pomfrey  v.  Saratoga  Springs,  104  N.  Y. 

459,  1797 

Pomona,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camden,  etc.,  Co., 

(N.  J.)  20  Atl.  R.  350,  1550 

Pomroy  v.  Sperry,  16  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 

211,  1029 
Pompton  v.  Cooper  Union,  101  U.  S.  1%, 

1171, 1236, 1239 

Pond  v.  Cooke,  45  Conn.  126,  773,  799 

Pond  v.  Framingham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130 

Mass.  194,  741,  750,  757,  853 

Pond  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Blatchf. 

280,  616, 911 

Pondir  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  334,  239,  828 

Ponkey  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Interst.  Com.  Rep.  806,  2236 

Pontchartrain  R.  Co.  v.  Paulding,  11  La. 

41,  327 

Ponchartrain  R.  R.  Co.  v.  New  Orleans, 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  11  La.  Ann.  253,  49 

Ponchartrain  R.  Co.  v.  Orleans  Nav.  Co., 

15  La.  404,  48 

Pool  v.  Breese,  114  111.  594,  1557 

Pool  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Wis.  227, 

312,  2561,  2562 

Pool  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Wis.  657,  2594 
Pool  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  S.  Car. 

286,  2389 

Poole,  Jackson  &  Whyte's  Case,  L.  R.  9 

Ch.  D.  322,  204 

Poole  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Tex.  134, 

2391,2393 
Poole  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  16  Ore.  261, 

284,  2490,  2506,  2507 

Poole  v.  Thatcherdeft,  19  Fed.  R.  49,  932 

Pooley  Hall  Colliery  Co.,  In  re,  21  L.  T. 

R.  N.  S.  690,  639 

Pope  v.  Board,  51  Fed.  R.  769,    1146, 1147, 1158 
Pope  v.  Board  of  Com'rs,  51  Fed.  R.  769, 

453,456 

Pope  v.  Durant,  26  Iowa  233,  664,  667 

Pope  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  Co.,  87  N.  Y. 

137,  882. 


ccclx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1S62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1S6S-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Porcher  v.  Northeastern  Railroad,  14 

Rich.  L.  181,  2283,  2306 

Port  v.  Huntingdon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  168  Pa. 

St.  19,  1722,  1724 

Port  v.  Russell,  36  Ind.  60,  380 

Port  v.  West  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Hun 

309,  1731 

Portal  v.  Emmens,  1  Com.  PI.  Div.  664,  338 
Porter  v.  Bank  of  Rutland,  19  Vt.  410,  249 
Porter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Neb.  14,  881 
Porter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  111.  407,  2278 
Porter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Iowa 

358,  1991, 2188 

Porter  v.  Dawson  Bridge  Co.,  157  Pa.  St. 

367,  1031 

Porter  v.  Hildebrand,  14  Pa.  St.  129,  2608 
Porter  v.  Industrial,  etc.,  Co.,  25  N.  Y. 

Supp.  328,  757 

Porter  v.  Janesville,  3  Fed.  R.  617,  1256 

Porter  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  125  Ind.  476, 

1453, 1651 

Porter  v.  Milwaukee,  19  Wis.  625,  1070 

Porter  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  34  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  a53,  407 

Porter  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Co.,  120 U.S.  649,  244 
Porter  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Co.,  122  U.  S.  267, 

629,  654 

Porter  v.  Purdy,  29  N.  Y.  106,  1202 

Porter  v.  Railroad  Co.,  76  111.  561,  1091 

Porter  v.  Raymond,  53  N.  H.  519,  167 

Porter  v.  Rockford,  etc.,  Co.,  76  111.  561,  1056 
Porter  v.  Rose,  12  Johns.  209,  588 

Porter  v.  Waring,  69  N.  Y.  250,  2710 

Porter  v.  Williams,  9  N.  Y.  142,  731 

Port  Clinton  R.  Co.  v.  Cleveland  R.  Co.,  13 

Ohio  St.  544,  1185,  1299 

Porterfleld  v.  Bond,  38  Fed.  R.  391,  1037,  1565 
Port  Huron,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Voorheis,  50 

Mich.  506,  1417, 1523, 1530 

Port  Jervis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  132  N.  Y.  439,  592 

Portland  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  66  Me.  485,  1643 
Portland  v.  Kamm,  10  Ore.  383,  1520 

Portland  v.  Portland,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Me.  135,  1064 
Portland,  etc.,  v.  Evansville,  25  Fed.  R. 

389,  1248 

Portland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  County  Commission- 
ers, 64  Me.  505,  1558 
Portland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Portland,  12  B. 

Mon.  (Ky.)  77,  862 

Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  County  Commis- 
sioners, 65  Me.  292,  1274, 1534 
Portland,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Deering,  78  Me. 

61,  954,  1660,1662 

Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Graham,  52  Mass. 
(11  Mete.)  1,  356 


Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graham,  11  Mete. 

1,  218, 220 

Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Inhabitants,  etc., 

58  Me.  23,  176, 1181, 1245 

Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  T.  Portland,  14  Ore. 

188,  1610 

Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Saco,  60  Me.  196,  1068 
Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Standish,  65  Me. 

63,  1141 

Port  of  Mobile  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

84  Ala.  115,  60 

Port,  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Staten  Is- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  N.  Y.  445,  1713 
Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  95  Ga. 

292,  2008, 2071 

Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  King,  93  Ga. 

63,  768,  769,  770 

Portsmouth  Savings  Bank  v.  Springfield, 

4  Fed.  R.  276,  1245 

Post  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  Pa.  St. 

585,  1927 

Post  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Neb.  110, 

2499,  2500,  2573 

Post  v.  County  of  Pulaski,  47  Fed.  R.  282,  1174 
Post  v.  Huntington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  168  Pa. 

St.  19,  1730 

Post  v.  Pearsall,  22  Wend.  425,  131& 

Post  v.  Pulaski  County,  49  Fed.  R.  628, 

1150, 1162,  1169, 1173 
Post  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.)  23  S.  W. 

R.  708,  196S 

Post  v.  West  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  N.  Y. 

580,  493 

Postal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

92  Ala.  331,  155$ 

Postal  Tel.  Co.  v.  City  Council  of  Charles- 
ton, 153  U.  S.  692,  1097 
Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 

Co.,  43  La.  Ann.  522,  1384 

Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  88  Va.  920,  885, 1373, 1380 

Postal  Tel.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State  of  Alabama, 

155  U.  S.  482,  94$ 

Potomac  Coal  Co.  v.  Cumberland,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  38  Md.  226,  2431 

Potomac,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Evans,  84  Va.  717,       663 
Potter  v.  Ames,  43  Cal.  75,  1458,  1560 

Potter  v.  Bunnell,  20  Ohio  St.  150,  1795 

Potter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Iowa 

399,  2112 

Potter  v.  Faulkner,  1  Best  &  S.  800,  2061 

Potter  v.  Lansing,  1  Johns.  215,  2694 

Potter  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Hun 

367,  393 

Potter  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136  N.  Y. 

77,  2007,  2027,  2029 

Potts'  Appeal,  15  Pa.  St.  414,  153$ 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Potts  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131  Mass. 

455,  2253,  2441,  2444 

Potts  v.  Quaker  City  El.  R.  Co.,  161  Pa. 

St.  396,  11, 1611 

Potts  v.  Quaker  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  12 

Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  593,  8,  11 

Potts  v.  Rose  Valley  Mills,  167  Pa.  St.  310,  325 
Potts  v.  Wallace,  146  U.  S.  689,  253,  254,  490 
Potwin  Place  v.  Topeka  R.  Co.,  51  Kan. 

609,  917 

Poucher  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y. 

263,  2460,  2511,  2514,  2516,  2601 

Pouder  v.  Catterson,  127  Ind.  434,  732,  793,  798 
Pouder  v.  Tate,  96  Ind.  330,  776,  777 

Pouilin  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  52  Fed. 

R.  197,  2489 

Poulin  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  32  Am.  L. 

Reg.  153,  2490 

Poulton  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  2 

Q.  B.  534,  414,  2582 

Pound  v.  Truck,  95  U.  S.  459,  952,  2647 

Pounder  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

(1892)  1  Q.  B.  385,  2585,  2588 

Poughkeepsie,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Griffin,  24  N.  Y. 

150,  70, 155 

Poughkeepsie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  63 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  151,  1430,  1436,  1703 

Powder  Co.  v.  Oakdale,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Phila. 

(Pa.)  166,  882 

Powder  River,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Custer  County, 

9  Mont.  145,  46 

Powell  v.  Clelland,  82  Ind.  24,  1540 

Powell  v.  Construction  Co.,  88  Tenn.  692,  1582 
Powell  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Miss.) 

8  So.  R.  738,  2555 

Powell  v.  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Ga.  209,  903 
Powell  v.  Mills,  30  Miss.  231,  2173,  2280 

Powell  v.  Missouri  R.  Co.,  42  Mo.  63,  462,  463 
Powell  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  59  Mo. 

App.  626,  1968 

PoweU  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  76  Mo.  80,  1760 
Powell  v.  Myers,  26  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  591, 

2364,  2629 
PoweU  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  N.  Y. 

613,  1781 

Powell  v.  North  Missouri  R.  Co.,  42  Mo. 

63,  703 

Powell  v.  Oregonian  Railway,  36  Fed.  R. 

726,  253, 258 

Powell  v.  Oregonian  R.  Co.,  6  Ry.  &  Corp. 

L.  J.  28,  259 

Powell  v.  Pennsylvania,  127  U.  S.  678,  »  2654 
Powell  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  32  Pa.  St. 

414,  2339,  2399,  2400,  2402 

Powell  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Ohio 

St.  70,  2497 

PoweU  v.  State,  52  Wis.  217,  1054 


PoweU  v.  Supervisors  Brunswick  County, 

88  Va.  707,  1207 

PoweU  v.  Thompson,  80  Ala.  51,  2359 

Power's  Appeal,  29  Mich.  504,  1385,  1467 

Power  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Ga. 

471,  151S 

Powers  v.  Bears,  12  Wis.  213, 

1470, 1471, 1473, 1551 
Powers  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153  Mass. 

188,  2461,  2462,  2553,  2555,  2595 

Powers  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65 

Fed.  R.  129,  933,  934,  94S 

Powers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Minn. 

322,  1980 

Powers  v.  Davenport,  7  Blackf.  497,  2380 

Powers  v.  Harlow,  53  Mich.  507,  1973, 1981 
Powers  v.  Hazelton.etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Ohio 

St.  429,  1292, 1349, 1434, 1436, 1494, 1495 

Powers  v.  Inferior  Court,  etc.,  23  Ga.  65,  1139 
Powers  v.  Irish,  23  Mich.  429,  1497 

Powhatan,  The,  21  Blatch.  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

18,  2406- 

Powlet,  Town  of,  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

28  Vt.  297,  1587 

Pozzi  v.  Shipton,  8  Ad.  &  E.  963,  2698,  2700 
Praeger  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  L.  T.  R. 

N.  S.  105,  2549 

Prather  v.  JeffersonviUe,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

Ind.  16,     1284,  1322, 1356,  1369, 1385,  1500, 1547 
Prather  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Ga. 

427,  288, 1766,  2018,  2069,  2718- 

Prather  v.  Western  U.  Tel.  Co.,  89  Ind. 

501,  63,  547,  1304, 1323,  1391, 1408 

Pratt  v.  American  BeU  Tel.  Co.,  141  Mass. 

225,  624 

Pratt  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Me.  579, 

93,  94,  971,  1890, 1891, 189S 
Pratt  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126  Mass. 

443,  135 

Pratt  v.  Bright,  29  N.  J.  Eq.  128,  1483 

Pratt  v.  Brown,  3  Wis.  603,  1333, 1340, 1341 

Pratt  v.  DesMoines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa 

249,  163* 

Pratt  v.  Jewett,  9  Gray  (Mass.)  34,  862 

Pratt  v.  Ogdensburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

Mass.  557,  2296,2405,2406 

Pratt  v.  Oshkosh  Match  Co.,  89  Wis.  406,  20 
Pratt  v.  Parkman,  24  Pick.  (Mass.)  42,  2215 
Pratt  v.  Pratt,  33  Conn.  446,  418,  42» 

Pratt  v.  Prouty,  153  Mass.  333,  2022,  2024 

Pratt  v.  Railway  Co.,  95  U.  S.  43,  2194,  2294 
Pratt  v.  Roseland  R.  Co.,  50  N.  J.  Eq. 

150,  898 

Pratt  v.  Short,  79  N.  Y.  437,  514,  520 

Pratt,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Brawley,  83  Ala.  371, 

1979, 1982,  1983 
Pray,  The  E.  H.,  27  Fed.  R.  474,  2391 


ccclxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II.  pp.  1,43-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2735.] 


Pray  v.  Mitchell,  60  Me.  430,  133 

Pray  v.  Northern  Liberties,  31  Pa.  St. 

69,  1102 

Pray  v.  Omaha  St.  R.  Co.,  44  Neb.  167,       2558 
Preble  v.  Portland,  45  Me.  241,  1480 

Prendergast  v.  Turton,  1  Younge  &  C.  Ch. 

Cas.  98,  221 

Prendible  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160 

Mass.  131,  2105,  2115 

Prentiss  v.  Kent,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Mich.  478, 

2039,2059 
Presbrey  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

Mass.  1,  1436, 1438, 1440, 1457,  1513 

Presbyterian,  etc.,  Fund  v.  Allen,  106  Ind. 
-  593,  275 

Presbyterian  Society  v.  Auburn,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  3  Hill  (N.  Y.)  567,  1422 

Prescott  v.  Haughey,  65  Fed.  R.  653,  385 

Prescott  v.  Patterson,  44  Mich.  525,  1560 

President,  etc.,  v.  Cason,  72  Md.  377,  2555 

President,  etc.,  v.  Diffebach,  1  Yates 

(Pa.)  367,  1495 

President,  etc.,  v.  People,  9  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

161,  1038 

President,  etc.,  v.  Sipe,  11  Ind.  67,  536 

President,  etc.,  v.  Trenton  Bridge  Co.,  13 

N.  J.  Eq.  46,  86 

President,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Village  of 

Whitehall,  90  N.  Y.  21,  1654 

President  of  Crawfordsville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

v.  Wright,  5  Ind.  252,  1560 

President  of  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Penn  Coal  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  250,  1572, 1576 

President,  etc.,  of  Baltimore,  etc.,  Turnp. 

v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Md.  247,  1381 
Pressley  v.  Harrison,  102  Ind.  14,  737,  774,  779 
Pressley  v.  Lamb,  105  Ind.  171,  737,  778,  786 
Pressley  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Fed.  R. 

199,  303 

Preston  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Fed.  R.  54,  267 

Preston  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Iowa 

15,  61 

Preston  v.  Finley,  72  Fed.  R.  850,  2637 

Preston  v.  Grand  Colliery,  etc.,  Co.,  11 

Sim.  327,  162 

Preston  v.  Grand  Collier  Dock  Co.,  2  Eng. 

R.  &  C.  Cas.  335,  170 

Preston  v.  Great  Yarmouth,  L.  R.  7  Ch. 

655,  661 

Preston  v.  Liverpool  M.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 

Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  124,  488 

Preston  v.  Rudd,  84  Ky.  150,  1102 

Preston  v.  Tubbin,  1  Vern.  286,  322 

Preston  v.  Witherspoon,  109  Ind.  457,  416 

Prettyman  v.  Supervisors,  19  111.  406. 

1144. 1219 


Prewett  v.  Trimble,  92  Ky.  176,  137,  397 

Price  v.  Anderson,  15  Sim.  473,  424 

Price  v.  Bala,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  L.  T.  R.  787, 

969 

Price  v.  Bradford,  4  La.  35,  2389 

Price  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Colo.  402, 

2249,  2253,  2441 

Price  v.  Detroit,  etc.,~R.  Co.,  145  U.  S.  651,  2089 
Price  v.  Garland,  3  N.  M.  285,  1582 

Price  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  18 

Ind.  137,  159 

Price  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 

Ind.  58,  205,  358,  361 

Price  v.  Hartshorn,  44  Barb.  655,        2266,  2420 
Price  v.  Haynes,  37  Mich.  487,  646 

Price  v.  Holcomb,  89  Iowa  123,  82,  862 

Price  v.  Lancaster  County,  18  Neb.  199,      1070 
Price  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Fed.  R. 

825,  944 

Price  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis. 

98,  1440 

Price  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  32  N.  J.  L. 

19,  1803 

Price  v.  Oswego,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  213, 

2363,2364,2383 
Price  v.  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  113  U.  S. 

218,  2457 

Price  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  S.  Car. 

556,  2144, 2147 

Price  v.  Riverside,  etc.,  Co.,  56  Cal.  431, 

920,2692 
Price  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Mo.  414, 

2546,  2548,  2592,  2703 

Price  v.  State,  74  Ga.  378,  9 

Price  v.  State,  41  Tex.  215,  1054 

Price  v.  Supreme  Lodge,  68  Tex.  361,  276 

Price  v.  Weehawken  Ferry  Co.,  31  N.  J. 

Eq.  31,  1446, 1447 

Price  v.  White,  1  Bailey  Eq.  (S.  Car.)  240,    824 
Prickett  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Kan. 

748,  1834 

Prickett  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Line,  13  Mo. 

App.  436,  2629 

Prideaux  v.  City  of  Mineral  Point,  43  Wis. 

513,  1790,  1792,  1799,  2069 

Priest  v.  Essex,  etc.,  Co.,  115  Mass.  380,       257 
Priest  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  65  N.  Y.  589, 

2583 

Priestley  v.  Fowler,  3  M.  &  W.  1,          333,  2075 
Prigg  v.  Pennsylvania,  16  Pet.  539,  966 

Prime  v.  Twenty-Third  St.  R.  Co.,  1  Abb. 

N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  63,  1645 

Primrose  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  154 

U.  S.  1,  2652 

Prince  v.  Case,  2  Amer.  Leading  Cases 

546,  1324 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  MS-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-216U,  Vol.  IV  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Prince  v.  International,  etc.,  Co.,  64  Tex. 

144,  312, 2487 

Prince  v.  Lynch,  38  Cal.  528,  268 

Prince  v.  Lynch,  99  Am.  Dec.  427,          266,  269 
Prince  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  N.  Y. 

Supp.  817,  1720,  1729 

Princeton,  Town  of,  v.  Gieske,  93  Ind.  402, 

1522 


Pringle  v.  Carter,  1  Hill  L.  (S.  Car.)  53,  990 
Pringle  v.  Woolworth,  90  N.  Y.  502,  785 

Printing  Co.  v.  Green,  28  Weekly  Rep.  351,  16 
Printing  House  v.  Trustees,  104  (U.  S.)  711,  69 
Printup  v.  Cherokee  R.  Co.,  45  Ga.  365,  1010 
Pritchard  v.  Norton,  106  U.  S.  124,  2312 

Prize  Cases,  The,  2  Black  635,  2269 

Proctor  v.Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Interst. 

Com.  R.  131,  2671 

Proctor  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  105  Mass.  512,  2236 
Proctor  v.  Wilmington, etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  N. 

Car.  579,  1864 

Proetz  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Minn. 

163,  1544 

Promer  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Wis. 

215,  2114 

Propeller  Mohawk,  8  Wall.  (U.  S.)  153, 

2427,  2445 
Propeller  Niagara  v.  Cordes,  21  How.  7, 

2264,2305 

Proprietors,  etc.,  v.  Gordon,  1  Pick. 

(Mass.)  297,  484 

Proprietors,  etc.,  v.  Hustler,  1  Barn.  & 

Cress.  424,  62 

Proprietors,  etc.,  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

10  Gush.  (Mass.)  385, 

1443, 1456,  1485, 1492,  1567 
Proprietors,  etc.,  v.  Nashna,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

104  Mass.  1,  548,  905, 1424, 1651 

Proprietors,  etc.,  v.  New  Hampton,  47 

N.  H.  151,  1552 

Proprietors,  etc.,  v.  Wood,  3  Esp.  127, 

2264,2268 
Prospect,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  13Hun  (N.Y.) 

345,  1436,  1444 

Prospect  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  5  Hun 

105,  1527 

Prospect  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  67  N.Y. 

371,  444,  445, 1292,  1493, 1496 

Prospect  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williamson, 

91  N.  Y.  552,        907,  1287, 1376,  1:379, 1663, 1664 
Prosperino  Palasso,  The,  29  L.  T.  Rep.  N. 

S.  622,  2205 

Prosser  v.  WapeUo  County,  18  Iowa  327,  1521 
Protection  Life  Insurance  Co.  v.  Foote,  79 

111.  361,  290,  345 

Protzman  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 

Ind.  467,  539,  1270. 1284, 1355, 1356,  1538 


Prouty  v.  Lake  Shore  R.  R.  Co.,  52  N.  Y. 

363,  462,  468 

Prouty  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  655,  119,  122,  429,  437 

Providence  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  12  R.  I.  473,  1622 
Providence,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wright,  2  R.  I. 

459,  1058 


Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet.  514,     2653 
Providence  Coal  Co.  v.  Providence  &  W. 

R.  Co.,  15  R.  I.  303,  471,  2435 

Providence  Coal  Co.  v.  Providence,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  1  Interst.  Com.  R.  363,  2669 

Providence  Coal  Co.  v.  Providence,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  1  Interst.  Com.  Com.  R.  107,         2674 
Providence  Insurance  Co.  v.  Morse,  150 

U.  S.  99,  2334,  23*5 

Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Petition  of,  17 

R.  I.  324,  1682,  1463 

Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Norwich,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  138  Mass.  277,          987,  1268,  1374,  1395 
Providence  Tool  Co.  v.  Norris,  2  Wall.  48, 

f  523,530 

Provident  Bank  v.  Massachusetts,  6  Wall. 

611,  1073,  2643 

Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Petition  of,  17 

R.  I.  324,  1376 

Provident,  etc.,  Society  v.  Ford,  114  U.  S. 

635,  934 

Pro  volt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mo. 

256,  1328,  1329,  1541,  1550 

Provolt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Mo.  633, 

1534,  1536,  1537,  1547 
Provost  v.  Morgan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  La. 

Ann.  809,  552 

Pruitt  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Mo.  527, 

411,  2187,  2233,  2307,  2409,  2410 
Pryce  v.  Monmouthshire  R.  Co.,  49  L.  J. 

Exch.  130,  2435 

Pryor  v.  Downey,  50  Cal.  388,  1198 

Pryor  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ala.  32, 

2071 
Pryor  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Mo.  215, 

1850 

Pryor  v.  White,  16  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  605,  1608 

Pryzbylowicz  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

Fed.  R.  493,  1327,  1460 

P.  Schwenk  &  Co.  v.  Strang,  59  Fed.  R. 

209,  941 

Public  Parks,  Matter  of,  47  Hun  302,          1108 
Pueblo  v.  Strait,  20  Colo.  13,  1640 

Pueblo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rudd,  5  Colo.  270, 

522,  528,  1427,  1526,  1528 
Pueblo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  6  Colo.  1, 

522,528 
Puffer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn.)  68 

N.  W.  R.  39,  2706 


ccclxiv 


: TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  M3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.'] 

Puget  Sound,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ouillette,  7 

Wash.  265,  208,  215 

Pugh  v.  Brown,  19  Ohio  202,  762 

Pugh  v.  Fairmount,  etc.,  Co.,  112  U.  S. 

238,  s.  c.  5  Sup.  Ct.  R.  131, 


634 
Pugh  v.  Golden  Valley  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  12  Ch. 

Div.  274,  1357, 1393 

Pugh  v.  Sherman's  Case,  L.  R.  13  Eq.  566,  161 
Pulaski  v.  Gilmore,  21  Fed.  R.  870,  1216 

Pulaski  County,  etc.,  Cases,  49  Ark.  518,  1059 
Pulbrook  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  9 

Ch.  Div.  610,  338,  369 

Pullan  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Biss.  35, 

104,  105,  639,  640,  648,  649,  651,  739,  743,  744, 

746,  747 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bales,  80  Tex.  211, 

2529,  2532,  2587 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Barker,  4  Colo.  314, 

2454,  2533,  2587 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bluhm,  109  111.  20, 

2535,  2536 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Board,  55  Fed.  R. 

206,  2528 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Booth,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  28  S.  W.  R.  719,  2532,  2587 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co., 

65  Fed.  R.  158,  503,  2526 

'Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  107 

Pa.  St.  156,  1074 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ehrman,  65  Miss. 

383,  2533, 2587 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Freudenstein,  3 

Colo.  App.  540,  2535,  2538 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gaines,  3  Tenn.  Ch. 

587,  1079 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gardner,  3  Penny- 
packer  78,  2536 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gavin,  93  Tenn.  53, 

2535,  2536,  2539 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gaylord,  26  Am.  L. 

Reg.  512,  2526 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gaylord,  23  Am.  L. 

Reg.  (N.  S.)  788,  2535,  2536 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Laack,  143  111.  242, 

2024,  2721 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lee,  49  111.  App.  75, 

285,  2531 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lowe,  28  Neb.  239,  2535 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lowe,  29  Am.  L. 

Reg.  251,  2526 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Martin,  95  Ga.  314,  25;% 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Martin,  92  Ga.  161,  2536 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Matthews,  74  Tex. 

654,  2533,  2535,  2536 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pacific 

Co.,  115  U.  S.  587,    335,  455,  460,  860,  2674,  2684 


Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nolan,  22  Fed.  R. 

276,  1079,1083 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  141 

U.  S.  18,  1074, 1077 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pollock,  69  Tex.  120, 

2533,  2535,  2539,  2621 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Reed,  75  111.  125, 

283,  2488,  2533 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  73  111.  360, 

2535,  2538,  2543,  2586- 
Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  79  Tex.  468, 

2533,2587 

Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Taylor,  65  Ind.  153,  2532 
Pullman,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

11  Fed.  R.  625,  2663 

Pulsford  v.  Richards,  17  Beav.  87,  190 

Pumpelly  v.  Green  Bay  Co.,  13  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  166.  1335,  1397,  1413, 1415 

Pumphrey  v.  ThreadgiU,  (Tex.)  30  S.  W. 

R.  356,  100,  105 

Purcell  v.  English,  86  Ind.  34,  2720 

Purcell  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N. 

Car.  414,  2452 

Purdy  v.  Lansing,  128  U.  S.  557,  1232 

Purdy  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Hun 

97,  1775 

Purdy  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  N.  Y. 

353,  1825, 1831 

Purdy  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  209,  214g 
Purdy  v.  Town  of  Lansing,  128  U.  S.  557,  1164 
Purifoy  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N. 

Car.  100,  1277 

Purinton  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Me! 

569,  1738 

Purinton  v.  Northern  Illinois,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  46  111.  297,  1297 

Purl  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Mo.  168, 

1779, 1786 

Pursley  v.  Hayes,  22  Iowa  11,  562 

Purtell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Wis. 

132,  1599 

Purton  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  La. 

Ann.  19,  202 

Putnam  v.  Broadway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  N.  Y. 

108,  285, 2455,  2480,  25:34,  2574,  2585,  2588- 

Putnam  v.  City  of  New  Albany,  4  Biss. 

(U.S.)  365,  2:>l 

Putnam  v.  Douglas  Co.,  6  Ore.  328,     142»i, 
Putnam  v.  Ingraham,  114  U.  S.  57,  939 

Putnam  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  61 

Fed.  R.  440,  708,  745,  750,  751 

Putnam  v.  Ross,  46  Mo.  337,  1596 

Putnam  v.  Ruch,  56  Fed.  R.  416,  239,  240.  758 
Putnam  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Ore. 

230,  2146 

Pye  v.  Mankato,  36  Minn.  373,  1405 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JUS-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Quick  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130 
Ind.  134, 


Pyle  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Interst.  Com.  R.  767, 
Pyle  Works,  Re,  63  L.  T.  R.  628, 
Pyra  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Best  &  S.  396, 
Pym  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.',  R.  Co.,  2 

Foster  &  F.  619, 
Pyne  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Iowa  223, 

2112,  2122 
Pyrolusite,  etc.,  Co.,  Matter  of,  29  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  429, 


2671 

856 


2129 


2474 


862 


Q 


Quackenbush  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73 

Iowa  458,  2476 

Quackenbush  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91 

Mich.  308,  1594 

Quackenbush  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

62  Wis.  411,  967, 1830,  2002 

Quaife  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Wis. 

513,  2479, 2590 

Quaker  City  Nat.  Bank  v.  Nolan  County; 

59  Fed.  R.  660,  1225 

Quarrier  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  W. 

Va.  424,  2187 

Quay  v.  Presidio  &  F.  R.  Co.,  82  Cal.  1,  136 
Quayle  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Mo. 

365,  1468,  1527 

Quebec  Steamship  Co.  v.  Merchant,  133 

U.  S.  375,  2011,  2080 

Quebrada  Ry.,  Re,  60  L.  T.  R.  482,  123 

Queen  v.  Ambergate,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  El.  & 

Bl.  372,  924 

Queen  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Q. 

B.  47,  924,  1669 

Queen  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Gale 

&  D.  236,  1020 

Queen  v.  Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Tenn. 

458,  2074 

Queen  v.  Grand  Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Q.  B.  18,  1136 

Queen  v.  Great,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Q.  B.  315,  1020 
Queen  v.  Lancaster,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  A.  &  E. 

(N.  S.)  759,  1484 

Queen  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Ad.  &  E. 

(N.  S.)  864,  924 

Queen  v.  Paget,  L.  R.  8  Q.  B.  D.  151,  1048 

Queen  v.  Peters,  16  New  Bruns.  77,  2701 

Queen  v.  Rigby,  14  Q.  B.  687,  1669 

Queen  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  4  H.  L.  Gas. 

471,  1259 

Queen  v.  Trustees,  etc.,  1  Ad.  &  E.  (N.  S.) 

860,  924 

Queenan  v.  Palmer,  117  111.  619,  269,  270 

Queensbury  v.  Culver,  19  Wall.  83,  1162 

Quibell  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Utah  122,  2068 


2019 

Quick  v.  Lemon,  105  111.  578,  224,  259 

Quick  v.  Taylor,  113  Ind.  540,  1387 

Quigan  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  N.Y. 

50,  2713 

Quiggin  v.  Duff,  1  M.  &  W.  174,  2351 

Quiggle  v.  Trumbo,  56  Cal.  626,  762 

Quigley  v.  Cent.  Pac.  Co.,  11  Nev.  350, 

34,  299,  935 
Quill  v.  City  of   Indianapolis,  124  Ind. 

292,  1260 

Quimby  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Me. 

340,  1950 

Quimby  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  Mass. 

365, 

4%,  2319,  2510,  2513,  2514,  2515,  2601,  2602 
Quimby  v.  Carter,  20  Me.  218,  1032 

Quimby  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Railroad,  150 

Mass.  365,  2313 

Quimby  v.  Vanderbilt,  17  N.  Y.  306, 

2225,  2228,  2246,  2482 
Quimby  v.  Vermont  Central  R.  Co.,  23  Vt. 

387,  1387,  1761,  1807 

Quincy  v.  Cooke,  107  U.  S.  549,  1171 

Quincy  v.  Jackson,  113  U.  S.  332,  1165, 1168 
Quincy  v.  Jones,  76  111.  235,  1456,  1566 

Quincy,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.  v.  Adams  Co.,  88 

111.  615,  42,  471 

Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Humphreys,  145 

U.  S.  82,  759,  821 

Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kellogg,  54  Mo.  334, 

1274,  1492, 1500,  1502,  1529 
Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  84  111.  410, 

1140,  1148, 1152,  1216,  1243 

Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ridge,  57  Mo.  599,  1436 
Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schuite,  71  Fed.  R. 

487,  2180 

Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  43  Mo.  35, 

1480,1484 

Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Willhoener,  72  111. 

60,  1746,  1857,  2066 

Quiner  v.  Marblehead  Social  Ins.  Co.,  10 

Mass.  476,  137 

Quinlan  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.) 

34S.W.  R.  738,  23 

Quinlan  v.  Welch,  141  N.  Y.  158,  2722 

Quinn  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  111.  495,  2555 
Quinn  v.  Johnson,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Houst. 

338,  2022 

Quinn  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Tenn. 

713,  2162 

Quinn  v.  Lighterage  Co.,  23  Fed.  R.  363,  2079 
Quinn  v.  Madigan,  65  N.  H.  8,  424 

Quinn  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  23  Fed.  R. 

363,  2053,  2082,  2084 


ccclxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  arc  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  l2GJ-2m,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  216S-S7S5.] 


Quinn  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  56  Conn. 

44,  2145 

Quinn  v.  South  Carolina,  etc.,  Co.,  29  So. 

Car.  381,  299,  2563 


R 


Babe  v.  Dunlap,  51  N.  J.  Eq.  40,  25  Ati.  B. 

959,  711 

Baben  v.  Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  73  Iowa 

579,  2545 

Eaben  v.  Central  Iowa  B.  Co.,  74  Iowa 

732,  2548 

Bacine  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  70  Hun 

453,  2013,  2050,  2063 

Bacine  Co.  Bank  v.  Ayres,  12  Wis.  512,    184, 376 
Eacine,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Farmers,  etc.,  Co., 

49  111.  331,  38,  40,  42,  64,  247,  466,  713,  726 

Badcliff  v.  Mayor,  4  N.  Y.  195,  1564, 1891 

Eaddleson  v.  Murray,  8  A.  &  E.  109,  2190 

Eadebaugh  v.  Tacoma,  ete.,E.  Co.,  8  Wash. 

570,  S*5 

Baden  v.  Georgia  E.  Co.,  78  Ga.  47,  1980 

Eader  v.  Maddox,  150  U.  S.  128,  325 

Eadford  v.  Folsom,  55  Iowa  276,  824 

Eadke  v.  Winona  &  St.  P.  E.  Co.,  39  Minn. 

262,  1120 

Eae  v.  Grand  Trunk  B.  Co.,  14  Fed.  E. 

401,  2169 

Bafferty  v.  Central  Traction  Co.,  147  Pa. 

St.  579,  13.  898, 1545, 1635 

Bafferty  v.  Missouri  Pac.  E.  Co.,  91  Mo. 

33,  2717 

Bagan  v.  Aiken,  9  Lea  (Tenn.)  609, 

•  100,  449,  2284,  2423,  2667,  2678 
Eagan  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  Ill  Mo. 

456,  H24 

Eagan  v.  McElroy,  98  Mo.  349,  550 

Eagland  v.  McFall,  137  111.  81,  854 

Eagon  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co., 97  Mich.  265, 

1996,  1998,  2047 

Eagsdale  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  3  Bax- 
ter (Tenn.)  426,  2051 
Bagsdale  v.  Bailroad  Co.,  42  Fed.  B.  383,   2081 
Eahrer,  In  re,  140  U.  S.  545,        2642,  2650,  2656 
Baiford  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  43 

Miss.  233,  1852 

Bailroad  Commission  Cases,  116  U.  S.  307, 

4,  953,  981,  997,  1097 
Eailroad  Commissioners,  In  re,  83  Me. 

273,  987 

Bailroad  Commission  v.  Clyde,  etc.,  Co., 

5  Interst.  Com.  Com.  E.  326,  2647,  2670 

Eailroad  Commissioners  v.  Oregon,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  17  Ore.  65,  987 


Bailroad  Commissioners  v.  Portland,  etc., 
E.  Co.,  63  Me.  269, 

570,  596,  913,  918,  921,  958,  1002, 100S 
Eailroad  Commissioners  v.  Eailroad  Co., 

22  S.  Car.  220,  994, 1010,  2645- 

Eailroad  Commissioners  v.  Savannah, 

etc.,  E.  Co.,  5  Interst.  Com.  Com.  E.  13,  2682 
Bailroad  Co.  v.  Allerton,  18  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

233,  126,  234,  348,  349,  578 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Alsbrook,  146  U.  S.  279,  10S8 
Eailroad  Co.  v.  Andrews,  50  Fed.  B.  728,  2080 
Eailroad  Co.  v.  Androscoggin  Mills,  22 

Wall.  594,  2228, 2245,  2325 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Aspell,  23  Pa.  St.  147, 

2475,  2549 
Bailroad  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  103  U.  S.  426, 

1123, 1127 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Barnes,  2  N.  Dak.  310,  1128 
Bailroad  Co.  v.  Barron,  5  Wall.  90,  614,  2151 
Bailroad  Co.  v.  Baugh,  149  U.  S.  368,  2080 

Bailroad  Co.  v.  Beckwith,  129  U.  S.  26,  1092 
Eailroad  Co.  v.  Beecher,  24  Kan.  228,  405 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Berks  County,  6  Pa.  St.  70, 

1068 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Berry,  60  Ark.  433,  26ia 

Bailroad  Co.  v.  Brngham,  87  Tenn.  522, 

1415, 1632 
Bailroad  Co.  v.  Boyer,  13  Pa.  St.  497, 

1480, 1489, 1492 
Eailroad  Co.  v.  Brown,  17  Wall.  445, 

615,  819,  1920,  2644 
Eailroad  Co.  v.  Bucher,  7  Watts  (Pa.)  33, 

1489 
Bailroad  Co.  v.  City  of  Eichmond,  96  U.  S. 

521,  95& 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  81  Ky. 
492,  1091 


Cooper,  30  Vt.  476, 
County  of  Hamblen,  102 


Eailroad  Co.  v. 
Eailroad  Co.  v. 

U.  S.  273, 
Eailroad  Co.  v.  County  of  Otoe,  16  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  667, 
Eailroad  Co.  v. 
Eailroad  Co.  v. 
Bailroad  Co.  v. 
Bailroad  Co.  v. 


1152 
1811 

1088 
1569 


Bailroad  Co.  v. 

318, 
Bailroad  Co.  v. 

Bailroad  Co.  v. 

Bailroad  Co.  v. 

2339 

Bailroad  Co.  v. 


Crider,  91  Tenn.  489, 
Dennis,  116  U.  S.  665, 
Durant,  95  U.  S.  576, 
Falconer,  103  U.  S.  821, 

1145, 1171 
Fitzpatrick,  42  Ohio  St. 

2015 
Foreman,  24  W.  Va.  662, 

1426,  1521,  1548 

Forsythe,  159  U.  S.  — ,       1127 
Fraloff ,  110  U.  S.  24, 
2605,  2607,  2608,  2610,  2614,  2632 
Fuller,  17  Wall.  560, 

952,  956,  2647 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1M-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Railroad  Co.  v. 

434, 

Railroad  Co.  v. 
Railroad  Co.  v. 

Railroad  Co.  v. 
Railroad  Co.  v. 
Railroad  Co.  v. 


Railroad  Co.  v. 


Furnace  Co.,  37  Ohio  St. 

347 

Gaines,  97  U.  S.  697,    458,  1065 
Georgia,  98  U.  S.  359, 

463,  719, 869, 1065 
Gesner,  20  Pa.  St.  240,  1526 
Gibbs,  142  U.  S.  386,  1077 

Gladmon,  15  Wall.  401, 

1646,  1766,  1977,  2717 
Halstead,  7  W.  Va.  301, 

1418, 1550 


Railroad  Co. 

496, 

Railroad  Co. 
Railroad  Co. 

649, 
Railroad  Co. 

Railroad  Co. 
Railroad  Co. 
Railroad  Co. 

Railroad  Co. 

Railroad  Co. 

J 

Railroad  Co. 

Railroad  Co. 


v.  Hambleton,  40  Ohio  St. 


1538 

v.  Hambly.  154  U.  S.  349,        2080 
v.  Hauning,  15  WaU.  (U.  S.) 

1949,  2589 
v.  Harris,  12  Wall.  (U.  S.)  65, 

33,  34,  40,  43,  2141 
v.  Hecht,  95  U.  S.  168,  1554 

v.  Hodges,  113  111.  323,  1069 

v.  Houston,  95  U.  S.  697, 

1739, 1749,  1771, 1774, 1778 
v.  Howard,  7  WaU.  392, 
336,  433,  434,  486,  668,  707,  727,  851 
v.  Husen,  95  U.  S.  465, 
96,  2272,  2401,  2641,  2648,  2650,  2651 
v.  Hutchins,  37  Ohio  St.  282, 

461,  1565 
v.  Iron  Works,  31  W.Va.  710, 

1271 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Jackson,  7  WaU.  262,  1089 
Railroad  Co.  v.  James,  6  WaU.  750,  105,  536 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Jones,  95  U.  S.  439,  2561,  2595 
RaUroad  Co.  v.  Koontz,  104  U.  S.  5,  34, 1093 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Letson,  2  How.  (U.  S.) 

497,  34 

Railroad  Co.v.  Lockwood,  17  WaU.(U.  S.) 

533!  2148,  2173,2198,  2281,  2315,  2317,  2318,  2508, 
2510,  2512,  2514,  2516,  2517,  2543,  2602,  2637 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Loftin,  105  U.  S.  258,  1063 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Maine,  96  U.  S.  499, 

91,  869, 1664, 1665 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Maris,  16  Kan.  333,  2175 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Manufacturing  Co.,  16 
WaU.  (TJ.  S.)  318, 

2193,  2224,  2228,  2241,  2248,  2279,  2322,  2377 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Maryland,  21  WaU.  456, 

1079, 1083 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Meyer,  100  U.  S.  457,  1604 

Railroad  Co.  v.  McCarthy,  96  U.  S.  258, 

324,  631,  642,  2225,  2288 

RaUroad  Co.v.  McMillan,  37  Ohio  St.  554,  1872 
Railroad  Co.  v.  MitcheU,  11  Heisk.  400, 

2466,  2598 
RaUroad  Co.  v.  Morgan,  72  111.  155,  1451 


RaUroad  Co.  v.  National  Bank,  102  U.  S. 

W,  2638,  2640 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Newbrander,  40  Ohio  St. 

15,  1832,  1843 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Norton,  24  Pa.  St.  465,       1646 
Railroad  v.  Norwood,  62  Miss.  565,  1590 

Railroad  Co.  v.  O'DonneU,  49  Ohio  St. 

489,  2272,  2353,  2363 

Railroad  Co.  v.  O'Hara,  48  Ohio  St.  343,    1459 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Orr,  18  Wall.  (U.  S.)  471, 

671,  673,  674,  755 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Otoe  County,  16  WaU.  667, 

1139 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Palmes,  109  U.  S.  244,         1065 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Peniston,  18  WaU.  5, 

1096,  1097,  2643 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  15  WaU. 

300,  1056 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Pratt,  22  WaU.  123, 
2225,  2226,  2228,  2233,  2239,  2244,  2290,  2292,  2296, 
2298,  2407,  2408,  2655 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Reeves,  10  WaU.  176, 

2265,  2266,  2267,  2268,  2307,  2380,  2468 
RaUroad  Co.  v.  Richmond,  19  WaU.  584, 

2642,2656 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Richmond,  96  U.  S.  521,       956 
RaUroad  Co.  v.  Rodrigues,  10  Rica.  L. 

(S.  C.)  278,  192,  214 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Ross,  112  U.  S.  377,  2080 

RaUroad  Co.  v.  Sadler,  91  Tenn.  508,  1859 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Schurmeir,  7  WaU.  (U.S.) 

272,  1628 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Schutte,  103  U.  S.  118,          661 
Railroad  Co.  v.  SkiUman,  39  Ohio  St.  444, 

2506 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Skinner,  19  Pa.  St.  298, 

1803,  1804,  1863 
RaUroad  Co.  v.  Smith,  48  Ohio  St.  219, 

121,  265,  266,  270 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Soutter,  13  WaU.  (U.  S.) 

517,  713 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Spence,  93  Tenn.  173,  2152 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Stevens,  95  U.  S.  655, 

2148,  2317,  2510,  2514,  2543,  2655 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Stout,  17  WaU.  (U.  S.) 

657,  1974,  2721 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Swasey,  23  WaU.  (U.  S.) 


405, 


RaUroad  Co.  v.  Sympkins,  54  Tex.  615, 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Thomas,  132  U.  S.  174, 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Tyree,  7  W.  Va.  693, 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Vance,  96  U.  S.  450, 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Walker,  11  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 

383,  1744 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Wiggs,  43  Fed.  R.  333,        1128 


689 
1967 
1088 
1426 
33 


«cclxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S7S5.] 


Railroad,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Railroad,  etc.,  Com- 
mission, 39  Minn.  231,  987 
Railroad  Land  Co.  v.  Courtright,  21  Wall. 

310,  1118,  1126 

Railroad  Nat.  Bank  v.  City  of  Lowell,  109 

Mass.  211,  1244, 1252 

Railroad  School  Tax,  In  re,  78  Mo.  596,  1057 
Railsback  v.  Wayne,  etc.,  Co.,  lOInd.  App. 

622,  2022 

Railway  Co.  v.  AUerton,  18  Wall.(U.  S.) 

233,  126,  234,  348,  349,  578 

Railway  Co.  v.  Ailing,  99  U.  S.  463, 

61,  876, 1267, 1269,  1626 

Railway  Co.  v.  Beckwith,  129  U.  S.  27,  2128 
Railway  Co.  v.  Berry,  60  Ark.  433, 

2607,  2609,  2613 

Railway  Co.  v.  Bosworth,  46  Ohio  St.  81,  1314 
Railway  Co.  v.  Bruce,  55  Ark.  65,  2671 

Railway  Co.  v.  Callahan,  56  Fed.  R.  988,  2080 
Railway  Co.  v.  Collins,  84  Tex.  121,  2107 

Railway  Co.  v.  Cox,  60  Ark.  106,  2550,  2591 
Railway  Co.  v.  Cravens,  57  Ark.  112,  2213,  2262 
Railway  Co.  v.  Cronin,  38  Ohio  St.  122, 

1596, 1602 

Railway  Co.  v.  CuUen,  54  Ark,  431,  1782 

Railway  Co.  v.  Erick,  51  Ohio  St.  46,  2088 

Railway  Co.  v.  Ferguson,  57  Ark.  16,  1951 

Railway  Co.  v.  Fire  Association,  55  Ark. 

163,  1915 

Railway  Co.  v.  Fort,  17  Wall.  553,  2079 

Railway  Co.  v.  Gardner,  45  Ohio  St.  309, 

1411, 1632 

Railway  Co.  v.  Gilbert,  52  Fed.  R.  711,  1939 
Railway  Co.  v.  Hardy,  55  Ark.  134,  2542 

Railway  Co.  v.  Heiskell,  38  Ohio  St.  666,  1272 
Railway  Co.  v.  Henderson,  57  Ark.  402,  2402 
Railway  Co.  v.  Howard,  40  Ohio  St.  6,  1864 
Railway  Co.  v.  Jewett,  37  Ohio  St.  649,  749 
Railway  Co.  v.  Lacey,  3  Younge  &  J.  80,  174 
Railway  Co.  v.  Lawrence,  38  Ohio  St.  41,  1634 
Railway  Co.  v.  Leech,  41  Ohio  St.  388,  2048 
Railway  Co.  v.  Mackey,  127  S.  205,  2128 

Railway  Co.  v.  Manchester  Mills,  88  Tenn. 

653,  2276, 2347 

Railway  Co.  v.  McCarthy,  96  U.  S.  258, 

324,  631,  642,  2225,  2288 

Railway  Co.  v.  McCoy,  42  Ohio  St.  251,  1602 
Railway  Co.  v.  Nevill,  14  Phila.  414,  2270 

Railway  Co.  v.  Nevill,  60  Ark,  375  2269 

Railway  Co.  v.  Orr,  18  Wall.  471, 

671,  673,  674,  755 
Railway  Company  v.  Prescott,  16  Wall. 

603,  1097 

Railway  Co.  v.  Richards,  68  Tex.  375,  2107 
Railway  Co.  v.  Sageley,  56  Ark.  549,  1879 

Railway  Co.  v.  Schneider,  45  Ohio  St.  678, 

1025, 1745, 1763 


Railway  Co.  v.  Shoecraft,  53  Ark.  96,  1872 

Railway  Co.  v.  Smith,  40  Kan.  192,  95 

Railway  Co.  v.  Spangler,  44  Ohio  St.  471  2148 
Railway  Co.  v.  Sprague,  103  U.  S.  756,  663,  667 
Railway  Co.  v.  Stevens,  95  U.  S.  655, 

2148,  2317,  2510,  2514,  2543,  2655 
Railway  Co.  v.  Taylor,  57  Ark.  136,  1869 

Railway  Co.  v.  Timmennann,  61  Tex.  660,  1936 
Railway  Co.  v.  Trimble,  54  Ark.  a54,  2578 

Railway  Co.  v.  Troesch,  68  111.  545,  2080 

Railway  Co.  v.  Valleley,  32  Ohio  St.  345, 

1787,  2138,  2575,  2576 
Railway  Co.  v.  Walrath,  38  Ohio  St.  461, 

2083,  2587,  2599 

Railway  Co.  v.  Wellman,  143  U.  S.  339,  997 
Railway  Co.  v.  Whitton,  13  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

270,  33,  41,  935,  2140,  2141 

Railway  Co.  v.  Wright,  151  U.  S.  470,  1091 
Railway  Co.  v.  Wynn,  88  Tenn.  320,  2178,  2337 
Railway,  etc.  Co.  v.  Lincoln,  etc.,  Bank, 

31  N.  Y.  Supp.  44,  402 

Raines  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (W. 

Va.)  60  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  75,  1969 

Rainey  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Hun 

495,  1765 

Rains  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Mo.  164, 

1999,  2004,  2058,  2068 
Rajnowski  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Mich.  20,  1946,  2152 

Rajnowski  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 

Mich.  681,  1946 

Raleigh  v.  Fitzpatrick,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  501,  726 
Raleigh  v.  Peace,  110  N.  Car.  32,  1102 

Raleigh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis,  2  D.  &  B.  L. 

(N.  Car.)  451,  1333, 1335,  1354,  1465,  1547 

Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  1  Ired.  L. 

(N.  Car.)  24,  1553,  ir,51 

Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  68  N.  Car. 

502,  1199,  1212 

Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wicker,  74  N.  Car. 

220,  1401,  1106,  1435,  1440,  1441 

Rails  County  v.  Douglass,  105  U.  S.  728, 

1220,  1255 

Rails  County  Ct.  v.  United  States,  105 

U.  S.  733,  1161,  1168,  1258,  1259 

Ralston  v.  Washington,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  65 

Fed.  R.  557,  782 

Ramsden  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  104  Mass. 

117,  299,  407,  2575,  2577,  2578,  2581,  2634 

Ramsden  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Exch.  723,  1561 

Ramsay  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  88  N.  Car. 

573,  HO 

Ramsay  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Abb.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  N.  S.  174,  242 

Ramsey  v.  Brailsford,  2  Des.  582,  764 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxix 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U.S-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Ramsey  v.  Erie  Ry.  Co.,  7  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S. 

(NT.  Y.)156,  240 

Ramsey  v.  Erie  Ry.  Co.,  38  How.  Pr.  193, 

126,  624 
Ramsey  T.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Ky. 

99,  1738 

Ramsey  v.  People,  142  111.  380,  963,  2103 

Ramsey,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kelsea,  55  N.  J.  L. 

320,  2695 

Ramwell's  Case,  50  L.  J.  (Ch.)  827,        133, 141 
Rand  v.  Hubbell,  115  Mass.  461, 

423,  426,  440,  541 
Rand  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  59 

N.  H.  363,  2332 

Rand  v.  Walker,  117  U.  S.  340,  944 

Rand  v.  White  Mts.  R.  Co.,  40  N.  H.  79,        260 
Randall  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  U.  S. 

478,    1750, 1800, 1999,  2005,  2011,  2029,  2066,  2720 
Randall  v.  Elwell,  52  N.  Y.  521,  47,  r.36 

Randall  v.  Frankford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  Pa. 

St.  464,  2553,  2586 

Randall  v.  Jacksonville  St.  R.  Co.,  19 

Fla.  409,  901, 1037,  1635,  1636 

Randall  v.  Latham,  36  Conn.  48,  493 

Randall  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

La.  Ann.  778,  2499 

Randall  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104 

N.  Car.  410,  1871,  1826,  1870 

Randall  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 

N.  Car.  612,         286,  2255,  2282,  2283,  2419,  2441 
Randall  v.  Texas  Central  R.  Co.,  63  Tex. 

586,  1293,  1490 

Randall  v.  Van  Vechten,  19  Johns.  60,          290 
Randle  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Mo.  325, 

560,  904,  1037,  16138 

Randolph,  Ex  parte,  2  Brock.  447,  983 

Randolph  v.  Larned,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  557,  100 

Randolph  v.  Middleton,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  513, 

6:«5,  663 
Randolph  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

N.  J.  Eq.  49,  659,  660 

Randolph  v.  O'Riordon,  155  Mass.  331,        1790 
Randolph  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  11 

Phila.  (Pa.)  502,  637,  639,  687 

Randolph  Co.  v.  Post,  93  U.  S.  502, 

1,  7,  1152,  1170,  1231,  1241 
Ranger  v.  Champion,  etc.,  Co.,  52  Fed.  R. 

609,  777 

Ranger  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  1  Eng. 

R.  &  Canal  Gas.  1,  924, 1299,  1575,  1583 

Ranger  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 

Simons  368,  1575 

Ranker  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5 

H.  L.  Cas.  72,  195,  298,  299,  1571,  1576 

CORP. — xxiv 


Rankin  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  564,  2445 

Rankin  v.  Pine,  4  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  309,  783 
Rankin  v.  Rothschild,  78  Mich.  10,  777 

Rankine  v.  Elliott,  16  N.  Y.  377,  107,  264 

Rannay  v.  Peyser,  83  N.  Y.  1,  795 

Ransom  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Wis. 

178,  1732,  1758, 1986, 1987 

Ransome  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  135,  2671,  2672,  2675,  2681 

Ransome  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  C.  B. 

(N.  S.)  437,  2285 

Ransome  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Nev. 

&  McN.  63,  2667 

Rapauno,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Greenfield,  etc., 

Co.,  59  Mo.  App.  6, 1597,  1602 

Raphael  v.  Governor,  etc.,  17  C.  B.  161,  628 
Raphael  v.  Pickford,  5  Man.  &  G.  551,  2302 
Raphael  v.  Thames  Valley,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

L.  R.  2  Ch.  147,  969 

Rapho  Tp.  v.  Moore,  68  Pa.  St.  404,  201S 

Raritan,  Inhabitants  of  Township  of,  v. 

Port  Reading,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  J.  Eq. 

11,  1671 

Raritan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Delaware,  etc., 

Canal  Co.,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  546,  47, 49, 1382 

Rascher  v.  East  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 

Mich.  413,  1643 

Rashdall  v.  Ford,  L.  R.  2  Eq.  750,  386 

Ratcliff  v.  Teters,  27  Ohio  St.  66,  366 

Rate  Sheets,  Re,  1  Interst.  Com.  R.  316,  2686 
Rathbone  v.  Neal,  4  La.  Ann.  563,  2302 

Rathbone  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140 

N.  Y.  48,  2319 

Rathbone  v.  Parkersburg,  etc.,  Co.,  31 

W.  Va.  798,  757 

Rathbone  v.  Tioga,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Watts  &  S. 

(Pa.)  74,  553,  558,  559, 1305 

Rathbun  v.  Citizens'  Steamboat  Co.,  76 

N.  Y.  376,  2375 

Rathbun  v.  Snow,  123  N.  Y.  343,  275 

Ratterman  v.  Western  Un.,  etc.,  Co.,  127 

U.  S.  411,  1084,  1097,  2643 

Ratzar  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn.) 

66  N.  W.  R.  988,  2391,  2392 

Rau  v.  Minnesota  Valley  R.  Co.,  13  Minn. 

442,  1456,  1566 

Rauch  v.  Lloyd,  31  Pa.  St.  358, 

407, 1638,  1780, 1981 
Rauenstein  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136 

N.  Y.  528,  1676 

Ravenswood  R.  Co.  v.  The  Town,  (W.  Va.) 

24  S.  E.  R.  597, 
Rawitzky  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  La. 

Ann.  47,  2497 


ccclxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-M2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol. 
Rawlston  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  K.  Co., 

94  Ga.  536,  2072 

Ra worth  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  In- 

terst.  Com.  R.  857,  2675, 2679 

Rawson  v.  Holland,  59  N.  Y.  611, 

2194,  2248,  2256 

Rawson  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  48  N.  Y. 

196j  2322,  2482,  2622,  2633 

Ray  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Neb.  439, 

898, 1536, 1545, 1549 

Ray  v.  Law,  1  Cranch  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  349,  689 
Ray  v.  Vansycle,  96  U.  S.  675,  1170 

Rayburn  v.  Central  Railroad  Co.,  74  Iowa 

637,  2122 

Ray  County  v.  San  Sycle,  96  U.  S.  675,  1246 
Raymond  v.  Clark,  46  Conn.  129,  647,  653,  654 
Raymond  v.  County  Commissioners,  63 

Me.  110,  1*75 

Raymond  v.  Tyson,  17  How.  (U.  S)  53, 

2444,2447 

Raynham  v.  Rounseville,  9  Pick.  (Mass.) 

44,  1029 

Raynor  v.  Selmes,  52  N.  Y.  579,  678 

Re  \merican  Pastoral  Co.,  62  L.  T.  R. 

625,  123 

Argus  Printing  Co.,  1  N.  Dak.  434, 
Argus  Printing  Co.,  12  L.  R.  A.  781,        224 
Athenaeum,  etc.,  Society,  3  De.  G.  & 

J.,  660,  267 

Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst.  Com. 

R.  461,  2685 

Bangor,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  59,          123 
Barker,  6  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  509,  228 

Barned's  Banking  Co.,  L.  R.  3  Ch. 

105,  555 

Barrow,  etc.,  Co.,  59  L.  T.  R.  500,  123 

Bolt  &  Iron  Co.,  14  Onta.  R.  211,  Am. 

&  Eng.  Corp-  Cas.  165,  371 

Box's  Trusts,  9  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  372,  425 

Bridgewater  Nav.  Co.,  L.  R.  39  Ch. 

Div.  1,  123 

British,  etc.,  Assn.,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  Div. 

306,  338 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst.  Com. 

R.  137,  2679 

Corporate  Directors,  7  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R. 

178,  338 

Eight-hour  Law,  (Colo.)  39  Pac.  R. 

328,  21°3 

Filing  Copies,  etc.,  1  Interst.  Com.  R. 

76,  2686 

Gatling  Gun,  etc.,  62  L.  T.  R.  312,          127 
Great  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  56  L.  J.  Ch. 

3,  123 

Indian  Supplies,  1  Interst.  Com.  R. 

22,  2687 


III,  pp.  1S63-2M,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27Z5.] 

.Re'Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  53 

Fed.  R.  476,  979 

Iron,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Ont.  R.  113,  s.  c.  33 

Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  277,  726 

Joint  Water  and  Rail  Lines,  2  Interst. 

Com.  R.  486,  2684 

Leeds,  etc.,  Co.,  1  L.  R.  Ch.  App.  561,  355 
London,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  519,  418 
London,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  L.  R.  24  Ch.  Div. 

149,  199 

Long  Island  R.  R.  Co.,  19  Wend.  (N.Y.) 

37,  280 

Murphy,  51  Wis.  519,  146 

Oshkosh,  etc.,  Co.,  77  Wis.  366,  239 

New  Chile,  etc.,  Co.,  63  L.  T.  R.  344,  222 
New  York  Street,  etc.,  133  N.  Y.  329,  1372 
Pacific  R.  Com'n,  32  Fed.  R.  241,  980 

Passenger  Tariff,  2  Interst.  Com.  R. 

445,  2686 

Pioneer  Paper  Co.,  36  How.  Pr.  (N.Y.) 

Ill,  226 

Phosphate  of  Lime  Co.,  24  L.  T.  932,  206 
Pyle  Works,  63  L.  T.  R.  628,  856 

Quebrada  Ry.,  60  L.  T.  R.  482,  123 

Rate  Sheets,  1  Interst.  Com.  R.  316,  2686 
Religious  Teachers,  1  Interst.  Com.  R. 

21,  2669 

Rotherham,  etc.,  Co.,  50  L.  T.  (N.  S.)219,  — 
Schuyler's,  etc.,  Co.,  136  N.  Y.  169,  771,  772 
South,  etc.,  Brewery  Co.,  L.  R.  31  Ch. 

Div.  261,  118 

Southern  R.,  etc.,  Assn.,  1  Interst.  Com. 

R.  278,  2675,  2676,  2677,  2678 

Split  Rock  Cable  Co.,  128  N.  Y.  408,  7 
St.  Lawrence,  etc.,  Co,,  44  N.  J.  L.529,  135 
Staten  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  422,  160 

Tariffs  of  Transcontinental  Lines,  2 

Interst.  Com.  R.  20:?,.  2681 

Theatrical  Rates,  1  Interst.  Com.  R. 

18,  2687 

United  States  Commission  of  Fish  and 

Fisheries,  1  Interst.  Com.  Rep.  606,  2522 

Waite,  99  N.  Y.  433,  772 

Read  v.  City  of  Plattsmouth,  107  U.  S.  568,  1227 

Read  v.  Frankfort  Bank,  23  Me.  318,     861,  868 

Read  v.  Great  Eastern  Railway  Co.,  L.  R. 

3  Q.  B.  555,  2140, 2144,  214:..  'J 1 17 

Read  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  545,  204,  319 

Read  v.  Spaulding,  30  N.  Y.  630, 

2264,  2265,  2268,  2307 

Read  v.  Spaulding,  5  Bosw.  395,          2178,  2260 
Read  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo.  199, 

2267,  2307,  2.-M7 

Reade  v.  Commercial  Insurance  Co.,  3 
Johns.  352,  2303 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Keadhead  v.  Midland,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  L.  R. 

2  Q.  B.  412,  614,  2466,  2473 

Beading  Iron  Works  v.  Devine,  109  Pa.  St: 

246,  2053,2054 

Beading,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Reading,  etc.,  Works, 

137  Pa.  St.  282,  725 

Beading  Railroad  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 

(State  Freight  Tax)  15  Wall.  232,    2650,  2661 
Beading,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Bitchie,  102  Pa. 

St.  425,  1760 

Beadington,  Inhabitants  of,  v.  Dilley,  24 

N.  J.  L.  209,  1524 

Beading  Trust  Co.  v.  Reading  Iron 

Works,  137  Pa.  St.  282,  148 

Reagan  v.  Casey,  160  Mass.  374,  2109 

Beagan  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Co.,  154 U.  S.  362, 
4,  953,  976,  981,  994,  997, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1096, 

1097 
Reagan  v.  Mercantile  Trust  Co.,  154  TJ.  S. 

413,  994,  995, 1000,  2647 

Eeagan  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  21  Mo.  30,  890 

Beagan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  93 

Mo.  348,  63 

Real  Estate  Associates  v.  Superior  Court, 

60  Cal.  223,  778 

Realty  Co.  v.  Appolonio,  5  Wash.  437,  '  543 
Ream  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Ind.93,  305 
Reardon  v.  Thompson,  149  Mass.  267,  1952 
Reary  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  40  La.  Ann. 

32,  311, 1788,  2554,  2560,  2593 

Reber  v.  Bond,  38  Fed.  R.  822,  2466,  2553 

Recamier,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Seymour,  5  N.  Y. 

Supp.  648,  393 

Rece  v.  Newport  News,  etc.,  Co.,  32  W.Va. 

164,  34,  37,  42 

Receivers  of  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Moore,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  416,  2019 

Receivers  of  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Wright,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  198,  2401 

Record  v.  Central  Pac.  Co.,  15  Nev.  167,  345 
Rector  v.  Ashley,  6  Wall.  142,  1136 

Redd  v.  Burns,  58  Ga.  574,  2388 

Redd  v.  Supervisors  of  Hon'ry  County,  31 

Gratt.  (Va.)  695,       1163, 1208, 1229, 1230, 1246 
Reddall  v.  Bryan,  14  Md.  444,  1334, 1342 

Redding  v.  South  Carolina,  etc.,  Co.,  3 

S.  C.  1,  303 

Redfield  v.  Oakland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  CaL 

277,  2130, 2475 

Redigan  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  Mass. 

44,  1675, 1741, 1956, 1966 

Redman  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.Co.,  33  N. 

J.  Eq.  165,  1422, 1545, 1549 

Redmond  v.  Delta  Lumber  Co.,  96  Mich. 

545,  2048 

Roilmond  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Wis. 

426,  1594 


Bed  River  Bridge  Co.  v.  Clarksville,  1 

Sneed  (Tenn.)  176,  1372, 1380, 1537 

Red  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blount,  3  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  282,  883 

Red  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sture,  32  Minn. 

95,  1490 

Red  Rock  v.  Henry,  106  U.  S.  596,        1170, 1171 
Red  Wing  Hotel  Co.  v.  Freidrich,  26  Minn. 

112,  154 

Reed's  Appeal,  122  Pa.  St.  565,  511,  706 

Reed's  Appeal,  34  Pa.  St.  207,  321 

Reed  v.  Acton,  120  Mass.  130,  1531 

Reed  v.  Axtell  &  Myers,  84  Va.  231, 

799,  803,  2479,  2591 

Reedv.  Bank,  6  Paige  (N.  Y.)  337,  234 

Reed  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  141  Mass.  454, 

120,124 

Reed  v.  Bradley,  17  111.  321,  555,  641 

Reed  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Iowa  188, 

1777 

Reed  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Wis.  399,   1912 
Reed  v.  Copeland,  50  Conn.  472,  143, 144 

Reed  v.  Gettysburg  B.  F.  M.  Assn.,  129  Pa. 

329,  66 

Reed  v.  Hanover  Branch  R.  Co.,  105  Mass. 

303,  1457, 1490, 1492 

Reed  v.  Hayt,  109  N.  Y.  659,  360 

Reed  v.  Hayt,  51  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  R.  121, 

166,624 

Reed  v.  Head,  6  Allen  (Mass.)  174,  424 

Reed  v.  Home  Savings  Bank,  130  Mass. 

443,  298 

Reed  v.  Inhabitants  of  Northfield,  13  Pick. 

94,  1032, 1033 

Reed  v.  Jones,  6  Wis.  680,  249,  250 

Beed  v.  Louisville  Bridge  Co.,  8  Bush 

(Ky.)69,  539,1356,1385 

Beed  v.  Missouri  Pacific  B.  Co.,  50  Mo. 

App.  504,  1924, 1935, 1941 

Beed  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  45  N.  Y. 

574,  1797 

Beed  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  56 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  493,  2567 

Reed  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126  111.  48, 

1493, 1494, 1497 
Reed  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Va.)  33 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  503,  799 

Reed  v.  Richmond  Street  E.  Co.,  50  Ind. 

342,  25,  54,  55, 155, 157,  252 

Eeed  v.  Toledo,  18  Ohio  161,  1104 

Beed  v.  United  States  Ex.  Co.,  48  N.  Y. 

462,  2229 

Beedie  v.  London  &  N.  W.  B.  Co.,  4  Exch. 

244,  1588 

Bees  v.  City  of  Watertown,  19  Wall.  107, 

1056, 1168, 1261 


ccclxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-5725.] 


Reese  v.  Bank,  14  Md.  271,  148, 151 

Reese  v.  Bank,  31  Pa.  St.  78,  441,  442 

Reese  v.  Hershey,  163  Pa.  St.  253,  2009 

Reese  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  131  Pa.  St. 

422,  283,  287,  2487,  2506 

Reese  River,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  L.  R.  4  H. 

L.  64,  193, 197,  200 

Reeves  v.  Corning,  51  Fed.  R.  774,  2654 

Reeves  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Pa.  St. 

454,  1749 

Reeves  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  60 

N.  W.  R.  243,  1769, 1782 

Reeves  v.  Grottendick,  131  Ind.  107,    1552, 1554 
Reeves  v.  Treasurer,  8  Ohio  St.  333, 

1100, 1101, 1102 

Regan  v.  Donovan,  159  Mass.  1,          2105,  2117 
Regan  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33 

N.  Y.  610,  2237 

Regan  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

N.  H.  579,  2224,  2241,  2242,  2248,  2308 

Regan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Conn. 

124,  1894, 1914,  1915, 1932 

Regents  v.  Williams,  9  G.  &  J.  (Md.)  365, 

84,86 

Regina  v.  Arnaud,  16  L.  J.  Q.  B.  50,  541 

Regina  v.  Boult,  2  C.  &  K.  604,  1054 

Regina  v.  Boulton,  2  C.  &  K.  917,  1053 

Regina  v.  Bradford,  8  Cox  C.  C.  309,    1049, 1051 
Regina  v.  Bradford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  B.  &  S. 

631,  2689 

Regina  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  Ry.,  11  Ad.  &  Ell. 

202,  1557 

Regina  v.  Brown,  L.  R.  2  Q.  B.  630,  1433 

Regina  v.  Caledonian  R.  Co.,  16  Q.  B.  19, 

587,1264 
Regina  v.  Cambrian  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  6  Q.  B. 

422,  1382 

Regina  v.  Chittenden,  15  Cox  C.  C.  725,      1639 
Regina  v.  Frere,  4  El.  &  Bl.  598,  1048 

Regina  v.  Great  North  of  England  Rail- 
way, 9  Q.  B.  315,  1020, 1036, 1638, 1650 
Regina  v.  Grimshaw,  L.  R.  10  Q.  B.  747,      238 
Regina  v.  Gov.  Stock  Co.,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  D. 

442,  233 

Regina  v.  Hadfleld,  11  Cox  C.  C.  574,  1051 

Regina  v.  Hardy,  11  Cox  C.  C.  656,  1051 

Regina  v.  Hungerford  Market  Co.,  4  B.  & 

Ad.  596,  1489 

Regina  v.  Kilham,  11  Cox  C.  C.  561,  1053 

Regina  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Ad.  & 

El.  3,  1489 

Regina  v.  Longton  Gas  Co.,  2  El.  &  E.  651, 

1036 
Regina  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Ad 

&  Ell.  413,  1558 

Regina  v.  Metropolitan  Board,  3  B.  &  S. 

710,  1407 


Regina  v.  New  York,  2  Q.  B.  847,  33fr 

Regina  v.  Paramore,  10  A.  &  E.  286,  334 

Regina  v.  Railway  Commissioners,  L.  R. 

22  Q.  B.  D.  642,  1016 

Regina  v.  South  Eastern  R.  Co.,  4  H.  L. 

Cas.  471,  1667 

Regina  v.  South  Eastern  R.  Co.,  6  Eng. 

L.  &  Eq.  214,  1671 

Regina  v.  Toronto  St.  R.  Co.,  24  Up.  Can. 

Q.  B.  454,  1638 

Regina  v.  Train,  3  F.  &  F.  22,  2 

Regina  v.  Train,  2  B.  &  S.  640,  1611 

Regina  v.  Wilts,  etc.,  Canal  Navigation 

Co.,  29  L.  T.  R.  (N.  S.)  922,  248 

Regina  v.  Wycombe  R.  R.,  L.  R.  2  Q.  B. 

310,  1393- 

Rehm  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  164 

Pa.  St.  91,  2044 

Reibel  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  114  Ind. 

476,  2.">1 

Reichert  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Ark. 

491,  1328,  1633,  10:>1 

Reich wald  v.  Commercial  Hotel  Co.,  106 

HI.  439,  33,  245,  351,  362,  855- 

Reid  v.  Bank,  70  Ala.  199,  626,  027 

Reid  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ga.  694,      2000 
Reid  v.  Eatonton  Co.,  40  Ga.  98,  433- 

Reid  v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Pa.  St. 

257,  107 

Reid  v.  State,  74  Ind.  252,  113* 

Reidinger  v.  Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62 

Mich.  29,  558,  56O 

Reiff  v.  Conner,  10  Ark.  241,  1534 

Reiger  v.  Commissioners,  70  N.  Car.  319,    1179 
Reiley  v.  Ward,  4  G.  Greene  21,  1607 

Reilly  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Mo. 

600,  1967 

Reilly  v.  Oglebay,  25  W.  Va.  36,  237,  245 

Reilly  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  37  N.  Y.  Supp. 

593,  1649 

Reinach  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Fed. 

R.  33,  762 

Reineman  v.  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51 

Iowa  338,  2446- 

Reineman  v.  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 

Neb.  310,  1139, 1153, 1227 

Reining  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  N.Y. 

157,  1633, 1639 

Reiser  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  152  Pa.  St.  38, 

2085,2089 
Reisner  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Kan. 

382,  1424 

Reisner  v  Strong,  24  Kan.  410,       30,1349,1536 
Reissner  v.  Oxley,  80  Ind.  580,  59 

Reitenbaugh  v.  Chester  Valley  R.  Co.,  21 

Pa.  St.  100,  1476,  1479, 1495, 1530, 1535 

Rejall  v.  Greenhood,  60  Fed.  R.  784,  763- 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-H6U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-3725.] 


Relf  v.  Rapp,  3  Watts  &  S.  21,  2309 

Belfe  v.  Bundle,  103  U.  S.  222,  484,  773,  797 
Religious  Teachers,  In  re,  1  Interst.  C.  R. 

21,  2687 

Help  v.  Rapp,  3  W.  &  S.  (Pa.)  21,  2207 

Relyea  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 

Mo.  86,  2051 

Rembertv.  South  Carolina  Ry.  Co.,  31  S. 

Car.  309,  873 

Remington  v.  Samana  Bay  Co.,  140  Mass. 

494,  258, 863 

Removal  Cases,  11  U.  S.  457,  947 

Remshart  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  Railroad 

Co.,  54  Ga.  579,  1536 

Remy  v.  Municipality,  12  La.  Ann.  500,  1525 
Rend  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  313,  2681 

Rend  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst. 

Com.  R.  540,  2681 

Renneker  v.  South  Carolina,  R.  Co.,  20  So. 

Car.  219,  2466,  2591 

Rennie  v.  Clarke,  5  Ex.  292,  19 

Rennie  v.  Northern  R.  Co.,  27  TJ.  C.  C.  P. 

153,  2374 

Reno,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Leete,  17  Nev.  203,  393 

Rensselaer  v.  Leopold,  106  Ind.  29,  1370,  1628 
Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  4  Paige 

(N.  Y.)  Ch.  553,  1440, 1806 

Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barton,  16  N.  Y. 

457,  157,  160 

Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  43  N.  Y. 

137,  64,  512,  541, 1342, 1355, 1358, 1365, 1369, 1385 

1479, 1554 
Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wetsel,  21  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  56,  215 

Renthorp  v.  Bourg,  4  Martin  (O.  S.)  (La.) 

97,  1336 

Rentz  v.  Detroit,  48  Mich.  544,  1528,  1551 

Renwick  v.  Davenport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

Iowa  664,  1403, 1429 

Renwick  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y. 

132,  1746, 1758 

Reopening  of  Berks  St.,  12  W.  N.  C.  10,  1107 
Report  of  Yost,  17  Pa.  St.  524,  1341 

Report  of  the  Commission,  1  Interst.  Com. 

R.  Com.  260,  2645 

Republic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Swigert,  135  111.  150,  732 
Republic  Ins.  Co.,  In  re,  3  Biss.  (U.  S.) 

452,  260 

Republican,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  12  Kan.  409,  1126 

Republican,  etc.,  Mines  v.  Brown,  58  Fed. 

R.  644,  863,  864 

Republican  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Arnold,  13 

Neb.  485,  1516,  1518, 1520 

Republican  Valley,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fink,  18 

Neb.  82,  1423, 1551 


Republican  Valley,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hayes, 

13  Neb.  489,  1502 

Republican  Valley,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Linn,  15 

Neb.  234,  1441 

Rerick  v.  Kern,  2  Am.  Lead.  Gas.  540,        1324 
Rerick  v.  Kern,  14  S.  &  R.  (Pa.)  267,  1327 

Respublica  v.  Griffiths,  2  Dall.  (Pa.)  112,      87 
Retan  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Mich. 

146,  1795, 1957 

Retzer  v.  Jacob  Dold  Packing  Co.,  58  Mo. 

App.  264,  2150 

Reusch  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Iowa 

687,  1257 

Revere  v.  Boston,  14  Gray  218,  1458 

Rex  v.  Autridge,  8  T.  R.  467,  927 

Rex  v.  Bank,  2  Doug.  524,  147 

Rex  v.  Barker,  3  Burr.  1265,  1010 

Rex  v.  Bellringer,  4  Term.  R.  810,  232 

Rex  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  Nav.,  2  W.  Black 

708,  1562 

Rex  v.  Bowry,  10  Jur.  211,  1053 

Rex  v.  Carmarthen,  1  Maule  &  S.  697,          238 
Rex  v.  Hill,  4  Barn.  &  Cress.  426  237,  359 

Rex  v.  Hymen,  7  T.  R.  532,  1027 

Rex  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Ad.  &  El. 

650,  1489 

Rex  v.  London,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Dowl.  &R.  510,  147 
Rex  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  Doncaster,  2  Burr. 

738,  238 

Rex  v.  Monday,  Cowp.  530,  361 

Rex  v.  Nottingham  Water  Works,  6  Ad. 

&  El.  355,  1490 

Rex  v.  Pasmore,  3  T.  R.  199,  84 

Rex  v.  Pease,  4  B.  &  Ad.  30,  1037 

Rex  v.  Severn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  B.  &  Ald.646,  918 
Rex  v.  Spencer,  3  Burr.  1827,  226,  275 

Rex  v.  Westwood,  2  Dow,  &  Cl.  21,  23 

Rexford  v.  Knight,  11  N.  Y.  308,          1388, 1458 
Reyburn  v.  Consumers',  etc.,  Co.,  29  Fed. 

R.  561,  709 

Reyer  v.  Odd  Fellows,  etc.,  Assn.,  157  Mass. 

367,  35 

Reynell  v.  Lewis,  15  Mees.  &  W.  517,  19 

Reynolds,  Ex  parte,  52  Ark.  330,  1551 

Reynolds  v.  Adden,  136  U.  S.  348,  773 

Reynolds  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Vt.  66, 

2014,  2016 
Reynolds  v  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  N.  H. 

580,  2390,  2391,  2393 

Reynolds  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  Mass. 

291,  2224, 2241 

Reynolds  v.  Caldwell,  51  Pa.  St.  298, 

1573, 1577, 1578 
Reynolds  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Mo. 

90,  2695, 2717 

Reynolds  v.  Collins,  78  Ala.  94,  290 


ccclxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.1 


Reynolds  v.  Crawfordsville,  etc.,  Bank, 

112  U.  S.  405,  542, 1012 

Reynolds  v.  Dunkirk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  613,  1296 

Reynolds  v.  Everett,  144  N.  Y.  189,  909 

Reynolds  v.  Faris,  80  Ind.  14,  1194 

Reynolds  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  69 

Fed.  R.  808,  1757 

Reynolds  v.  Hindman,  32  Iowa  46,  2074 

Reynolds  v.  Myers,  51  Vt.  444,  466 

Reynolds  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58 

N.  Y.  248,  1766,  1773,  2718 

Reynolds  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  N.  Y, 

Supp.  331,  2376 

Reynolds  v.  Reynolds,  15  Conn.  83,  1534 

Reynolds  v.  Stockton,  140  U.  S.  254,  831 

Reynolds  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  La. 

Ann.  694,  2479,  2546,  2590 

Reynolds  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Interst.  Com.  R.  685,  2671 

Reynolds,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Police  Jury,  44  La. 

Ann.  863,  1227 

Reynoldsville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Buffalo,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  134  Pa.  St.  541,  1698 

Ribon  v.  Railroad  Companies,  16  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  446,  711 

Ricard  v.  North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  89 

Pa.  St.  193,  2111 

Rice's  Appeal,  70  Pa.  St.  168,  706 

Rice's  Appeal,  79  Pa.  St.  168,  375 

Rice,  In  re,  155  U,  S.  396,  925 

Rice  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Interst. 

Com.  R.  263,  2676,  2681 

Rice  v.  Austin,  17  Mass.  197,  2216 

Rice  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Mass.  212, 

2356,2377 
Rice  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Allen 

(Mass.)  141,  1310 

Rice  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  193,  2682 

Rice  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Interst. 

Com.  R.  841,  2684 

Rice  v.  City  of  Chicago,  57  111.  App.  558,     1449 
Rice  v.  Danville,  etc.,  Turnpike  Co.,  7 

Dana  (Ky.)  81,  1553 

Rice  v.  Hart,  118  Mass.  201,  2278,  2377 

Rice  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  22  111.  App. 

643,  496,  2519,  2525 

Rice  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  63  Mo.  314, 

2340,  2341,  2342,  2344 
Rice  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Interst. 

Com.  R.  193,  2682 

Rice  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Black 

358,  58, 1118,  1126 

Rice  v.  Nixon,  97  Ind.  97,  2356 

Rice  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1  Black  (U.  S.)  358, 

58,  1118, 1126 


Rice  v.  Railroad  Co.,  3  Interst.  Com.  Com. 

R.  186,  286: 

Rice  v.  Rock  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  111. 

93,  71 

Rice  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Minn.  464, 

683,  733,  739,  744,  745,  T47,  754 
Rice  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Interst. 

Com.  R.  162,  2296,  2381,  2671 

Rice  v.  City  of  Chicago,  152  111.  18, 

1099, 1100, 1108 

Rich  v.  City  of  Chicago,  59  111.  286,    1419, 1467 
Rich  v  Mentz  Township,  134  U.  S.  632, 

1192,  1235, 1243 
Rich  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  N.  Y. 

382,  1996 

Rich  v.  Seneca  Falls,  8  Fed.  R.  852,  634 

Rich  v.  State  Nat.  Bank,  7  Neb.  201,  166 

Richards  v.  Attle borough,  etc.,  Bank,  148 

Mass.  187,  338 

Richards  v  Brice,  3  N.  Y.  Supp.  941,  268 

Richards  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  Pa. 

St.  524,  1328 

Richards  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Hughes  (U,  S.)  28,  673,  678 

Richards  v.  City  of  Oshkosh,  81  Wis.  226,  1797 
Richards  v.  Des  Moines  Valley  R.  Co.,  18 

Iowa  259,  1491, 1536, 1549 

Richards  v.  Doe,  100  Mass.  524,  2205 

Richards  v.  Gilbert,  5  Day  (Conn.)  415,      2280 
Richards  v.  Holmes,  18  How.  (U.  S.)  143, 

'663,667 
Richards  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  C.  B. 

839,  2166,  2167,  2350,  2621 

Richards  v.  Merrimack,  etc.,  Co.,  44  N.  H. 

127,  101,  476,  643 

Richards  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  111. 

404,  2278 

Richards  v.  Osceola,  79  Iowa  707,  38» 

Richards  v.  Oshkosh,  81  Wis.  226,  1797 

Richards  v.  People,  81  111.  551,         786,  809,  811 
Richards  v.  Rough,  53  Mich.  212,  203& 

Richards  v.  Westcott,  2  Bosw.  (N.Y.)  589,  217& 
Richardson  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Iowa  260,  35,  879 

Richardson  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  19 

Ont.  R.  369,  2353 

Richardson  v.  Carbon  Hill  Coal  Co.,  6 

Wash.  52,  2163 

Richardson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

Wis.  347,  1846,  1865, 1866 

Richardson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

Wis.  596,  2293,  2409,  2693 

Richardson  v.  Cooper,  88  111.  270,  2063 

Richardson  rs  Goddard,  23  How.  (U.  S.) 

28,  2354,  2.358,  237fr 

Richardson  v.  Great  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

L.  R.  10  C.  P.  486,  2469* 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-M2,  Vol.  II,  pp. 


,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1268-2161*  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 


Richardson  v.  Green,  133  U.  S.  30, 

130,  377,  850,  856 

Richardson  v.  Kimball,  28  Me.  463,  326 

Richardson  v.  Laurence  County,  154  U.  S. 

536,  1251 

Richardson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85 

Ala.  559,  2630 

Richardson  v.  Massachusetts,  etc.,  Assn., 

131  Mass.  174,  31 

Richardson  v.  Mellish,  2  Bing.  229,  523 

Richardson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

N.  Y.  846,  1748,  1762, 1771 

Richardson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98 

Mass.  85,  2134 

Richardson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133 

N.  Y.  563,  1744 

Richardson  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

7  C.  P.  75,  2406 

Richardson  v.  Richardson,  75  Me.  570,         421 
Richardson  v.  Rogers,  45  Mich.  591,  853 

Richardson  v.  Sibley,  11  Allen  65, 

100,  104, 105, 115,  637 
Richardson  v.  Smith,  33  Ga.  (Lester's  Sup.) 

95,  2214 

Richardson  v.  The  Charles  P.  Chouteau, 

37  Fed.  R.  532,  2239,  2244 

Richardson  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Vt. 

465,  1400,  1406, 1566 

Richardson  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Vt. 

613,  39,  124,  125,  432,  435,  469 

Richardson  v.  Ward,  6  Mad.  266,  829 

Richardson  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Rich.  (Law)  120,  1787 

Richardson  v.  Young,  38  Pa.  St.  169,          2428 
Richberger  v.  American  Express  Co., 

(Miss.)  31  L.  R.  A.  390,  2583 

Riche  v.  Ashbury  R.  Car  Co.,  L.  R.  9  Ex. 

224,  475 

Riche  v.  Bar  Harbor  Water  Co.,  75  Me.  91,   1340 
Richeson  v.  People,  115  111.  450,  1170,  1250 

Richla.nd  County  v.  People,  3  Brad.  (111.) 

210,  1182 

Richmond  v.  Daniel,  14  Gratt.  (Va.)  385,   1103 
Richmond  v.  Davis,  103  Ind.  449,  478 

Richmond  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

Mich.  374,  1754 

Richmond  v.  Irons,  121  U.  S.  27,      256,  269,  270 
Richmond  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Gratt. 

604,  1064 

Richmond  v.  Union  Steamboat  Co.,  87 

N.  Y.  240,  2358 

Richmond,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Almance  County, 

84  N.  Car.  504,  1058 

Richmond,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  68  Fed.  R.  105,  448,1580,1598,1603 

Richmond,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Lynchburg, 

81  Va.  473,  1100 


Richmond  Factory  Assn.  v.  Clarke,  61  Me. 

351.  252 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ashby,  79  Va. 

130,  2483,  2484,  2485 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benson,  86  Ga. 

203,  2262,  2267,  2275,  2276 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bivens,  103  Ala. 

142,  2110 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Buice,  88  Ga. 

180,  1860 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burnsed,  70 

Miss.  437,  1961 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chandler, 

(Miss.)  13  So.  R.  267,  1880 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Childress,  82 

Ga.  719,  271* 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dudley,  90  Va. 

304,  2019 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Durham,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  104  N.  Car.  658, 

132,  592, 1329, 1683, 1687, 1689 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  149  U.  S. 

266,  2012, 2051 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Findley,  32  Fed. 

R.  641,  932 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Finley,  63  Fed. 

R.  228,  2021 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Free,  97  Ala.  231,   2019 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greenwood,  99 

Ala.  501,  2570,  2571 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hammond,  93 

Ala.  181,  2119,  2121 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jefferson,  89  Ga. 

554,  2584,2585 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jefferson,  32 

Am.  St.  R.  87,  2580 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnston,  89 

Ga.  560,  2137 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  92  Ala. 

218,  2009, 2156 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kasey,  30  Gratt. 

(Va.)  218,  329 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Louisa  R.  Co., 

13  How.  71,        48,  49,  56,  58,  59, 108, 1267, 1382 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Medly,  75  Va. 

499,  1901, 1903, 1923 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  92  Ga. 

77,  2041, 2132 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  31  Gratt. 

(Va.)  200,  2595 

Richmond.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patterson,  etc., 

Co.,  (Va.)  24  S.  E.  R.  261,  2653 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Payne,  86  Va. 

481,  2327,  2336,  2338 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pickleseimer, 

85  Va.  798,  2517,254* 


ccclxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


(References  are  to  Pages.] 
(  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-27S5.] 


Kichmond,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Powers,  149 

U.  S.  43,  2550,  2721 

Richmond,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Richmond,  96 

U.  S.  521,  1620,  1624 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers,  1  Duvall 

135,  48,  1435 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rush,  71  Miss. 

987,  2021,  2071 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott,  88  Va.  958, 

2563,  2572,  2703 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shomo,  90  Ga. 

496,  2199,  2202,  2212,  2234 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Snead,  19  Gratt. 

(Va.)  354,  618 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomason,  99 

Ala.  471,  2019,  2124 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thouron,  134 

U.  S.  45,  948 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trammel,  53 

Fed.  R.  196,  991,  993 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trousdale,  99 

Ala.  389,  2415 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Watts,  92  Ga.88, 

1971 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White,  88  Ga. 

805,  2264,  2267,  2370 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wicker,  13  Gratt. 

(Va.)  375,  1272,  1273 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Worley,  92  Ga. 

84,  2035,2041 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yeamans,  86 

Va.  860,  1759 

Richmondville  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Prall,  9  Conn. 

487,  145 

Richter  v.  Frank,  41  Fed.  R.  859,  133 

Richter  v.  Harper,  95  Mich.  221,  2711 

Richter  v.  Jerome,  123  U.  S.  233,  668 

Richter  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  104  Pa.  St. 


511, 


6,  2111 
2195 
1586 
1326 
55 


Richtin  v.  McGary,  117  Ind.  132, 
Ricker  v.  Fairbanks,  40  Me.  43, 
Ricker  v.  Kelly,  1  Me.  117, 
Ricker  v.  Larkin,  27  111,  App.  625, 
Rickerson  R.  M.  Co.  v.  Grand  Rapids, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Mich.  110,         2227,  2233,  2247 
Ricket  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  5  Best  & 

S.  149,  1444 

Rickets  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  34  L.  J. 

Q.  B.  257,  1409 

Ricketts  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Railroad,  4 

Lans.  446,  2243 

Ricketts  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  85 

Ala.  600,  611 

Ricketts  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  W. 

Va.  433,  492,  569,  570,  611,  612,  2583 

Ricketts  v.  Spraker,  77  Ind.  371, 

1070,  1207,  1209 


Ricks  v.  Broyles,  78  Ga.  610,  812 

Ricord,  Ex  parte,  11  Nev.  287,  1053 

Ricord  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  15  Nev.  167, 

351,403 
Ridenhour  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

Mo.  270,  1978 

Rider  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Neb. 

120,  1126 

Rider  v.  Morrison,  54  Md.  429,  134, 254 

Rider  v.  Stryker,  63  N.  Y.  136,  1459 

Rider  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Mo.  App. 

529,  2619 

Rider  Life  Raft  Co.  v.  Roach,  97  N.  Y. 

378,  474 

Ridgefield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brush,  43  Conn. 

86,  174 

Ridgefleld,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reynolds,  46 

Conn.  375,  175 

Ridgway  v.  Farmers'  Bank,  12  S.  &  R.  256, 

347,355 
RidgwayTownship  v.  Griswold,  1  McCrary 

(U.  S.)  151,  453 

Riedinger  v.  Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62 

Mich.  29,  900 

Rigby  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  M. 

&  W.  811,  969 

Rigby  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  4  Eng.  R. 

&  Canal  Gas.  190,  496 

Riggs  v.  Commercial,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  19  J. 

&  S.  (N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.)  466,  244 

Riggs  v.  Commercial  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  125 

N.  Y.  7,  244 

Riggs  v.  Johnson  County,  6  WalL  166, 

1168,1262 
Riggs  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  16 

Fed.  R.  804,  628 

Rigney  v.  City  of  Chicago,  102  111.  64, 

1399, 1410, 1417, 1628, 1632, 1640 
Rike  v.  Floyd,  42  Fed.  R..247,  940 

Riker  v.  Alsop,  27  Fed.  R.  251,  724,  725 

Rikhoff  v.  Browns,  etc.,  Co.,  68  Ind.  388, 

154,  211 
Riley  v.  Connecticut  R.  Co.,  135  Mass.  292, 

2004,  2138,  2718 

Riley  v.  Home,  1  C.  &  P.  610,  2186 

Riley  v.  Home,  5  Bing.  217,  2264,  2282 

Riley  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Hun 

97,  411 

Riley  v.  Salt  Lake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Utah 

428,  1647, 1745 

Riley  v.  State,  95  Ind.  446,  1049, 1050 

Riley  v.  State  Line,  etc.,  Co.,  29  La.  Ann. 

791,  2063 

Riley  v.  Welles,  154  U.  S.  578,  1127 

Riley  v.  West  Va.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  W.  Va. 

145,  2076 

Bine  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100 Mo.  228,  2118 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages. 
(  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  IAS-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1S6S-H6U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S725.] 


Binear  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  70 

Mich.  620,  1813, 1834, 1885 

Bing  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  112  Mo. 

220,  2033 

Einggold  v.  Haven,  1  Cal.  108,  2701 

Single  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  164  Pa.  St. 

529,  2158 

Eingo  v.  Biscoe,  13  Ark.  563,  854 

Eingwalt  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  45  Neb. 

760,  2619, 2628 

Eintoul  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  17  Fed. 

E.  905,  2334 

Bio  Grande,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Brownsville, 

45  Tex.  88,  62, 114,  902, 1650 

Bio  Grande,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Burns,  82  Tex. 

5C,  114, 135, 147 

Bio  Grande,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Cross,  5  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  454,  2329 

Bio  Grande,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Ortiz,  75  Tex. 

602,  706,  1552 

Bio  Grande,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Vaughn,  3 

Colo.  App.  465,  1885 

Bipley  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  31  N.  J.  L. 

388,  284,  2488,  2502 

Eippe  v.  Becker,  56  Minn.  100,  975 

Bippe  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  42  Minn. 

34,  1833 

Bippe  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  23  Minn. 

18,  1498 

Bisey  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  1  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  202,  298 

Bising  Sun,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  50  Ind. 

580,  1502 

Bisk  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  Co.,  58  Fed.  B.  45,  784 
Bisley  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  1  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  202,  310,  390,  391,  392,  393,  1569 

Bisley  v.  Village  of  Howell,  57  Fed.  B. 

544,  1225 

Bisley  v.  Welles,  5  Conn.  431,  890 

Eitchie  v.  Caledonian  E.  Co.,  7  Scotch 

Sess.  Gas.  (4th  series)  148,  1762 

Eitchie  v.  People,  155  111.  98,  2103 

Eitchie  v.  Waller,  27  L.  B.  A.  161,  299 

Bitchie  v.  Waller,  63  Conn.  155,  303,  304 

Bitter  v.  Stevenson,  7  Cal.  388,  1605 

Bite  v.  Pennsylvania  B.  Co.,  3  Phila.(Pa.) 

82,  2400 

Biver  Dun,  etc.,  Co.  v.  North  Midland  B. 

Co.,  1  Eng.  By.  &  Canal  Gas.  135,  515 

Bivers  v.  Mulholland,  62  Miss.  766,  1601 

Bives  v.  Dudley,  3  Jones  Eq.  (N.  C.)  126,  545 
Bives  v.  Montgomery  South  Plank  B.  Co., 

30  Ala.  92,  194,  204,  512 

Bhawn  v.  Pearce,  110  111.  350,  773 

Bheiner  v.  Stillwater  B.,  etc.,  Co.,  29  Minn. 

147,  1526 


Bheiner  v.  Union,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  31  Minn. 

289,  1483, 1510, 1535 

Ehea  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  84  Mo.  345, 

1838 
Bhey  v.  Ebensburg,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Pa.  St. 

261,  153, 161,  527 

Rhine  v.  McKinney,  53  Tex.  354, 

1467,  1470,  1472, 1545 
Bhinebeck,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  In  re,  67  Hun  242, 

1506,1508 

Ehodes  v.  Dunbar,  57  Pa.  St.  274,  903 

Ehodes  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  84  Ala.  320, 

1979,  2061 

Ehodes  v.  Lee,  32  Ga.  470,  777 

Bhodes  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  9  Bush 

(Ky.)  688,  2317,  2340,  2407,  2408 

Ehodes  v.  Newhall,  126  N.  Y.  574,  2206 

Ehodes  v.  Otis,  33  Ala.  578,  1327 

Ehodes  v.  Piper,  40  Ind.  369,  53 

Bhodes  v.  Webb,  24  Minn.  292,  394 

Ehys  v.  Dare  Valley  E.  Co.,  L.  B.  19  Eq. 

93,  1457 

Boach  v.  Western,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  93  Ga.  785, 

1799 

Eoad,  In  re,  90  Pa.  St.  190,  1475 

Eoad,  etc.,  In  re,  109  Pa.  St.  118,  1476 

Boad,  etc.,  In  re,  114  Pa.  St.  627,  1479 

Eoanoke  City  v.  Berkowitz,  80  Va.  616, 

1338, 1383, 1387 
Boanoke  Investment  Co.  v.  Kansas  Ci  ty, 

etc.,  B.  Co.,  108  Mo.  50,      1286, 1287, 1288, 1305 
Eobarge  v.  Central  Vt.  B.  Co.,  18  Abb.  N. 

Gas.  (N.  Y.)  363,  890 

Bobb  v.  Carnegie  Bros.  &  Co.,  145  Pa.  St. 

324,  904 

Bobb  v.  Maysville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  3  Met. 

(Ky.)  117,  1436, 1437 

Bobbins  v.  Chicago  City,  4  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

657,  1591, 1592 

Bobbins  v.  Fitchbnrg,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  161 

Mass.  145,  1783 

Bobbins  v.  Jones,  15  Com.  B.  (N.  S.)  221,    1984 
Bobbins  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  6  Wis. 

636,  1140, 1426, 1429, 1436,  1502, 1503 

Eobbins  v.  Omnibus  B.  Co.,  32  Cal.  472,      1641 
Bobbins  v.  Shelby  County  Taxing  Dis- 
trict, 120  U.  S.  489,  951, 1078,  2641,  2656 
Bobbins  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  24  Minn. 

191,  1508 

Eoberts'  Appeal,  85  Pa.  St.  84,  143, 144 

Boberts  v.  Bolles,  101  U.  S.  119,          1163, 1211 
Boberts  v.  Button,  14  Vt.  195,  353 

Boberts  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  33  Minn. 

218,  2011 

Boberts  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  35  Wis. 

679,  1040, 1665, 1667,  1675,  2003 


ccclxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  7-442,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 


Roberts  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Fed. 

433,  946 

Roberts  v.  Commissioners,  21  Kan.  247,      1427 
Roberts  v.  Graham,  6  Wall.  578,  2693 

Roberts  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  4  C.  B. 

N.  S.  506,  2410 

Roberts  v.  Koehler,  30  Fed.  R.  94, 

2485,  2491,  2634 
Roberts  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Miss. 

373,  201 

Roberts  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Kan. 

102,  25, 52 

Roberts  v.  Northern  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

158  U.  S.  1, 

556,  898,  975,  976, 1134, 1140, 1169, 1327, 1328, 

1449,  1460,  1651 

Roberts  v.  Preston,  9  C.  B.  N.  S.  206,  1051 

Roberts  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N. 

Car.  560,  1865,  1871, 1880, 1882 

Roberts  v.  Riley,  15  La.  Ann.  103, 

2201,  2319,  2325 

Robert  v.  Sadler,  104  N.  Y.  229,  1388, 1628 

Roberts  v.  Williams,  13  Ark.  355,  1510 

Robertson  v.  Cornelson,  34  Fed.  R.  716,      2019 
Robertson  v.  Kennedy,  2  Dana  430,  2262 

Robertson  v.  Knapp,  35  N.  Y.  91,  1517 

Robertson  v.  March,  4  111.  198,  159 

Robertson  v.  Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Nev. 

&  Mac.  409,  2670 

Robertson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  91,  285,  2237,  2464,  2561 

Robertson  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  156 

Mass.  525,  2173,  2602 

Robertson  v.  Rockford,  21  111.  451,  1144 

Robertson  v.  Scottish,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  68 

Fed.  R.  173,  9a5,  937 

Robertson  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 

Ind.  77,  2085 

Robertson  v.  Van  Cleave,  129  Ind.  217,       1452 
Robins,  Ex  parte,  7  Dowl.  566,  2282 

Robins,  Ex  parte,  3  Jur.  103,  920, 2691 

Robinson  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  66  Pa.  St. 

160,  784, 788 

Robinson  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.,  48  Fed.  R. 

12,  665, 669 

Robinson  v.  Baker,  5  Gush.  (Mass.)  137, 

2254,2443 

Robinson  v.  Bidwell,  22  Cal.  379,  267 

Robinson  v.  Butte  County,  43  Cal.  353, 

1258,1262 

Robinson  v.  Campbell,  3  Wheat.  212,          2639 
Robinson  v.  Charles  Wright  Co.,  94  Mich. 

283,  2050 

Robinson  v.  City  of  Wilmington,  65  Fed. 

R.  856,  1070, 1071, 1209 

Robinson  v.  Cone,  22  Vt.  213,  1982 

Robinson  v.  Dunmore,  2  B.  &  P.  416,  2380 


Robinson  v.  Flint,  etc.,  Co.,  79  Mich.  323, 

1803,186$ 
Robinson,  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Mich.  322,  1816, 1817 

Robinson  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

48  Minn.  445,  1676 

Robinson  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  35  L.  J. 

Com.  P.  123,  232& 

Robinson  v.  Hadley,  11  Beav.  614,  759 

Robinson  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Tex. 

540,  2075 
Robinson  v.  Iron  R.  Co.,  135  U.  S.  522, 10 

Sup.  Ct.  907,  714,  715 

Robinson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Lea 

(Tenn.)  594,  2484 

Robinson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Fed. 

R.  129,  2694 

Robinson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fed. 

R.  57,  2272,  2396 

Robinson  v.  Merchants'  D.  Co.,  45  Iowa 

470, 

2178,  2201,  2212, 2228, 2237, 2249, 2308, 2324, 2332, 

2345 

Robinson  v.  Miner,  68  Mich.  549,  965- 

Robinson  v.  Missisquoi  R.  Co.,  59  Vt.  426,  561 
Robinson  v.  Nat.  Bank,  95  N.  Y.  KIT,  145,  420 
Robinson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Blatch.  338,  2474,  259£ 

Robinson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  512,  1399, 1402, 14(» 

Robinson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  66  N.  Y. 

11,  1790, 2570 

Robinson  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Utah 

493,  1976 

Robinson  v.  Philadephia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

Fed.  R.  340,  697,  724,  728- 

Robinson  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Pa. 

St.  334,  170, 171, 190 

Robinson  v.  Pittsburgh  R.  Co.,  57  Cal. 

417,  1541, 1560 

Robinson  v.  Rockland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Me. 

387,  2574 

Robinson  v.  Schenck,  102  Ind.  307,  1147 

Robinson  v.  Smith,  3  Paige  222,  373 

Robinson  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co., 105  Cal. 

541,  2492 
Robinson  v.  Taylor,  42  Fed.  R.  803,  781 
Robinson  v.  Thraikill,  110  Ind.  117,             905 
Robinson  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Cal. 

409,  1738, 1749,  1759, 1763 

Robinson  v.  West  Va.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (W. 

Va.)  21  S.  E.  R.  727,  2048,  2070 

Robinson  v.  Williams,  22  N.  Y.  380,  675 

Robison  v.  Hardy,  38  Fed.  R.  49,  941 

Robison  v.  Stuart,  68  Me.  61,  2218 

Robison  v.  McCracken,  52  Fed.  R.  726,  1568 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxxix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-lAS,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1362,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1S6S-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Bobostelli  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  33 

Fed.  B.  796,  2499,  2500 

Bobson  v.  Dodd,  L.  E.  8  Eq.  301,  243 

Robson  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  21  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  387,  2488 

Robson  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  B.  10 

Q.  B.  271,  21 

Eoby  v.  New  York  Bailroad  Co.,  142  N.  Y. 

176,  1287, 1288 

Boby  v.  Smith,  131  Ind.  348,  658,  782 

Eochat  v.  North  Hudson,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  49 

N.  J.  L.  445,  2722,  2723 

Bochdale  Co.  v.  King,  16  Beav.  630,  1207 

Boche  v.  Waters,  72  Md.  264,  713, 1197 

Bochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  12  N.  Y. 

Supp.  566,  1271 

Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  45  Hun 

126,  162 

Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  54  Hun 

634,  1493 

Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  59  Hun 

617,  1354 

Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  110  N.  Y. 

119,  1369, 1495 

Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  123  N.  Y. 

351,  1622 

Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Babcock,  110 

N.  Y.  119,  1393 

Eochester,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Beckwith,  10 

How.  Pr.  168,  1527, 1532 

Bochester,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Budlong,  6  How. 

Pr.  467,  1521, 1523 

Eochester,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Cuyler,  7  Lans. 

(N.  Y.)  431,  189, 1225 

Eochester,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

B.  Co.,  44  Hun  (N.  Y.)  206,  1393 

Bochester,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

B.  Co.,  110  N.  Y.  128,  904, 1266, 1275, 1278 

Bochester  Water  Commissioners,  Matter 

of,  66  N.  Y.  413,  1373 

Bochester. Waterworks  Co.  v.  Wood,  60 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  137,  1533 

Bochette  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  32  Minn. 

201,  1631 

Bock  v.  Indian  Orchard  Mills  Co.,  142 

Mass.  522,  2022 

Bock  v.  Betroff  Co.,  15  N.  Y.  Supp.  872, 

2004,2040 
Bock  Creek  Township  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc., 

Co.,  43  Kan.  543,  1660 

Bock  Creek  Township  v.  Strong,  96  U.  S. 

271,  1239 

Bockford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Connell,  67  111.  216, 

1808, 1872 
Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coultas,  67  111. 

398,  2553, 2555 


Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Heflin,  65  HI. 

366,  1589 

Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hillmer,  72  111. 

235,  1737, 1761 

Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irish,  72  111.  404, 

1804,1864 

Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Linn,  67  HI.  109,    1857 
Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lynch,  67  HI.  149, 

1873 
Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKinley,  64 

HI.  338,  1431, 1475, 1552 

Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rafferty,  73  HI. 

58,  1854 

Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bogers,  62  HL 

346,  993, 1903 

Bockford,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Sage,  65  111.  328,      20 
Eockford,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Shunick,  65  111. 

223,  1301 

Bockford,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Wells,  66  111. 

321,  1590 

Bockingham  v.  Portsmouth,  52  N.  H.  17,  1071 
Rockingham,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bosher,  39  Me. 

253,  1914, 1915 

Rock  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dimick,  55 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  65,  899 

Rock  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dimick,  144 

111.  628,  899, 1730, 1732 

Rock  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lynch,  23  111. 

645,  1473 

Rockland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sewall,  78  Me.  167,    873 
Rockland  Water  Co.v.  Camden  &  E.  Water 

Co.,  80  Me.  544,  56 

Eockland  Water  Co.  v.  Tillson,  69  Me. 

255,  1301 

Eock  Eiver  Bank  v.  Sherwood,  10  Wis.  230,  507 
Eockville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Van  Ness,  2  Cranch 

C.  C.  (U  S.)  449,  154, 163,  340 

Eockwell  v.  State,  11  Ohio  130,  1026 

Eocky  Mt.  Nat.  Bk.  v.  Bliss,  88  N.  Y.  338,    257 
Eodbourn  v.  Utica,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  28  Hun 

369,  107 

Eoddy  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  104  Mo. 

234,  2068 

Bodemacker  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  B.  E. 

Co.,  41  Iowa  297,  69,  1443, 1890,  1892 

Eoden  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  133  111.  72, 

1966,1968 
Boderick  v.  Bailroad  Co.,  7  W.  Va.  54, 

2405,2407 
Eoderigas  v.  East  Eiver,  etc.,  76  N.  Y.  316, 

1202 
Eodgers  v.  Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  67  Cal. 

607,  2046 

Bodgers  v.  Wells,  44  Mich.  411,       211,  446,  447 
Bodney  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  127  Mo. 

676,  2013 


ccclxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-M2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1S62,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  1265-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S7S5.] 


Rodrian  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  N.  Y. 

Sopp.  811,  1738 

Rodrian  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  N.Y. 

526,  1769, 2718 

Roe  v.  Birkenhead,  etc.,  R.,  7  Eng.  L.  & 

Eq.  546,  281,  282 

Roesner  v.  Hermann,  8  Fed.  R.  782,    2148,  2156 
Roffignac  Street,  Application  for  Widen- 
ing, 4  Rob.  (La.)  357,  1533 
Rogan  v.  City  of  Watertown,  30  Wis.  259,  1248 
Rogan  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  App. 

665,  2337 

Rogers,  Ex  parte,  1  Cow.  526,  361 

Rogers  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N.  J.)  34 

Atl.  Rep.  11,  2452,  2488,  2502 

Rogers  v.  Burlington,  3  Wall.  654,        1142, 1168 
Rogers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  6  Abb. 

N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  253,  636 

Rogers  v.  City  of  Keokuk,  154  U.  S.  546, 

1139, 1171 

Rogers  v.  Cox,  96  Ind.  157,  536 

Rogers  v.  Danby  Universalist  Society,  19 

Vt.  187,  25 

Rogers  v.  Dexter,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  85  Me. 

372,  858, 1593, 1594 

Rogers  v.  Docks  Co.,  34  L.  J.  Eq.  165,         1488 
Rogers  v.  Gilinger,  30  Pa.  St.  185,  536 

Rogers  v.  Goodwin,  2  Mass.  475,  60 

Rogers  v.  Hastings,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Minn. 

25,  326,  354, 370,  371,  372,  378 

Rogers  v.  Head,  Cro.  Jac.  (4  Croke)  262,    2381 
Rogers  v.  Jones,  1  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  237,  278 

Rogers  v.  Eennebec,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Me. 

319,  1037 

Rogers  v.  Kennebec  Steamboat  Co.,  86  Me. 

261,  2460,  2513,  2514,  2516,  2601,  2603 

Rogers  v.  Leyden,  127  Ind.  50,  1768,  2073 

Rogers  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Lans. 

269,  2186 

Rogers  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  T. 

&C.  (N.  Y.)3%,  2615,2619 

Rogers  v.  Ludlow  Manufacturing  Co.,  144 

Mass.  198,  2010 

Rogers  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tenn.)  12 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  442,  799,  812,  813 

Rogers  v.  Newburyport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Allen  16,  1864 

Rogers  v.  Omaha,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Neb.  54,        1605 
Rogers  v.  Pell,  35  N.  Y.  Sup.  17,  853 

Rogers  v.  Port  Huron,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

Mich.  460,  1120, 1126,  1133 

Rogers  v.  Rhymney  R.  Co.,  26  L.  T.  R. 

(N.  S.)  879,  2550 

Rogers  v.  Rogers,  3  Paige  379,  1452 

Rogers  v.  Schneider,  13  Ind.  App.  23,          2395 
Rogers  v.  State,  90  Ga.  463,  1054 

Bogers  v.  Stephens,  86  N.  Y.  623,  1231 


Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  43  N.  Y.  598,  684,  726 

Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  2  Lans.  486,  2168 

Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  52  N.  Y.  262,  2274,  2308 

Rogers  v.  Zook,  86  Ind.  237,  2148 

Rogers  &  Co.  v.  Simmons,  155  Mass.  259,  46 
Rogers,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hand,  21  Vroom  (N.  J.) 

464,  2084 

Rogers  Locomotive,  etc.,  Works  v.  Erie 

R.  Co.,20N.  J.  Eq.  379, 

693,  913,  915,  2167,  2279,  2430 
Rogers,  etc.,  Works  v.  Southern  R.  R. 

Assn.,  34  Fed.  R.  278,  620 

Rohrer,  In  re,  140  U.  S.  545,  966 

Roland  v.  Centreville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Iowa 

380,  1601, 1602 

Rolke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Wis. 

537,  1912 

Holland  v.  Hart,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  App.  678,  322 
Rollin  v.  Cross,  45  N.  Y.  766,  1605 

Rollins  v.  Clay,  33  Me.  132,  100,  350,  859 

Rollins  v.  Riley,  44  N.  H.  9,  1310 

Rollins  v.  Shaver,  Wagon  &  C.  Co.,  80  Iowa 

380,  374, 854 

Roman  v.  Woolfolk,  98  Ala.  219,  240,  757 

Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chasteen,  88  Ala. 

591,  611, 1590 

Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sibert,  97  Ala.  393, 

709,  710 

Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  84  Ga.  238,  940 
Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  14  Ga.  277,  2363 

Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Tolbert,  85  Ga.  447,  1971 

Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Wimberly,  75  Ga.  316, 

2609,2627 

Romeo  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Me.  540,  1773 
Romford  Canal,  In  re,  24  Ch.  Div.  85,  641 
Romona,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Phillips,  11  Ind.  App. 

118,  2063 

Rondout,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Deyo,  5  Lans. 

(N.  Y.)  298,  1516, 1523 

Rondont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Field,  38  How. 

(N.  Y.)  Pr.  187,  1532 

Rood  v.  Wharton,  67  Fed.  R.  434,  225,  252,  259 
Roof  v.  Railroad  Co.,  4  S.  Car.  61,  1872 

Rooney  v.  Sacramento  Valley  R.  Co.,  6 

Cal.  638,  1452 

Roosa  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  114  Mo. 

508,  22, 52 

Roosevelt  v.  Gedard,  52  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  533,  1331 
Roosevelt  Hospital  v.  Mayor,  84  N.  Y.  108, 

1098, 1100, 1106 

Root's  Case,  77  Pa.  St.  276,  1426 

Root  v.  Alexander,  63  Hun  557,  1029 

Root  v.  Godard,  3  McLean  (U.  S.  Cir.)  102,  504 
Root  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  45  N.Y.  524, 

2167,  2225,  2226,  2227,  2228,  2229,  2236,  2242  2626 
Root  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  30  N.  Y. 

564,  2£>3 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxxxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol. 

Root  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  65  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  619,  2194 

Root  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  114  N.  Y.  300, 

286,  2284,  2286,  2433,  2673 

Root  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  11  Am.  St.  R. 

643,  2506 

Root  v,  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  28  Mo.  App. 

199,  2535,  2536,  2538,  2539 

Root  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Hun 

111,  2400 

Root  v.  Wallace,  4  McLean  (U.  S.  Cir.)  8,  504 
Root,  etc.,  v.  Davis,  51  Ohio  St.  29,  892 

Rooth  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  2  Ex. 

173,  2329, 2352 

Roots  v.  Williamson,  58  L.  T.  R.  802,  138 

Roraback  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  42  Fed.  R. 

420,  940 

Roper  v.  McWhortei ,  77  Va.  214,  693 

Rorke  v.  Thomas,  56  N.  Y.  559,  851 

Rosav  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Kan.  124,  1490 
Rose  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  N.  Y.  217, 

2019,  2027,  2085 

Rose  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa  625,  1935 
Rose  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Iowa 

246,  2148,  2317,  2512,  2514,  2600 

Rose  v.  Eclipse,  etc.,  Co.,  60  Mo.  App.  28,    387 
Rose  v.  Page,  2  Sim.  471,  679 

Rose  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Tex. 

49,  184 

Roseboom  v.  Whittaker,  132  111.  81,       855,  870 
Rosekrans  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

18  Fed.  R.  513,  625 

Roseman  v.  Carolina  Cent.  R.  Co.,  112  N. 

Car.  709,  2576 

Rosenbaum  v.  Bauer,  120  U.  S.  450,  930 

Rosenbaum  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Minn.  173,  2509,  2553 

Rosenblatt  v.  Johnston,  104  U.  S.  462,  859 

Rosenberg  v.  Clafliu  Co.,  95  Ala.  249,  874 

Rosenbergor  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

8  Ont.  App.  482,  1987 

Rosonfeld  v.  Einstein,  46  N.  J.  L.  479,    248, 369 
Rosenfeld  v.  Express  Co.,  1  Woods  (U.  S.) 

131,  2387 

Rosenfeld  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Ind. 

121,  2317,  2321,  2325,  2336,  2339 

Rosenstein  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  16 

Mo.  App.  363,  2329 

Rosenthal  v.  Maryland,  etc.,  Co.,  61  Md. 

590,  1603 

Ross  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Allen  87, 

1890,  1893, 1925 
Ross  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  77  111.  127, 

71,  563, 1296 
Ross  v.  Crockett,  14  La.  Ann.  811,  354 


TIT,  pp.  1S65-S16!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Ross  v.  Elizabeth  town,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  N.  J. 

Eq.  422,  1536, 1537, 1545 

Ross  v.  Elizabeth  town,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  N. 

J.  Law  230,  148» 

Ross  v.  Hill,  2  C.  B.  877,  2381 

Ross  v.  Johnson,  5  Burr.  2825,  2383 

Ross  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Ind.  297, 

203,207 

Ross  v.  McJunkin,  14  Sergt.  &  R.  364,  113t> 
Ross  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Mo.  App. 

582,  2612, 2617 

Ross  v.  Montreal  St.  R.  Co.,  (Can.)  24  L. 

C.  Jur.  60,  1637 

Ross  v.  Pearson,  etc.,  Co.,  164  Mass.  257,  2064 
Ross  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  17  Phila.  339.,  1509 
Ross  v.  Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  R.  I. 

149,  1766 

Ross  v.  Ross,  25  Ga.  297,  891 

Ross  v.  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co.,  53  Ga. 

514,  145 

Ross  v.  Thompson,  78  Ind.  90,  1417, 1628 

Ross  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Vt,  364,  2310 

Ross  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  1  Woolw.26, 

924, 1299, 1583, 1584 

Ross  v.  Walker,  139  Pa.  St.  42,  2079 

Ross,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Southern,  etc.,  Co.,  72 

Fed.  R.  957,  57 

Rost  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  76  Tex.  168, 

1895,  1901 
Rotch's  Wharf.  Co.  v.  Judd,  108  Mass. 

224,  552, 553 

Roth  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  N.  Y.  548, 

2372,  2618,  2628 
Roth  v.  Union  Depot  Co.,  (Wash.)  43  Pac. 

R.641,  1953 

Rothan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Mo. 

132,  1554 

Rothe  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Wis. 

256,  1739 

Rotherham,  etc.,  Co.,  Re,  50  L.  T.  (N.  S.) 

219, 

Rothenberger  v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Mill- 
ing Co.,  57  Minn.  461,  2039 
Rothschild  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  14  N.Y. 

Supp.  807,  875 

Rothschild  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

111.  164,  2279 

Rothschild  v.  Rio  Grande  W.  Ry.  Co.,  18 

N.  Y.  Supp.  548,  457 

Roudanez  v.  New  Orleans,  29  La.  Ann.  271, 

1209 

Rouede  v.  Mayor,  18  Fed.  R.  719,  628 

Rounds  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  64  N.  Y.  129, 

303,  311, 1989, 1990,  2581 
Rounds  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  N.  Y. 

129,  311 

Rourke  v.  Colliery  Co.,  2  C.  P.  Div.  205,      2106 


ccclxxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-UtZ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216l>,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Eourke  v.  White  Moss  Colliery  Co.,  L.  R. 

1  C.  P.  Div.  556,  1588,  2083 

Bouse  v.  Harry,  55  Kan.  589,  815 

Rouse  v.  Hornsby,  67  Fed.  R.  219,  2108,  2568 
Rouse  v.  Ledbetter,  ( Kan. )  43  Pac.  R.  249,  1999 
Rouse  v.  Martin,  75  Ala.  510,  903 

Rouse  v.  Merchants'  Nat.  Bank,  46  Ohio 

St.  493,  854 

Rouse  v.  Osborne,  (Kan.  App.)  42  Pac.  R. 

843,  1846 

Boushlange  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 

Ind.  106,  1566 

Rousillon  v.  RousiUon,  L.  R.  14  Ch.  Div. 

351,  2331 

Roux  v.  Blodgett,  etc.,  Co.,  94  Mich.  607,  2081 
Rowan  v.  State,  30  Wis.  129,  1476 

Rowe  v.  Pickford,  8  Taunt.  83,  2352 

Rowe  v.  Wood,  2  Jac.  &  W.  553,  756 

Rowell  v.  Railroad,  57  N.  H.  132, 

1893, 1894, 1924 

Rowen  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Conn.  364,  1756 
Rowitxky  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

La.  Ann.  47,  2496 

Rowland  v.  Cannon,  35  Ga.  105,  2145 

Rowley  v.  Bigelow,  12  Pick.  (Mass.)  307,  2202 
Roxbury  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Gush. 

424,  975, 1090 

Roxbury  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  R.  Co.,  60 

Vt.  121,  1653,  1665, 1674 

Roxbury  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  4  Ry. 

&  Corp.  L.  J.  204,  803 

Roy,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Scott,  etc.,  11  Wash.  399,  510 
Royal  Bank  of  India's  Case,  L.  R.  4  Ch. 

App.  Cas.252,  143,1292 

Royal.British  Bank  v.  Turquand,  6  E.  &  B. 

327,  357,  631,  1240 

Royan  Canadian  Bank  v.  Grand  Trunk 

R.  Co.,  23  Upper  Can.  C.  P.  225,  2201 

Royer  v.  Fleming,  58  Mo.  438,  890 

Royston  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  67  Miss. 

376,  2584 

Rozwadosfkie  v.  International,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  487,  2481 

Rozzelle  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mo. 

349,  1833 

Ruben  v.  Ludgate,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Hun 

608,  2700 

Rubens  v.  Ludgate,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y. 

Supp.  481,  2181 

Rubey  v.  Shain,  54  Mo.  207,  1204, 1221 

Ruck  v.  Hatfield,  5  Barn.  &  Aid.  632,  2222 

Rucker  v.  Donovan,  13  Kan.  251, 

2389,  2395,  2444 
Rucker  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  61  Tex. 

409,  2561 

Rudd  v.  Robinson,  54  Hun  339,  365 

Rudd  v.  Robinson,  126  N.  Y.  113,  247,  365 


Ruddick  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  Mo. 

25,     1308, 1310, 1314, 1315, 1316,  2519,  2520,  2521 
Rude  v.  St.  Louis,  93  Mo.  408,  1630, 1631 

Rudolph  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

154  Pa.  St.  475,  1272 

Rudolph  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  Co.,  166 

Pa.  St.  430,  1271, 1349 

Rudy  v.  Rio  Grande,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Utah 

165,  2576 

Ruffner  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Ohio 

St.  96,  1937 

Ruffner  v.  Mairs,  33  W.  Va.  655,  774 

Ruggles  v.  Brock,  6  Hun  (N.  Y.)  164, 

200,  253,  260 
Ruggles  v.  Illinois,  108  U.  S.  526, 

956,  975,  978,  2486 

Ruggles  v.  People,  91  111.  256,  2486 

Ruggles  v.  Southern  Minnesota  Railroad, 

(U.  S.  Dist.  of  Minn.)  5  Chicago  Legal 

News  110,  742,  744,  746, 754 

Buggies  v.  Walker,  34  Vt.  468,  1605 

Rugheimer,  In  re,  36  Fed.  R.  369,  1414 

Ruhland  v.  Jones,  55  Wis.  673,  1510 

Rumbough  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 

N.  C.  461,  553 

Rummel  v.  Dilworth,  131  Pa.  St.  509,          2024 
Rumsey  v.  Call,  28  Fed.  R.  763,  941 

Rumsey  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133 

N.  Y.  79,  1397,  1403, 1520 

Rumsey  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  14  C.  B. 

N.  S.  641,  2634 

Rundle  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  14 

How.  (U.S.) 80,  935 

Runk  v.  St.  John,  29  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  585,  771,  798 
Runnell  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Fed. 

R.  204,  2019 

Runyan  v.  Coster,  14  Pet.  122,  538,  543 

Runyon  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  25  N.  J.  L.  556, 

1738, 1748, 1768 
Rupard  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Ky. 

280,  1987 

Ruppel  v.  Alleghany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  167  Pa. 

St.  166,  2302,  2305 

Buppert  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Iowa 

490,  1528, 1555 

Rusch  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Wis. 

136,  1528,  1529, 1560 

Rush  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Iowa 

201,  1295, 1309 

Rush  v.  Coal,  etc.,  Mining  Co.,  131  Ind. 

135,  2721 

Rush  v.  McDermott,  50  Cal.  471,  1294 

Rush  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  36  Kan.  129, 

2006,2048 
Bushenburg  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  109 

Mo.  112,  1975 

Bushforth  v.  Hadfleld,  6  East  519,  2443 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxxxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

• 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-21GU,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


RushviUe  v.  Rushville,  etc.,  Co.,  132  Ind. 

575,  4, 956 

Rushville  Gas  Co.  v.  City  of  Rushville,  121 

Ind.  206,  232,  359, 1007 

Russ  v.  Telfener,  57  Fed.  R.  973,  325 

Russ  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Mo.  45,    2091 
Russell  v.  Bristol,  49  Conn.,251,  164 

Russell  v.  East  Anglian  Ry.  Co.,  3  Mac.  & 

G.  104,  661,  749,  786,  811 

Russell  v.  East  Anglian  R.  Co.,  6  Eng. 

Railway  &  Canal  Cases  501,  808 

RusseU  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  65  Iowa  242,      826 
Russell  v.  Horn  Pond  Branch  R.  Co.,  4 

Gray  (Mass.)  607,  1516, 1517 

Russell  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

X.  Y.  134,  2075 

Russell  v.  Livingston,  19  Barb.  346,  2178 

RusseU  v.  McLeUan,  14  Pick.  (Mass.)  63, 

23,  272,  859 
Russell  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Minn.  230,  1997,  2043,  2073 

RusseU  v.  Minor,  22  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  659,       2196 
RusseU  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,(Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  35  S.  W.  R.  724,  2573 

Russell  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  (CaL)  45  Pac. 

R.  323,  266 

Russell  v.  Railway  Co.,  47  Fed.  R.  204,       2019 
RusseU  v.  Shenton,  3  Q.  B.  449,  1490 

Russell  v.  Sunbury,  37  Ohio  St.  372,  2129 

RusseU  v.  Topping,  5 McLean  (U.  S.)  194, 

552,  553 

Russell  v.  Turner,  62  Me.  496,  1498 

Russell  v.  Wakefield  W.  W.  Co.,  L.  R.  20 

Eq.  474,  514 

RusseU  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  New  Haven 

Steamboat  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  121,    2275,  2352,  2370 
RusseU  Manufacturing  Co.v.  New  Haven, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  N.  Y.  657,  2370 

Rust  v.  Low,  6  Mass.  90,  1803 

Ruthe  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Wis. 

344,  879 

Rutherford  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Minn.  237,  2033 

Rutherford  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 

Ohio  St.  559,  1595 

Rutherford  v.  Hill,  22  Ore.  218,  29,  273 

Ruthledge,  Ex  parte,  1  Harper's  Eq. 

(S.  C.)  65,  425 

Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Proctor,  29  Vt.  93, 

503,  509, 1130 
Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  ThraU,  35  Vt.  536, 

70, 124,  203,  204,  208,  209,  210,  215,  216,  218,  219, 

220 
Rutledge  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  78  Mo. 

286,  1833,  1846 

Rutledge  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  Mo. 

121,  2017 


Rutten  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  17  Fed.  R. 

480,  465,  621,  675 

Rutter  v.  TalUs,  5  Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  610,  788 

Ruttles  v.  Covington,  (Ky.)  10  S.  W.  Rep. 

644,  1612, 1614 

Rutz  v.  Calhoun,  100 IU.  392,  1208 

RyaUs  v.  Mechanics'  MiUs,  150  Mass.  190, 

2103,  2113 
Ryan  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 11L 

App.  612,  2717 

Ryan  v.  Canada,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Ont.  745, 

1999,2028 
Ryan  v.  Central,  etc.;  R.  Co.,  99  U.  S.  382, 

1122 

Ryan  v.  Commonwealth,  80  Va.  385,  990 

Ryan  v.  Fowler,  24  N.  Y.  410,  1957,  2057 

Ryan  v.  Gross,  68  Md.  377,  J942 

Ryan  v.  Hays,  62  Tex.  42,  703,  817,  831 

Ryan  v.  Leavenworth,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  21 

Kan.  365,    143, 162,  348,  367,  378,  419, 1292, 1568 
Ryan  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Hun 

607,  2003 

Ryan  v.  Lynch,  68  IU.  160,  1204, 1216, 1242 

Ryan  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Tex.  13, 

2267,  2312,  2330,  2346,  2441 

Ryan  v.  Morrill.  83  Ky.  352,  812 

Ryan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  Y. 

210,  2052 

Ryan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Hun 

269,  2013 

Ryan  v.  Rand,  20  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.) 

313,  812 

Ryan  v.  Varga,  37  Iowa  78,  1202, 1209 

Ryckman  v.  GiUis,  6  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  79,        1406 
Ryder  v.  Alton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  IU.  516, 

250,  254,  255,  441 
Ryder  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Iowa 

460,  2417 

Ryder  v.  HaU,  7  AUen  (Mass.)  456,  2200 

Ryder  v.  Thomas,  13  Hun  296,  1820 

Ryder  v.  Bushwick  R.  Co.,  134  N.  Y.  83,       115 
Ryerson  v.  Brown,  35  Mich.  333,  1332 


S 


Sabin  v.  Bank,  21  Vt.  353,  148, 151 

Sabin  v.  Columbian  Fuel  Co.,  25  Ore.  15, 

851,856 
Sabin  v.  Vermont  Cent.  R.  Co.,  25  Vt.  363, 

1454, 1566, 1567, 1589 
Sabine,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ewing,  1  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  531,  2043 

Sabine,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  65  Ter. 

389,  1405 

Sacalaris  v.  Eureka,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Nev. 

155,  293, 403,  404 


ccclxxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT, pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  £165-2735.] 


Sachrowitz  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Kan.  212,  1991,  2586,  2716 

Sachse  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  37  La.  Ann.  364,    933 
Sackett's  Harbor  Bank  v.  Blake,  3  Rich. 

Eq.  (S.  Car.)  225,  270 

Sacramento,  etc.,  Mining  Co.  v.  Showers, 

6  Nev.  291,  1471 

Sacramento,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harlan,  24  Cal. 

334,  1463, 1553 

Sacramento,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moffatt,  6  Cal. 

74,  1440 

Sacramento  "Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Moffatt,  7 

Cal.  577,  1502 

Sacramento,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Superior  Court, 

55  Cal.  453,  744,  754,  683 

Sadd  v.  Maldon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Exchq.  143, 

1345, 1356, 1390 
Sadler  v.  Langham,  34  Ala.  311, 

1337, 1339, 1340, 1344 
Sadowski  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co., 84 

Mich.  100,  2081 

Saffold  v.  Barnes,  39  Miss.  399,        200,  253,  260 
Safford  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Mass. 

583,  1910 

Safford  v.  Drew,  3  Duer  627,        2135,  2142,  2146 
Sage  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  99  U.  S.  334, 

686,  723,  726,  728 

Sage  v.  Culver,  71  Hun  (N.  Y.)  42,  239 

Sage  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  134 Ind. 

100,  283 

Sage  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  R. 

571,  739,  740,  746,  752,  780,  830 

Sage  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  U.  S. 

361,  735,  738,  740,  743,  750,  752 

Sage  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Fed.  R. 

297,  1131 

Sager  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Me. 

228,  2236,  2290,  2306,  2308,  2347,  2399 

Saginaw,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  Saginaw,  28 

Fed.  R.  529,  98, 1611 

Saginaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chappell,  56  Mich. 

190,  172 

Sagory  v.  Dubois,  3  Sandf.  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 

466,  130,  212,  224,  260,  795 

Sahlgard  v.  Kennedy,  1  McCrary  (U.  S.) 

291,  725 

St.  Anthony,  etc.,  Co.  v.  King,  etc.,  Co., 

23  Minn.  186,  946 

St.  Cecilia  Academy  v.  Hardin,  78  Ga.  39,    873 
St.  Clair  v.  Cox,  106  U.  S.  350,  880, 881 

St.  George's  Estate,  In  re,  L.  R.  Ir.  566,      829 
St.  John  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  22  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

136,  6, 118,  121, 123,  434,  649 

St.  John  v.  Erie  R.  R.  Co.,  10  Blatchf. 

(U.  S.)  271,  121, 440 

St.  John  v.  Express  Co.,  1  Woods  612,          2309 
St.  John  v.  Hall,  41  Conn.  522,  1605 


St.  Johns,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bartola,  28  Fla. 

82,  1600 

St.  Johns,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ransom,  33  Fla. 

406,  1901 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  103 

U.  S.  426,  1126 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Buchanan 

County  Ct.,  39  Mo.  485,  1160 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Callender,  13 

Kan.  496,  1541,  1549,  1551,  1560 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chase,  11  Kan. 

47,  1796,  1909,  1924,  1942, 1343 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hannibal,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  94  Mo.  535,  1339 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hedge,  44  Neb. 

448,  2476, 2593 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Humphreys,  145 

U.  S.  105,  791 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Orr,  8  Kan.  419, 

1421, 1424, 1516 
St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Palmer,  38  Neb. 

463,  2261,  2320,  2330 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ryan,  11  Kan. 

602,  184,  527,  528, 1280, 1309 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shambaugh,  106 

Mo.  557,  52,  1349 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  19  Kan. 

225,  785,  799,  802,  804 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  35  Kan. 

185,  2465,  2552,  2603 

St.  Joseph  Township  v.  Rogers,  16  Wall. 

644,  1153,  1176, 1231, 1232, 123£ 

St.  Julien  v  Morgan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  La. 

Ann.  924,  1328, 1541 

St.  Joze  Indiano,  The,  1  Wheat.  208,          2216 
St.  Lawrence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  133  N.  Y. 

270,  1498 

St.  Lawrence,  etc.,  Co.,  Re,  44  N.  J.  L. 

529,  135 

St.  Louis  v.  Alexander,  23  Mo.  483,       362, 1152 
St.  Louis  v.  Allen,  53  Mo.  44,  1102 

St.  Louis  v.  Ferry  Co.,  11  Wall.  423,    1074, 1089 
St.  Louis,  City  of,  v.  Gleason,  15  Mo.  App. 

25,  1510 

St.  Louis,  City  of,  v.  Gleason,  93  Mo.  33,    1469 
St.  Louis  v.  Manufacturers'  Savings  Bank, 

49  Mo.  574,  1063 

St.  Louis  v.  Ranken,  96  Mo.  497,  1104 

St.  Louis,  City  of,  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  89  Mo.  44,  1623 

St.  Louis  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  148 

U.  S.  82,  1085, 1096, 1376 

St.  Louis,  City  of,  v.  Western  Union  Tel. 

Co.,  63  Fed.  R.  68,  161& 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Hennessy,  11  Mo. 
App.  555,  361 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxxxv 


[References  are  to  Paqes.] 
[Vol.  T,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  12GS-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2735.] 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hendricks,  48  Ark. 


177, 


294,306 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kenyon,  57  111.  App. 

640,  2036 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Loftin,  30  Ark.  693,    1068 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co., 

65  Fed.  R.  39,  2674 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McLelland,  62  Fed. 

R.  116,  308 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Paup,  (Ark.)  s.  c. 

22  S.  W.  R.  213,  308 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc., 

Co.,  145  U.  S.  393, 

516,  569,  570,  571,  572,  581,  586,  593 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Worthen,  52  Ark. 

529,  1059,  1091 

St.  Louis  Bolt  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Donohoe,  3 

Mo.  App.  559,  10,  535, 15% 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Coal  Co.  v.  Sandoval.  etc., 

Co.,  116  111.  770,  21S,  565,  724 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Coal  Co.  v.  Sandoval  Coal 

Co.,  Ill  111.  32,  785,  863 

St.  Louis  Drug  Co.  v.  Robinson,  81  Mo. 

18,  516 

St.  Louis  Gas  Light  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  84 

Mo.  202,  94 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Mining  Co.  v.  Jackson,  5 

Cent.  L.  J.  317,  18 

St.  Louis  Perpetual  Ins.  Co.  v.  Goodfel- 

low,  9  Mo.  149,  148, 150 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ex  parte,  40  Ark. 

141,  879 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Almeroth,  62  Mo. 

343,  1532 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  39  Ark. 

167,  1424, 1431,  1435, 1440, 1520 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bell,  81  111.  76,       1975 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belleville,  122  111. 

376,  1624 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Berry,  41  Ark. 

509,  463 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Berry,  113  U.  S. 

465,  459,  1064,  1065 

St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Biggs,  50  Ark. 

160,  1882 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Biggs,  53  111.  App. 

550,  2000 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bland,  (Tex.-Civ. 

App.)  34  S.  W.  R.  675,  2266 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bloyd,  (Ark.)  31 

S.  W.  R.  457,  2072 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bone,  52  Ark.  26,   2332 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Box,  52  Ark.  368,  1767 

CORP. — xxv 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Branch,  45  Ark. 

524,  2576 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brennan,  20  111. 

App.  555,  2069 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  34  111. 

App.  552,  1539 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  58  111. 

61,  1428, 1429, 1430 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  B'Shears,  59  Ark. 

237,  968 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co!  v.  Burke,  12  111. 

App.  369,  2069 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Busby,  81  Mo. 

43,  1818 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cantrell,  37  Ark. 

519,  2479, 2594 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Capps,  67  111.  607, 

1409,1443 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Garden,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  34  S.  W.  R.  145,  2650 

St.  Louis,  etc.,R.  Co.  v.  Casner,  72  111. 

384,  1873, 1874 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chapman,  38 

Kan.  307,  1520 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chase,  12  Kan.  47, 

1898,1940 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  119  Mo. 

357,  905 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  121  Mo. 

161,  1389 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  48  Kan. 

321,  2211 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  48  Kan. 

236,  2400 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cleary,  77  Mo. 

634,  2209 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cleveland,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  125  U.  S.  658,  708 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commercial,  etc., 

Ins.  Co.,  139  U.  S.  223,       2184,  2194,  2307,  2334 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crosnoe,  72  Tex. 

79,  1953 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Curl,  28  Kan.  622, 

604,  608,  609, 1860,  2450 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  De  Ford,  38  Kan. 

299,  879 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dewees,  23  Fed. 

R.  519,  738 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dobbins,  60  Ark. 

481,  2713 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dorman,  72  111. 

504,  2293,  2399,  2403,  2407 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dorsey,  47  111. 

288,  882 


ecclxxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  MS-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-3725.] 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Drennan,  26  111. 

App.  263,  300,  367, 1591 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dudgeon,  28 

Kan.  283,  1826 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  78  111.  197, 

1025,  1754 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eakins,  30  Iowa 

279,  176 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eggmann,  161  111. 

155,  2712 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Evans,  78  Tex. 

369,  1876 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Evans,  etc.,  Co., 

85  Mo.  307,  1548, 1551, 1553 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fairbairn,  48  Ark. 

491,  1952, 1966 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Finley,  79  Tex. 

85,  2480 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fire^Asso.,  55  Ark. 

163,  2311 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flannagan,  23  111. 

489,  2283,  2377,  2444 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Foltz,  52  Fed.  R. 

627,  45, 1292,  1293, 1348,  1391 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Francis,  58  Ind. 

389,  1838 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fowler,  113  Mo. 

458,  872, 1500, 1527 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Funk,  85  111. 

460,  993 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gilham,  32  111. 

455,  1895 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gill,  156  U.  S. 

649,  869,  953,  996,  997,  998 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gill,  54  Ark.  101, 

1029,2486 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Griffith,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  35  S.  W.  R.  741,  2582 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grove,  39  Kan. 

731,  326, 403 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hackett,  58  Ark. 

381,  1989, 1992 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hagan,  42  Ark. 

122,  1857,  1871, 1880 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haller,  82  111.  208, 

61, 1376, 1438, 1442 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hannibal,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  125  Mo.  82,  1374,  1380 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hardway,  17  111. 

App.  321,  2609,  2617 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hardy,  55  Ark. 

loS,  285, 288 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  47  Ark. 

340,  1301 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hauks,  78  Tex. 

300,  1827 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawkins,  39  111. 

App.  406,  2623 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Hays,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  35  S.  W.  R.  476,  2343 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Heath,  41  Ark. 

476,  2354,  2696,  2697 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hecht,  38  Ark. 

357,  1899,  1912,  1926, 1932,  1933 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hendricks,  53 

Ark.  201,  1856 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henson,  58  Fed. 

R.  531,  2137 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Higgins,  44  Ark. 

283,  2042 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hill,  14  111.  App. 

579,  2671, 2678 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoover,  (Kan.) 

43  Pac.  R.  854,  1945,  1997 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoover,  53  Ark. 

377,  313, 314 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hurst,  14  111. 

App.  419,  1300 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Illinois  Inst.  for 

the  Blind,  43  111.  303,  1375 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Indianapolis, 

etc.,  R.Co.,  9  Biss.  (U.S.)  144,  42 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irwin,  115  Ind. 

378,  2003 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  78  Tex. 

536,  2137 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  59  Ark.  105, 

1931, 1940 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Karnes,  101  111. 

402,  1551 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kenyon,  57  111. 

App.  640,  2035 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kimmons,  (Ark.) 

32  S.  W.  R.  505,  1883 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelley,  (Ark.)  31 

S.  W.  R.  884,  308 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kirby,  104  111. 

345,  1425, 1433,  1440, 1441 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knight,  122  U.  S. 

79, 

2183,  2184,  2189,  2195,  2203,  2204,  2205,  2207, 2301, 

2700 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knott,54  Ark. 

424,  1591,  1592, 1593 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lamed,  103  111. 

293,  415,  497,  2204,  2363 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lear,  54  Ark.  399, 

2253 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Lesser,  46 Ark. 

236,  2327,2340,2346,2400 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lewright,  113  Mo. 

660,  1468,  1494, 1500 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxxxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV  pp.  2165-S725.] 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lindley,  (Tex. 

C.  A.)  29  S.  W.  R.  1101,  1896, 1944 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lux,  63  111.  523,  1553 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manly,  58  EL 

300,  1969 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mara,  (Ark.)  16 

S.  W.  R.  196,  2072 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marrs,  60  Ark. 

637,  2193 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marrs,  (Ark.)  31 

S.  W.  R.  42,  2223 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mathers,  71  111. 

592,  376,  495,  527,  528,  529,  559, 1280,  1309 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mathers,  104  111. 

257,  184,  527, 1280 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mathias,  50  Ind. 

65,  1749,  1759, 1761,  2712 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  (Ark.)  33 

S.  W.  R.  1070,  1773 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McBride,  141 

U.  S.  127,  884 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCormick,  71 

Tex.  660,  2107,  2134 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGee,  115  U.  S. 

469,  647,  1123, 1130 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGill,  64  Fed. 

R.  165,  2668 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKinsey,  78 

Tex.  298,  1946 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLain,  80  Tex. 

85,  2046 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Memphis,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  72  Mo.  664,  1598 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  43  111.  199,  705 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 

Co.,a5Mo.  App.  272,  2257 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Mitchell,  47  111. 

165,  1440 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mollet,  59  111. 

235,  1440 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ritz,  30  Kan.  30,  1582 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rose,  20  111.  App. 

670,  2353, 2363 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ross,  (Ark.)  33 

S.  W.  R.  1054,  1794 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Russell,  39  I1L 

App.  443,  1852 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ryan,  56  Ark.  245,  66 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shoemaker,  27 

Kan.  677,  1032 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  42  Ark. 

265,  1514 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smuck,  49  Ind. 

302,  2328 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  South,  43  111.  176,  2507 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  Ex. 

Co.,  117  U.  S.  1,         2173,  2603, 2659, 2674,  2685 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  Ex. 

Co.,  118  U.  S.  1,  2169 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  R. 

Co.,  105  Mo.  577,  10, 1268, 1616, 1621 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Springfield,  etc., 

R.  R.  Co.,  96  111.  274, 

61, 1376, 1442, 1680, 1702. 1703 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  92  Mo. 

160,  1612 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  100  Mo.  419,  1689 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  Ill  Mo.  666,  1680, 1703, 1704 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  (Ark.)  31 

S.  W.  R.  570,  2297 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  55  Ark. 

200,  1042 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  56  Ark. 

166,  1027 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  58  Ark.  39,  1042 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  (Kan. 

App.)  43  Pac.  R.  434,  1923 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Strotz,  47  111.  App. 

342,  1941 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sweet,  60  Ark. 

550,  2153,  2469,  2470 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Teters,  68  HI.  144, 

1417, 1498, 1506, 1508 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tiernan,  37  Kan. 

606,  15, 130, 167,  346 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Todd,  36 111.  409,  1822 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Traweek,  84  Tex. 

65,  883,884 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vincent,  36  Ark. 

451,  1855, 1870 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walbring,  47  Ark. 

330,  1300 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Monday,  49  Ark. 

257,  1966, 1968, 1971 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montgomery,  39 

111.  335,  2189 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  14  111.  App. 

510,  2704 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  35  Ark. 

1302, 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy,  60  Ark. 

333,  2181, 2274 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Myrtle,  51  Ind. 

566,  284, 2507 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Needham,  52  Fed. 

R.  371,  2130,  2135,  2141,  2147,  2152 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Needham,  63  Fed. 

R.  107,  2010 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Needham,  69  Fed. 

R.823,  2008 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neel,  56  Ark.  279, 

2181, 2205, 2693 


ccclxxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-1H3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1363-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  North,  31  Mo. 

App.  345,  1511 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northwestern, 

etc.,  Railroad  Co.,  69  Mo.  65,  1382, 1546 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nugent,  152  111. 

119,  1320 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Baugh,  49  Ark. 

418,  1315 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Laughlin,49 

Fed.  R.  440,  1852 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parks,  60  Ark. 

187,  2717 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Farmer,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  30  S.  W.  R.  1109,  2346 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Payne,  29  Kan. 

166,  1986 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Person,  49  Ark. 

182,  2548, 2594 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Penn.  Co.,  118 

U.  S.  290,  594 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Petty,  57  Ark. 

359,  1284,  1355, 1365,  1368,  1386 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pickens,  (Tex.) 

14  S.  W.  R.  1071,  1876 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pickens,  3  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Gas.  471,  1879, 1880 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Piper,  13  Kan. 

505,  2225,  2229,  2404 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Putnam,  1  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  142,  2088 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ray,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  35  S.  W.  R.  951,  2631 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reagan,  52  111. 

App.  488,  1963 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rexroad,  59  Ark. 

180,  1982 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rice,  51  Ark.  457, 

2088 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rice,  (Tex.)  29  S. 

W.  R.  525,  2562,  2595 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richardson,  47 

Kan.  517,  1902 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richardson,  45 

Mo.  466,  1427,  1438,  1533 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Washburn,  97  111. 

253,  1822 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weakly,  50  Ark. 

397, 

2245,  2263,  2321,  2324,  2:527,  2336,  2338,  2348,  2405 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weaver,  35  Kan. 

412,  1998, 2069 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  34  S.  W.  R.  1042,  2461,  2554 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilder,  17  Kan. 

239,  1488,  1508, 1534 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  49  Ark. 

492,  974, 18S5 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Willis,  38  Kan. 

330,  1587, 2104 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  114  U.  S. 

60,  933, 93* 

St.  Louis  Stock  Yards  v.  Wiggins  Ferry 

Co.,  112  111.  384,  1324 

St.  Louis  Stoneware  Co.  v.  Partridge,  8 

App.  217,  374,517 

St.  Paul  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Minn. 

88,  1320* 

St.  Paul  Division  v.  Brown,  11  Minn.  356,  23 
St.  Paul  Fire  Insurance  Co.  v.  Allis,  24 

Minn.  75,  52 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Schnrmeier,  7  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  272,  1634 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  36  Minn.  85, 

37,  878, 1348,  1482 
St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  34  Minn.  227, 

1339,  1344, 1371,  1553 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  37  Minn.  164,  1687 
St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Great  Western,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  27  Fed.  R.  434,  2391 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Minneapolis,  35  Minn. 

141,  1479, 1482, 1612, 1654,  ItiTn 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  St.  Paul,  30 

Minn.  359,  16IH 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greenhalgh,  26 

Fed.  R.  563,  1119 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Karnes,  101  111.  402,  1542 
St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Covell,  2  Dak.  483,  152* 
St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Matthews,  16 

Minn.  341,  14!>>s,  lol'T 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLean,  108  U.  S. 

212,  947 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy,  19  Minn. 

500,  1429, 1430, 1511, 173O 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  139  U.  S.  1,  1120, 1123, 1127, 1128- 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parcher,  14  Minn. 

297,  043 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robbins,  23  Minn. 

439,  '  164,  171,  224 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sage,  49  Fed.  R. 

315,  11:54 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co., 

44  Minn.  325,  492 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  68  Fed.  R.  22,  1129 

St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  112  U.  S.  733,  653 
St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  112  U.  S.  720,  1122,  1123, 1132 

St.  Paul  Union  Depot  Co.  v.  City  of  St. 

Paul,  30  Minn.  359,  1372,  1379, 1663 

St.  Paul  Union  Depot  Co.  v.  Minnesota, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Minn.  154,  493,  2260 

St.  Romes  v.  Levee  Steam  Cotton  Press 

Co.,  127  U.  S.  614,  135 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccclxxxix 


[References  are  to  Pages,] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2705.] 


St.  Tammany  Water  Works  v.  New  Or- 
leans Water  Works,  120  U.  S.  64,  1382 
Sala  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Iowa  678,  1800 
Sala  v.  New  Orleans,  2  Woods  (U.  S.)  188,    89 
Saldana  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  43 Fed. 

R.  862,  1756 

Salem,  The  City  of,  37  Fed.  R.  846,  2556 

Salem,  The  City  of,  2  Inters.  Com.  R.  418,  2637 
Salem  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  98  Mass.  431, 

1036, 1274 
Salem  Bank  v.  Gloucester  Bank,  17  Mass. 

I,  290,  298,  553 
Salem,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hobbs,  (Ind.)  42  N.  E. 

R.  1022,  2034 

Salem,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lyme,  18  Conn.  451,  1381 
Salem  Mill  Dam  Co.  v.  Ropes,  6  Pick. 

(Mass.)  23,  28, 169 

Salem  Stone  Co.  v.  Griffin,  139  Ind.  141,  2021 
Salem  Township,  In  re,  Road  in,  103  Pa. 

St.  250,  1531 

Salem  Turnpike,  etc.,  v.  County  of  Essex, 

100  Mass.  282,  1465 

Salinger  v.  Simmons,  57  Barb.  (NY)  513,  2194 
Salisbury  v.  Herchenroder,  106  Mass.  458,  1025 
Salisbury  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  38  L.  J. 

Ch.  249,  435,  436 

Salisbury  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  22  L.  T. 

R.  (N.  S.)  839,  438 

Salisbury  Mills  v.  Townsend,  109  Mass. 

115,  117, 138,  428,  872 

Salmon  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  N.  J. 

Law  5,  1905 

Salmon  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  N.  Y. 

Supp.  225,  1784 

Salmon  v.  Richardson,  30  Conn.  360, 

326,  386,  387 

Salmon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dunn,  2  Idaho  30,  504 
Salomons  v.  Lains,  12  Beav.  339,  512 

Salt  Co.  v.  Brown,  7  W.  Va.  191,  1366 

Salter  v.  Metropolitan  District  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  9  Eq.  432,  1339 

Salter  v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  N.  Y.  273,  1775 
Salter  v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  Y.  42,  1761 
Salt  Lake  City  v.  Hollister,  118  U.  S.  256,  475 
Salt  Lake  City  Nat.  Bank  v.  Hendrick- 

son,  40  N.  J.  Law  52,  266 

Saltmarsh  v.  Planters',  etc.,  Bank,  17  Ala. 

761,  88, 867 

Saltmarsh  v.  Spaulding,  147  Mass.  224, 

380,  641,  726,  856 
Saltonstall  v.  Stockton,  1  Taney  (U.  S.) 

II,  2454,  2596, 2697 
Saltus  v.  Everett,  20  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  267, 

2214,  2445 

Samainego  v.  Stiles,  20  Pac.  R.  (Ariz.)  607,  257 
Sammon  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  38  N.  Y. 
Sup.  Ct.  414,  2058 


Sampayo  v.  Salter,  1  Mason  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

43,  2438 

Sampson  v.  Bowdoinham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Me.  78,  238,  359 

Sampson  v.  People,  140  111.  466,  1162, 1169 

Sampson  v.  People,  HI  111.  17,  1162, 1222 

Sampson  v.  Shaw,  101  Mass.  1451,  134 

Sams  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,R.  Co.,  15  S.  Car. 

484,  1122 

Samuel  v.  Cheney,  135  Mass.  278,  2365,  2383 
Samuel  v.  Holladay,  1  Woolw.  (U.  S.) 

400,  275,  357,  361 

Samuels  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 

Fed.  R.  57,  2284 

Samuelson  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  Co.,  49 

Mich.  164,  1588 

San  Antonio  v.  Jones,  28  Tex.  19,  71 

San  Antonio  v.  Lane,  32  Tex.  405,  1241 

San  Antonio  v.  Mehaffy,  96  U.  S.  312, 

1236,1239 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnett,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  27  S.  W.  R.  676,  2307 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnett,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  34  S.  W.  R.  139,  2336 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bennett,  76 

Tex.  151,  2069,  2152 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bowles, (Tex.) 

30  S.  W.  R.  727,  32  S.  W.  R.  880,  1025 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Choate,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  35  S.  W.  R.  180,  2725 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  30 

Tex.  693,  767 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Long,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  23  S.  W.  R.  499,  1902 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Long,  87  Tex. 

148,  2137 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lynch,  8  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  513,  2462,  2555 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mechler,  87 

Tex.  628,  1646 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parr,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  26  S.  W.  R.  861,  2040 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson,  73 

Tex.  277,  2599 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson,  79 

Tex.  608,  2471 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  79  Tex. 

264,  957, 1686 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams, 

(Texas)  19  S.  W.  R.  910,  963 

San  Bernardino,  etc.,  v.  Atchison,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  3  Interst.  Com.  R.  138,  2616,  2686 
San  Bernardino,  City  of,  v._  Southern, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  Cal.  524,  '  2640 

Sanborn,  In  re,  148  U.  S.  222,  979 

Sanborn  v.  Belden,  51  Cal.  266,  1417, 1549 


cccxc 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S725.] 


Sanborn  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mich. 

538,  1732, 1733, 1740 

Sanborn  v.  Lefferts,  58  N.  Y.  179,  246 

Sanborn  v.  Railway  Co.,  91  Mich.  538,  1757 
Sanborn  v.  School  District,  12  Minn.  17,  364 
San  Buenaventura,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Vassault, 

50  Cal.  534,  237 

Sanders  v.  Bromley,  55  L.  T.  R.  (N.  S.) 

145,  425 

Sanders  v.  MacLean,  L.  R.  11  Q.  B.  Div. 

327,  2221 

Sanders  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  (Utah.) 

44  Pac.  R.  932,  2512 

Sanders  v.  Vanzeller,  4  Q.  B.  260,  2421 

Sanderson  v.  Cockermouth,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

11  Beav.  497,  562 

Sanderson  v.  Frazier,  8  Colo.  79, 1766,  2069 
Sandford  v.  Railroad  Co.,  24  Pa.  St.  378, 

243,  533,  2286 
Sandford  v.  Railroad  Co.,  43  Ohio  St.  571, 

2284 

Sandford  v.  Sinclair,  8  Paige  373,  736,  774 

Sandham  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Iowa 

88,  1852 

San  Diego  v.  San  Diego,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 

Cal.  106,  377 

San  Diego,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neale,  78  Cal. 

63,  1512 

Sands  V.  Manistee,  etc.,  Co.,  123 U.  S.  288,  2661 
Saner  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.) 

65  N.  W.  R.  624,  2071 

Sanford  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Mich. 

N.  P.  132,  1530 

Sanford  v.  Eighth  Ave.  R.Co.,  23  N.Y.  343, 

1792,  2575,  2577 

Sanford  v.  Kane,  133  111.  199,  683 

Sandford  Fork,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Howe,  etc., 

Co.,  157  U.  S.  312,  851,  855,  856,  857 

San  Francisco  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  R.  Co., 

63  Cal.  467,  8 

San  Francisco,  City  of,  v.  Scott,  4  Cal.  114, 

1470 

San  Francisco  v.  Spring  Valley  W.  W.,  48 

Cal.  493,  52 

San  Francisco,  etc.,  CO.T.  Alameda  Water 

Co.,  36  Cal.  639,  1278 

San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bee,  48  Cal. 

398,  245,  373,  726 

San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Caldwell,  31 

Cal.  367,  1342,  ia53, 1424, 1426 

San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mahoney,  29 

Cal.  Ife,  1282, 1501, 1553 

San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State  Board, 

60  Cal.  12,  8,  1059 

Sanger  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Intarst. 

C.  R.  548,  2687 


Sanger  v.  Upton,  91  U.  S.  56, 

85, 140, 157,  165,  211,  214 

Sangaman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Morgan,  14  111.  163,  105& 
San  Jose,  City  of,  v.  San  Jose,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

53  Cal.  475,  1623 

San  Jose  Sav.  Bank  v.  Pharis,  58  Cal.  380,    268 
San  Jose,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayne,  83  Cal. 

566,  1513, 1515, 1518 

Sankey  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42 

Ind.  1,  1146 

Sankey  Brook  Coal  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  10 

Eq.  381,  649 

San  Mateo  v.  Sharpstein,  50  Cal.  284,          1549 
San  Mateo  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  13 

Fed.  R.  722,  1091 

San  Mateo  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  8 

Sawy.  (U.  S.)  238,  92 

San  Mateo  Co.  v.  Southern  P.  R.  Co.,  7 

Sawy.  (U.  S.)  517,  31 

Sanquer  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  C.  B. 

163,  2376 

Santa  Ana,  City  of,  v.  Harlin,  99  Cal.  538,  1512 
Santa  Barbara  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co., 

18  Fed.  R.  385,  1092 

Santa  Clara,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Meredith,  49  Md. 

389,  290, 378 

Santa  Clara  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  18 

Fed.  R.  385, 
Santa  Clara  County  v.  Southern  Pac.  R. 

R.  Co.,  118  U.  S.  394,          8,  31,  954, 1069, 1092 
Santa  Clara,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hayes,  76  Cal. 

387,  2663 

Santa  Cruz,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  etc., 

Santa  Cruz  County,  62  Cal.  239,  1257 

Santa  Cruz  R.  Co.  v.  Schwartz,  53  Cal. 

106,  176 

Santa  Cruz  R.  Co.  v.  Spreckles,  65  Cal. 

193,  212, 213 

Santa  Rosa,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  St.  R. 

Co.,  (Cal.)  38  Pac.  R.  986,  860,  831, 1617 

Sanxey  v.  Iowa  City  Glass  Co.,  68  Iowa 

542,  698 

Sappenfleld  v.  Main  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91 

Cal.  48,  1796,  2705 

Saratoga,  The,  20  Fed.  R.  869,  2U3 

Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  58  Hun  287,    1687 
Sarbecker  v.  State,  65  Wis.  171,  2195 

Sargent,  Ex  parte,  L.  R.  17  Eq.  Gas.  273,    144 
Sargent  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  Mass. 

416,  2166,  2169,  2261,  2603,  2671 

Sargent  v.  Franklin  Ins.  Co.,  8  Pick. 

(Mass.)  90,  134,  147,  148,  150, 27T 

Sargent  v.  Gile,  9  N.  H.  325,  2362 

Sargent  v.  Kansas  Midland  R.  Co.,  48  Kan. 

672,  483 

Sargent  v.  Machias,  65  Me.  591,  1449 

Sargent  v.  Morris,  3  Barn.  &  Aid.  277,         2695. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXC1 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-HA3,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol 

Sargent  v.  Webster,  13  Mete.  (Mass.)  497, 

238,  359,  361,  372 
Sarmiento  v.  Davis,  etc.,  Co.,  (Mich.)  63 

N.  W.  R.  205,  480 

Sater  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Iowa  386, 

1436,  1437 
Sather  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Minn. 

91,  1842 

Satterlee  v.  Groat,  1  Wend.  272,  2463 

Sauer  v.  Nevadaville,  14  Colo.  54,  890 

Sauerhering  v.  Iron  Ridge,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

25Wis.447,  1220,1236 

Sauls  v.  Freeman,  24  Fla.  209,  986 

Saunders  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144 

N.  Y.  75,  1323 

Saunders  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Utah 

431,  875 

Saunders  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  (Utah) 

44  Pac.  932,  2510,  2515,  2516,  2561 

Sauter  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  N.  Y. 

50,  2152 

Savage  v.  Ball,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  142,  228,  342 

Savage  v.  Bartlett,  (Md.)  28  Atl.  R.  414,       260 
Savage  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Minn. 

419,  1845 

Savannah  v.  Hancock,  91  Mo.  54,        1338,  133!) 
Savannah,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Shuman,  91  Ga.  400, 

924,  926 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan,  86  Ga.  312, 

1991,  2580,  2583 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bundick,  94  Ga. 

775,  2434, 2435 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Callahan,  49  Ga. 

506,  1600 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  77  Ga. 

376,  2211 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  25  Fla. 

917,  1120 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Geiger,  21  Fla. 

669,  1803, 1805, 1852,  1870,  1872 

Savannah,  etc. ,  R.  Co.  v.  Goss,  80  Ga.  524,     2083 
Savannah,  F.  &  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  26 

Fla.  148,  2224,  2228,  2250,  2251 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lancaster,  62 

Ala.  555,  626,  638,  641,  668,  697 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  45  Ga. 

602,  1635 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mclntosh,  73 

Ga.532,  2626,  2628 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLeod,  94  Ga. 

530,  2152 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meadows,  95 

Ala.  137,  1968 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pelzer  Co.,  60 

Fed.  R.  39,  1889,  1915, 1917,  1920, 1945 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  90  Ga. 

829,  1587 


Ill,  pp. 


,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pritchard,  77  Ga. 

412,  2226,  2227 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Savannah,  45  Ga. 

602,  1612 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shearer,  58  Ala. 

672,  1755 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shiels,  33  Ga. 

601,  63,  1378,  1614,  1632 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Steininger,  84 

Ga.  579,  2183 

Savannah,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Suburban, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Ga.  240,  897 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  48  Ga. 

432,  2385,  2396- 

Savery  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst. 

Com.  R.  210,  268T 

Savery  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Interst. 

Com.  338,  248T 

Savitz  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  111.  208,        2436 
Sawtell  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Ga. 

567,  2127 

Sawyer  v.  Boston,  144  Mass.  470,  1519 

Sawyer  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  Co.,  77  Iowa  242,  86T 
Sawyer  v.  Hoag,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  610, 

164,  167,  254,  264,  795,  *."> 
Sawyer  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Mo. 

240,  2466,  2470,  2473,  2704 

Sawyer  v.  Joslin,  20  Vt.  172,  2395 

Sawyer  v.  Manchester  &  K.  Railroad,  62 

N.  H.  135,  1186 

Sawyer  v.  Perry,  88  Me.  42,  2131,  212t> 

Sawyer  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Mass. 

196,  958,  967,  1807,  182t> 

Sayles  v.  Brown,  (C.  C.  D.  Md.)  40  Fed. 

R.  270, 
Sayles  v.  Northwestern  Ins.  Co.,  2  Curtis 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  212,  931 

Sayre  v.  Citizens'  Gas,  etc.,  Co.,  69  Cal. 

207,  221 

Sayre  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Assn.,  1  Duv. 

(Ky.)  143,  276,  500 

Sayre  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Duer 

(N.  Y.)  54,  13U 

Sayre  v.  Tompkins,  23  Mo.  443,  1070,  1071 

Sayward  v.  Carlson,  1  Wash.  St.  29,  207> 

Sayward  v.  Stevens,  3  Gray  (Mass.)  97,  2420 
Scadding  v.  Lorant,  3  H.  L.  Gas.  418,  23S 
Scagel  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Iowa 

380,  1999 

Scaggs  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Hun 

198,  1782 

Scales  v.  Pickering,  4  Bing.  448,  58 

Scales  v.  State,  47  Ala.  476,  2047 

Scaling  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  24  Mo.  App. 

29,  2535,  2536 

Scammon  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

Mo.  App.  194,  995,  2655 


CCCXC11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JUS- 1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Scammon  v.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.,  84  Cal. 

311,  2215 

Scanlonv.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  147  Mass. 

484,  2000 

Scarfe  v.  Morgan,  4  M.  &  W.  270,  2444 

Scarlett  v.  Academy,  43  Md.  203,  207 

Scarritt  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  127 

Mo.  298,  1459 

Schaar  v.  Knickerbocker,  etc.,  Co.,  149 

111.  441,  1600 

Schackleford  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 

Ky.  43,  1968 

Schaefer  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  76 

Ga.  99,  44 

Schaeffer  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

168  Pa.  St.  209,  2234.  2346 

Schafer  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124 

N.  Y.  630,  1614 

Schall  v.  Cole,  107  Pa.  St.  1,  1788 

Schanewerk  v.  Hoberecht,  117  Mo.  22,  682 
Schaper  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  124 

N.  Y.  630,  11 

Schaub  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  Mo. 

74,  2019,  2020,  2071 

Scheiper  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn.) 

63  N.  W.  R.  1034,  2555 

Scheffer  v.  Railroad  Co.,  105  U.  S.  249,  2588 
Scheffler  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Minn.  518,  1960, 1967,  2152 

Schenectady,  etc.,  Co.v.  Thatcher,  11  N.Y. 

102,  28,  208, 1224 

Schenck  v.  Andrews,  57  N.  Y.  133,  167 

Schenck  v.  Mercer  County  Mut.  Ins.  Co., 

24  N.  J.  L.  447,  321 

Schenck  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  Co.,  (Wyo.) 

40  Pac.  R.  840,  962 

Schenley  v.  Commonwealth,  36  Pa.  St.  29, 

1103,  1104 
Schepers  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126  Mo. 

665,  2463 

Schermeely  v.  Still  water,  etc.,  Co.,  16 

Minn.  506,  1556 

Schennerhorn  v.  McGregor  R.  Co.,  52  N.Y. 

S.  R.  892,  1666 

Schertz  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107 

111.  577,  1858 

Schetter  v.  Southern  Oregon  Co.,  19  Ore. 

192,  381, 402 

Scheu  v.  Benedict,  116  N.  Y.  510,  2175 

Schexnaydre  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  La. 

Ann.  248,  1968,  2477 

Schierhold  v.  North  Beach,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

Cal.  447,  1978 

Schindelholz  v.  Cullum,  55  Fed.  R.  885,  773 
Schipper  v.  City  of  Aurora,  121  Ind.  154,  324 
Schlaff  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  Ala. 

377,-  2004 


Schlenks  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Ky.)  23 

S.  W.  R.  589,  1983 

Schlereth  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  115  Mo. 

87,  1745 

Schlesinger  v.  Stratton,  9  R.  I.  578,  2215 

Schlichting  v.  Wintgen,  25  Hun  626,  2140 

Schliermann  v.  Hammond,  etc.,  Co.,  32 

N.  Y.  Supp.  748,  2024 

Schlimgen  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 

Wis.  186,  1759, 1773, 1775 

Schloss  v.  Montgomery  Trade  Co.,  87  Ala. 

411,  873 

Schloss  v.  Wood,  11  Colo.  287,  2167 

Schmidlapp  v.  LaConfiance  Ins.  Co.,  71 

Ga.  246,  888 

Schmidt,  Ex  parte,  62  Ala.  252,  1596 

Schmidt  v.  Bauer,  80  Cal.  565,  1952 

Schmidt  v.  Blood,  9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  268,  2439 
Schmidt  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75 

Iowa  606,  1767 

Schmidt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Wis. 

504,  2273, 2277 

Schmidt  v.  Deegan,  69  Wis.  300,  2147 

Schmidt  v.  Densmore,  42  Mo.  225,  1346, 1352 
Schmidt  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  Co.,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  24  S.  W.  R.  547,  1060, 1069 

Schmidt  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Ky. 

289,  648 

Schmidt  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

Wis.  186,  1811, 1975 

Schmidt  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Co.,  28  Ore.  9,  688 
Schmitz  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119  Mo. 

256,  1753, 1779,  1780, 1786 

Schmolze  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Wis. 

659,  1775, 1794 

Schnatz  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160 

Pa.  St.  602,  2137 

Schneck  v.  Andrews,  57  N.  Y.  133,  133 

Schneekloth  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Mich.)  65  N.  W.  R.  6S3,  1834,  1863 

Schneider  v.  Evans,  25  Wis.  241,  2253,  2429,2441 
Schneider  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  133  N.  Y. 

583,  1799 

Schneir  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Iowa 

337.  1834,  1847, 1872 

Schoch  v.  Winona,  etc.,R.  Co.,  55  Minn. 

479,  883, 884 

Schoenfield  v.  Milwaukee  City  R.  Co.,  74 

Wis.  433,  2558 

Schoff  v.  Upper  Conn.  River,  etc.,  Co.,  57 

N.  H.  110,  1502 

Schofield  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  114  U.  S. 

615, 

1739, 1749, 1750, 1761, 1771, 1774, 1776, 1778, 1800, 

2720 
Schofield  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  2  Pa. 

Dist.  Ct.  R.  57,  1270 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXC111 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  T,  pp.  1-JUH,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1M-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216&,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Schofleld  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 

Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  122,  61 

Schofleld  v.  Union  Bank,  2  Cranch  C.C. 

(U.  S.)  115,  227,  251 

Schoick  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  20  N.  J.  L. 

249,  1565 

Scholefield  v.  Redfern,  2  Drew  &  Sm.  173,  424 
Scholey  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  9Eq.  Cas. 

267,  197, 199 

Schollenburger,  Ex  parte,  96  U.  S.  369,  35,  881 
Schoolcraft  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92 

Ky.  233,  2128 

School  Dist.  v.  Bennett,  52  Ark.  511,  360 

School  Dist.  v.  Bodenhamer,  43  Ark.  140,  1259 
School  Dist.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

Mass.  552,  2317,  2699 

School  Dist.  v.  Stone,  106  U.  S.  183,  1243 

Schooling  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Mo. 

518,  1834, 1868 

School  Inspectors  v.  People,  20  111.  525,  990 
Schooner  Bolina,  1  Gall.  (U.  S.)  75,  1033 

Schooner  Freeman  v.  Buckingham,  18 

How.  (U.  S.)  182,  2204,  2276 

Schooner  "Norway"  v.  Jensen,  52  111.  373,  2063 
Schoonover  v.  Hinckley,  48  Iowa  82,  787,  795 
Schreiber  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  111. 

340,  1422, 1488 

Schreyer  v.  Turner,  etc.,  Co.,  (Ore.)  43 

Pac.  R.  719,  21 

Schrick  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Mo.  423,  280 
Schroeder  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Iowa 

344,  2112 

Schroeder  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Iowa 

375,  2122, 2713 

Schroeder  v.  DeGraff,  28  Minn.  299,  1560 

Schroeder  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Mich. 

387,  1499,  1558,  1559 

Schroeder  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.)  29 

L.  R.  A.  321,  2077 

Schroeder  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  Railroad, 

5  Duer  55,  2226,  2229,  2352,  2363 

Schroeder  v.  Michigan  Car  Co.,  56  Mich. 

132,  2029 

Schubert  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 

Minn.  360,  1862 

Schufeldt  v.  Smith, (Mo.)31  S.  W.  R.  1039,  855 
Schular  v.  Hudson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Barb. 

653,  1588 

Schulenberg  v.  Harriman,  21  Wall.  44, 

11J8,  1123,  1127,  1129 
Schulenburg  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67 

Mo.  442,  1596 

Schulenburg,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  (Mo.)31S.  W.  R.  796,  1637 

Schuler  v.  Israel,  120  U.  S.  506,  890 

Schuler  v.  Northern  Liberties,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  3  Wharton  (Pa.)  555,  1548 


Schulte  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 

La.  Ann.  509,  1648 

Schultz  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Wis. 

375,  2078 

Schultz  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Wis. 

616,  2032, 2076 

Schultz  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Mo.  13,  2472 
Schultz  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  89  N.  Y. 

242,  1963 

Schultze  v.  Houfes,  96  111.  335,  659 

Schum  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  107  Pa. 

St.  8,  1746 

Schurmeier  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Minn.  82,  1546, 1634 

Schuster  v.  Carson,  28  Neb.  612,  2390,  2391 
Schut  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Mich.  433, 

954,  974, 1813, 1885 

Schuyler  v.  Thomas,  98  U.  S.  169,  1145, 1170 
Schuyler's,  etc.,  Co.,  Re,  136  N.  Y.  169,  771 
Schuylkill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  11 

Pa.  St.  202,  1068 

Schuylkill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McDonough,  33  Pa. 

St.  73,  1563 

Schuylkill  Nav.  Co.  v.  Decker,  2  Watts 

343,  1449, 1508 

Schuylkill  River,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stocker,  128 

Pa.  St.  233,  1514 

Schwartz  v.  Keystone  Oil  Co.,  153  Pa.  St. 

283,  812 

Schwenk  &  Co.  v.  Strang,  59  Fed.  R.  209,  941 
Schwenke  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Colo. 

341,  2147 

Scidmore  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Col,  89 

Wis.  188,  1999,  2006 

Sciota  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Cronin,  38  Ohio  St. 

122,  1602 

Scipio  v.  Wright,  101  U.  S.  655,  1167 

Scofield  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 

Ohio  St.  571, 

38,  497,  533, 1013,  2167,  2263,  2284,  2430,  2433 
Scofleld  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Interst.  Com.  R.  67,  2296,  2409 

Scot  v.  Turner,  1  Root  (Conn.)  163,  1030 

Scothorn  v.  South,  etc.,  Railway,  8  Exch. 

341,  2226,  2232,  2384,  2426 

Scotland,  The,  105  U.  S.  24,  32,  2637 

Scotland  County  v.  Hill,  132  U.  S.  107, 

1145, 1258 

Scotland  County  v.  Hill,  140  U.  S.  41,  1170 
Scotland  County  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  65 

Mo.  123,     '  1064 

Scotland  County  v.  Thomas,  94  U.  S.  682,.  1224 
Scott,  Ex  parte,  66  Fed.  R.  45,  966 

Scott  v.  Avery,  5  H.  L.  Cas.  811,  1573 

Scott  v.  Bay,  3  Md.  431,  1567 

Scott  v.  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  52  Barb.  (N.Y.) 

45,  125,  418,  427,  439,  441 


CCCXC1V 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Scott  v.  Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  53 Hun  (N. Y.) 

414,  2583 

Scott  v.  City  of  Toledo,  36  Fed.  E.  385, 

1091, 1336, 1414 
Scott  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  (Ind.)  43 

N.  E.  E.  133,  2260,  2573,  2576 

Scott  v.  Clinton,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  6  Biss.  529, 

536,  650,  651,  655 

Scott  v.  Darby,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Iowa  689,  2046 
Scott  v.  DePeyster,  1  Edw.  Ch.  513,  382,  397 
Scott  v.  Dublin,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  11  Irish  C.  L. 

377,  1800 

Scott  v.  Eagle,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Paige  (N.  Y.) 

198,  418,  431 

Scott  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  69  Fed.  B. 

17,  673, 784 

Scott  v.  Hansheer,  94  Ind.  1, 

456, 1147, 1158, 1169, 1178, 1194, 1224 
Scott  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  10  Am. 

&  Eng.  E.  Cas.  189,  1434, 1444 

Scott  v.  Lasell,  71  Iowa  180,  1463 

Scott  v.  Lewis,  2  Cromp.  M.  &  E.  289,  2397 
Scott  v.  Libby,  2  Johns.  336,  2290 

Scott  v.  London  Docks  Co.,  3  Hurl.  &  C. 

596,  2032 

Scott  v.  London  Docks  Co.,  11  L.  T.  Eep. 

(N.  S.)  383,  1950 

Scott  v.  Lord  Ebury,  36  L.  J.  C.  P.  161, 

19,  488 
Scott  v.  Middletown,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  86  N.  Y. 

200,  323,324 

Scott  v.  Midland,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  33  U.  C.  Q. 

B.  580,  2423, 

Scott  v.  Orbison,  21  Ark.  202,  1609 

Scott  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Navigation  Co.,  14 

Ore.  211,  2054 

Scott  v.  Pequonnock  Nat.  Bank,  15  Fed. 

E.  494,  146 

Scott  v.  Pettit,  3  Bos.  &  P.  469,  2352 

Scott  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  21  Minn. 

322,  1387, 1436 

Scott  v.  Stetler,  128  Ind.  385,  561 

Scott  v.  Texas,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Fed.  B.  225,  936 
Scott  v.  The  Ira  Coffee,  2  Fed.  E.  401,  2276 
Scott  v.  Third  Ave.  E.  Co.,  16  N.  Y.  Supp. 

350,  1648 

Scott  v.  William  B.  Grimes,  etc.,  Co.,  48 

Mo.  App.  521,  2395 

Scott  County  v.  Bing,  29  Minn.  398,  985 

Scottish  Northeastern  B.  Co.  v.  Stewart,  3 

Macqueen  382,  474,  476 

Scovill  v.  Cleveland,  1  Ohio  St.  126,  1151 

Scovill  v.  Thayer,  105  U.  S.  143, 

126,  128, 130, 132, 167,  212,  225,  260, 1065 
Scoville  v.  Canfield,  14  Johns.  338,  1022 

Scranton  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  12 

Pa.  Co.  Ct.  Bep.  283,  896 


Screven  v.  Clark,  48  Ga.  41,  792,  79$ 

Scripture  v.  Francestown,  etc.,  Co.,  50 

N.  H.  571,  14ft 

Scudder  v.  Jones,  134  Ind.  547,  1477 

Scudder  v.  Trenton,  etc.,  Co.,  1  N.  J.  Eq. 

694,  1336- 

Scudder  v.  Union  Nat.  Bank,  91  U.  S.  406, 

2312 
Seaboard,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Joyner,  (Va.)  23 

S.  E.  E.  773,  1960 

Seaboard,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Woodson,  94  Ala. 

143,  2116, 2120 

Seal  v.  Northern,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  1  Pears  (Pa.) 

108,  153& 

Scale  v.  Baker,  70  Tex.  283,  386 

Seale  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  65  Tex.  274,        1946 
Seaman  v.  Adler,  37  Fed.  B.  268,  2421 

Seaman  v.  Enterprise  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  18 

Fed.  E.  250,  244 

Seamans  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  (Pa. 

St.)34Atl.  E.  568,  2718 

Searl  v.  School  Dist.,  124  U.  S.  197,  930- 

Searle  v.  Lackawanna,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  33  Pa. 

St.  57,  1434,  1436, 1437 

Searle  v.  Laverick,  L.  B.  9  Q.  B.  122,          2473- 
Searle  v.  Eailway  Co.,  32  W.  Va.  370,  247O 

Searight  v.  Payne,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  175,  273 

Searles  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  69  Miss. 

186,  2247 

Searles  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  2 

Woods  (U.  S.)  621,  676,  679,  739,  775 

Searles  v.  Manhattan  E.  Co.,  101  N.Y.  661,  2704 
Searles  v.  Mann,  etc.,  Co.,  45  Fed.  E.  330, 

2528,2532 
Searles  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  35  Iowa 

490,  1863 

Sears  v.  Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  53  Ga.  630,    205& 
Sears  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  14  Allen  433, 

2019,  2482,  2491 

Sears  v.  Wills,  4  Allen  (Mass.)  212,  2446 

Sears  v.  Wingate,  3  Allen  (Mass.)  103, 

2203,2204 
Searsburgh  Turn.  Co.  v.  Cutler,  6  Vt. 

315,  248 

Seaside  El.  E.  Co.,  Matter  of,  83  Hun 

143,  »  143* 

Seats  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  86  Ga.  811,    2144 
Seattle  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  6  Wash. 

379,  124& 

Seattle  v.  Yesler,  1  Wash.  Ter.  1113, 
Seattle,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Murphine,  4  Wash. 

448,  1511 

Seattle,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  7  Wash.  150, 

1375,  1684,  1687,  1705,  1712 
Seaver  v.  Boston,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  14  Gray 

466,  2457 

Seavly  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill  Mass.  540,  2105 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXCV 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  i-442,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Seawell  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119 

Mo.  224,  995, 1014,  2431 

Seawell  v.  Kaleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  N. 

Car.  270,  1850 

Seacomb  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

How.  (N.  Y.)  Pr.  75, 

1332, 1342,  1370.  1462,  1560 
Secombe  v.  Railroad  Co.,  23  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

108,  1270,  1336, 1341,  1462,  1478,  1481,  1556 

Second  Ave.  Church,  Matter  of,  66  N.  Y. 

395,  1103 

Second  Case  of  Walters,  3  DeG.  &  Sm. 

244,  140 

Second,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mehrbach,  17  Jones 

&  S.  267,  395 

Second,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Green,  3  Phila. 

(Pa.)  430,  1627 

Second,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  8  Phila. 

(Pa.)  304,  1644 

Second  Nat.  Bank  v.  Hall,  35  Ohio  St.  158, 

271,  273,  877 
Second  Nat.  Bank  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

11  Fed.  Rep.  532,  859 

Second  Street,  Extension  of,  23  Pa.  St. 

346,  1383 

Second  Ward  Bank  v.  Upmann,  12  Wis. 

499,  734 

Secor  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  R.  ,15, 

2547,2556 
Secor  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Biss.(U.  S.) 

513,  809,  810,  911 

Secord  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  R. 

221,  317,  318,  2032,  2161,  2552 

Security  Bank  v.  Luttgen,  29  Minn.  363,  2215 
Security  Co.  v.  Hartford,  61  Conn.  89,  112 
Security  Co.  v.  Pratt,  65  Conn.  161,  945 

Sedalia,  City  of,  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

17  Mo.  App.  105,  1557 

Sedalia,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkerson,  83 

Mo.  235,  155, 171 

Sedgwick  v.  Cottingham,  54  Iowa  512,  2215 
Sedgwick  v.  Menck,  6  Blatch.  (U.  S.)  166,  763 
Seefeld  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Wis. 

216,  1777 

Seefeld  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Wis.  96, 

1512, 1525 
Seeley  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Fed.  R. 

252,  886 

Seeley  v.  New  York  Exchange  Bank,  8 

Daly  (N.  Y.)  400,  127 

Seeley  v.  San  Jose,  etc.,  Co.,  59  Cal.  22,  394 
Seeligson  v.  Brown,  61  Tex.  114,  118, 144, 146 
Seely  v.  Sebastian,  4  Ore.  25,  1340 

Seese  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  39  Fed.  R. 

487,  1997 

Seibert  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

Minn.  148,  669,  672,  698,  710 


Seibert  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  52 

Minn.  246,  671,  677,  679,  683,  710 

Seibert  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Mo. 

565,  1859 

Seifert  v.  Brooks,  34  Wis.  443,     1476,  1481, 1535 
Seignouret  v.  Home  Insurance  Co.,  24  Fed. 

R.  332,  126, 128 

Selby  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  N. 

Car.  588,  2340,  2342,  2408 

Selden  v.  City  of  Jacksonville,  28  Fla.  558, 

1400,1640 
Selden  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  29 

N.  Y.  634,  1323,  1324, 1454 

Seley  v.  Southern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  6  Utah 

319,  2006 

Seligman  v.  Armijo,  1  N.  Mex.  459,  2268 

Seligman  v.  Laussy,  60  Ga.  20,  824 

Sellars  v.  Foster,  27  Neb.  118,  2152 

Sellars  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  N. 

Car.  654,  612, 1705 

Sellen  v.  Norman,  4  C.  &  P.  80,  319 

Seller  v.  Steamship  Pacific,  1  Ore.  409, 

2205,  2317,  2332 
Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ex  parte,  45  Ala.  696, 

162, 1141, 1199, 1212, 1257 
Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  51  Miss. 

829,  193 

Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camp,  45  Ga.  180, 

1429, 1498 
Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gammage,  63  Ga. 

604,  1526 

Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fleming,  48  Ga.  514, 

1881 

Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harbin,  40  Ga.  706,     468 
Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keith,  53  Ga.  178, 

1426,  1434, 1455, 1456, 1515, 1516,  1544 
Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knapp,  42  Ala.  480,  1522 
Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lacey,  49  Ga.  106,  2143 
Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Redwine,  51  Ga.  470, 

1436 
Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roundtree,  7  Ala. 

670,  159 

Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tipton,  5  Ala.  787, 

164,  214,  215,  253,  340 
Selvege  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mo.)  36 

S.  W.  R.  652,  2651 

Selway  v.  Holloway,  1  Ld.  Rayd.  46,          2191 
Semel  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  321,  1042, 1756 

Semple  v.  Glenn,  91  Ala.  245,  227 

Senaca  Road  Co.  v.  Auburn,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5  Hill  170,  1658 

Seney  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  U.  S. 

310, ,  821 

Sengfelder  v.  Mutual  L.  Ins.  Co.,  5  Wash. 

St.  121,  373 

Senior  v.  Ward,  1  El.  &  El.  385,  2005,  2144 


CCCXCV1 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1S62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161^  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S16S-t7t5.] 


Senn  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  124  Mo.  621,  1983 
Senn  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  108  Mo.  142,  2714 
Sercomb  v.  Catlin,  128  111.  556,  773,  798 

Serensen  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Fed. 

R.  407,  2126,  2141 

Serrell  v.  Oakland  Probate  Judge, (Mich.) 

65  N.  W.  R.  107,  1469 

Seska  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Iowa 

137,  1936 

Settle  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  127  Mo. 

336,  2013 

Setzler  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 

Pa.  St.  56,  1455 

Seventh  Nat.  Bank  v.  Shenandoah  Iron 

Co.,  35  Fed.  R.  436,  858 

Severin  v.  Cole,  38  Iowa  463, 

1452, 1483, 1487, 1488 
Severn,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Great  Western  R. 

Co.,  5  By.  &  Canal  Tr.  Cas.  170,       2682,  2683 
Sevier  v.  Birmingham,  etc.,  Co.,  92  Ala. 

258,  319 

Sevier  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Miss. 

8,  2533, 2549 

Sewage  Co.  v.  Hartmont,  5  Ch.  Div.  394,  17 
Sewall  v.  Boston  Water-power  Co.,  86 

Mass.  277,  114 

Sewall  v.  Brainerd,  38  Vt.  364,  635 

Sewall  v.  City  of  Cohoes,  11  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

626,  1797 

Sewall  v.  Eastern  R.  R.  Co.,  9  Cush. 

(Mass.)  5  127 

Sewall  v.  St.  Paul,  20  Minn.  511,  1100 

Seward  v.  Beach,  29  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  239,  1027 
Seward  v.  Rising  Sun,  79  Ind.  351,  114 

Seward  v.  Vera  Cruz,  L.  R.  10  App.  59,  2129 
SewelTs  Case,  L.  R.  3  Ch.  131,  126 

Sewell  v.  Burdick,  52  L.  T.  R.  445,  2218 

Sewell  v.  Cape  May,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Am. 

&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  155,  743,  830 

Sewell  v.  East  Cape  May  Co.,  50  N.  J.  Eq. 

717,  478, 859 

Sewickley,  etc.,  Church's  Appeal,  165  Pa. 

475,  1105 

Seybell  v.  National,  etc.,  Bank,  2  Daly 

(N.  Y.)  383,  628 

Seybert  v.  City  of  Pittsburg,  1  WalL 

(U.S.)  272,  1215 

Seybolt  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  N.  Y. 

562  2327,  2456 

Sexton  v.  North  Bridgewater,  116  Mass. 

200,  1438,  1514,  1519 

Seymour  v.  Canandaigua,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  284,  5,  651,  652,  653 

Seymour  v.  Detroit  Rolling  Mills,  56  Micfc. 

117,  347 

Seymour  v.  Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

126  Ind.  466,  61,  i:?7S, 1663 


Seymour  v.  Long  Dock  Co.,  20  N.  J.  Eq. 

396,  1578 

Seymour  v.  Maddox,  16  Q.  B.  326, 

1999,  2005,  2028 

Seymour  v.  Newton,  105  Mass.  272,  2391 

Seymour  v.  Spring  Forest,  etc.,  Assn.,  19 

N.  Y.  Supp.  94,  481 

Seymour  v.  Spring  Forest,  etc.,  Assn.,  144 

N.  Y.  333,  18,  21,  377,  379 

Seymour  v.  Thomas  Harrow  Co.,  81  Ala. 

250,  873 

Seymour  v.  Sturgess,  26  N.  Y.  134,  202 

Shaber  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Minn. 

103,  1678, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1762, 1781 

Shackelford  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

37  Miss.  202,  357,  370,  371,  378 

Shackelford  v.  Dangerfield,  L.  R.  3  C.  P. 

407,  208 

Shackleford  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 

Ky.  43,  1760 

Shackleford  v.  Mississippi  Cent.  R.  R.  Co., 

52  Miss.  159,  462,  466,  467,  468 

Shackleford  v.  Wilcox,  9  La.  33,  2211 

Shackt  v.  Railroad  Co.,  94  Tenn.  658, 

2309,2339 
Shadd  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  N.  Car. 

968,  2042 

Shaeffe/  v.  Missouri  Home,  etc.,  Co.,  46 

Mo.  248,  198, 199 

Shafer  v.  Moriarty,  46  Ind.  9,  257 

Shaffers  v.  General,  etc.,  Navigation  Co., 

L.  R.  10  Q.  B.  D.  356,  2119,  2120 

Shainwald  v.  Lewis,  8  Fed.  R.  878,  782 

Shainwald  v.  Lewis,  108  U.  S.  158,  937 

Shakelford  v.  Shakelford,  32  viratt.  (Va.) 

481,  829 

Shakopee,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  37  Minn.  91,          27 
Shamokin  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Livennore,  47 

Pa.  St.  465,  647,  652 

Shand  v.  Grant,  15  Com.  B.  (N.  S.)  324,      2426 
Shanfelterv  Mayor,  80  Md.  483,  2711 

Shannon  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Me.  52, 

2460,  2593 

Shannon  v.  Hanks,  88  Va.  338,  777,  781 

Sharon  R.  Co.,  Appeal  of,  122  Pa.  St.  533, 

108, 1374, 1380, 1392, 1688 

Sharp  v.  Grey,  9  Bing.  457,  2472 

Sharp  v.  Glushing,  96  N   Y.  676,          1752,1754 
Sharp  v.  Johnson,  4  Hill  (N.  Y.)  92,  1528 

Sharp  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  40  Barb.  256,  1258 

Sharp  v.  Powell,  L.  R.  7  C.  P.  253,  2467 

Sharp  v.  Teese,  9  N.  J.  Law  352,  521 

Sharpe  v.  Witham,  65  111.  566,  1460 

Sharpe  v.  Arnott,  51  Cal.  188,  664 

Sharpe  v.  Dawes,  46  L.  J.  Q.  B.  104,       232,  859 
Sharpe  v.  San  Paulo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  L.  T. 

R.  699,  1574 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXCV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
{Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S72fi.] 


Sharpe  v.  San  Paulo  Eailway  Co.,  L.  E. 

8  Ch.  597,  1577,  1578 

Sharpless  v.  Mayor,  21  Pa.  St.  147, 

3,  5, 162,  956,  1139,  2284,  2433 
Shattuck  v.  Cox,  97  Ind.  242,  2396 

Shattuck  v.  North  British,  etc.,  Ins.  Co., 

58  Fed.  L.  609,  933 

Shattuck  v.  Stoneham  Branch  R.  Co.,  6 

Allen  (Mass.)  115,  1513,  1517, 1520 

Shattuck  v.  Wilton  E.  Co.,  23  N.  H.  269,  1457 
Shaubut  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Minn. 

502,  1631 

Shaver  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  71  Fed  R. 

981,  2158 

Shaver  v.  Starrett,  4  Ohio  St.  494,  1340 

Shaw  v.  Bill,  95  U.  S.  10,  648,  650 

Shaw  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Gray 

(Mass.)  45,  1748 

Shaw  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Iowa 

100,  1883 

Shaw  v.  Davis,  (Md.)  28  Atl.  R.  619,  239 

Shaw  v.  Dennis,  10  111.  405,  1151 

Shaw  v.  Gardner,  12  Gray  (Mass.)  488,  2210 
Shaw  v.  Great  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

L.  R.  Ir.  10,  2400,  2402 

Shaw  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

(1894)  1  Q.  B.  373,  2343 

Shaw  v.  Jewett,  86  N.  Y.  616,  1757 

Shaw  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  U.  S. 

605,  668 

Shaw  v.  Merchants'  Nat.  Bank,  8  W.  N.  C. 

(Pa.)  221,  2209 

Shaw  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Gray 

(Mass.)  162. 

101, 643,  668,  683,  744,  754,  1172,  1197, 1351, 1352 
Shaw  v.  Norfolk  County  R.  Co.,  16  Gray 

107,  344, 462 

Shaw  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  40  Minn. 

144,  2614, 2415 

Shaw  v.  Quincy  Mining  Co.,  145  U.  S.  444, 

34,  881,  884 
Shaw  v.  Railroad,  101  U.  S.  557, 

2199,  2217,  2218,  2219,  2221, 2360 
Shaw  v.  Railroad  Co.,  400  U.  S.  605, 

672,  711,  723,  724,  835 

Shaw  v.  Spencer,  100  Mass.  382,  114,  139 

Shaw  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Q.  B.  347, 

2295,2699 

Shawhan  v.  Zinn,  79  Ky.  300,  877,  878 

Shawmut  Bank  v.  Plattsburgh,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  31  Vt.  491,  57,  511 

Shay  v.  Terolumie,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Cal.  73,  336 
Shea  v.  Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  154  Mass.  31,  2117 
Shea  v.  Mabry,  1  Lea  (Tenn.)  319,  385,  512 
Shea  v.  Minneapolis  E.  Co.,  (Minn.)  65  N. 

W.  B.  458,  2331,  2337,  2346 


Shea  v.  Potrero,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Cal.  414, 

1645,  1646 
Shea  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  50  Minn. 

395,  1648 

Shea  v.  Wellington,  163  Mass.  364,      2106,  2120 
Shealy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  72  Wis. 

471,  1676 

Shearer  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  Co.,  43  111.  App. 

641,  2259 

Shearer  v.  E.  S.  Peele  &  Co.,  9  Ind.  App. 

282,  874 

Sheboygan  Co.  v.  Parker,  3  Wall.  93, 

1167, 122S 

Shed  v.  Shed,  3  N.  H.  432,  553 

Shedd  v.  Troy,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  40  Vt.  88,  2484,  2497 
Sheedy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Minn. 

357,  2013 

Sheehan  v.  Good  Samaritan,  etc.,  50  Mo. 

155,  1100,  1102,  1105 

Sheehan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  N.Y. 

332,  2085 

Sheehy  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Mo. 

574,  1404, 1411 

Sheeler  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Va. 

188,  1889, 2004 

Sheennan  v.  Toronto,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Up. 

Can.  Q.  B.  451,  312 

Sheets  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  Ind. 

682,  2006,  2011,  2017,  2066 

Sheets  v.  Connelly  St.  R.  Co.,  54  N.  J.  L.     ' 

518,  1647,  1649, 1981 

Sheets  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  39  W.  Va. 

475,  2506 

Sheets  v.  Wilgus,  56  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  662,       2422 
Sheffield  v.  Collins,  3  Ga.  82,  1327 

Sheffield,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Unwin,  L.  R.  2.  C. 

B.  Div.  214,  347 

Sheffield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woodcock,  7 

Mees.  &  W.  574,  204 

Shelbury  v.  Scotsford,  —  Yelv.  23,  23S7 

Shelby  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  111.  385,  905 
Shelby  County  v.  Jarnagin,  (Tenn.)  16  S. 

W.  R.  1040,  1237 

Shelby  County  Ct.  v.  Cumberland,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  8  Bush  (Ky.)  209,        1173,  1200, 1231,  1258 
Shelby  R.  Co.  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co., 

145  U.  S.  409,  I'-'T) 

Shelbyville  R.  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  82  Ky.  541,  2193,  2256 

Shelbyville,  etc.,  Tump.  Co.  v.  Green,  99 

Ind.  205,  1405 

Sheldon  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

N.  Y.  218,  1779, 1888,  1938, 1939 

Sheldon  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

Minn.  318,  1431,1500 

Sheldon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Eickemeyer,  etc.,  Co., 

90  N.  Y.  607,  323,  347,  510 


CCCXCV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1S62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S7S5.] 


Shellabarger  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 

Iowa  18,  1814 

Shellenberg  v.  Fremont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

Neb.  487,  2283,  2397,  2695 

Sheley  v.  Detroit,  45  Mich.  431,  1105 

Shellington  v.  Howland,  53  N.  Y.  371, 

256,  257,  270 

Shelton  v.  Banks,  10  Gray  (Mass.)  401,  22 

Shelly  v.  Guy,  11  Wheat.  361,  1087 

Shelton  v.  Mayor,  30  Ala.  540,  278 

Shelton  v.  Merchants'  D.  T.  Co.,  36  N.  Y. 

S.  C.  527,  2190 

Shelton  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

Ohio  St.  214,  2487,  2490,  2505 

Shelton  v.  Merchants'  D.  T.  Co.,  59  N.  Y. 

258,  2211,  2325,  2354,  2358 

Shelton  v.  Platt,  139  U.  S.  591,  1070 

Shenandoah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lucado,  86 

Va.  390,  2021,  2038 

Shenandoah  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Griffith, 

76  Va.  913,  146,  852,  891 

Shenk  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Propeller  Co., 

60  Pa.  St.  109,  2279,  2350,  2359 

Shenners  v.  West  Side  R.  Co.,  78  Wis.  382, 

1647 

Shepard  v.  Be  Bernales,  13  East  565,          2423 
Shepard  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158  Mass. 

174,  2033,  2091,  2120 

Shepard  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  Y. 

641,  1820, 1831, 1839, 1865 

Shepard  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Mo. 

629,  2713 

Shepard  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Hun 

634,  2018 

Shepard  v.  Northwestern  Life  Ins.  Co.,  40 

Fed.  R.  341,  1119,  1121,  1124, 1129 

Shepardson  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

Wis.  605,  1545, 1549, 1551 

Shepardson  v.  Rowland,  28  Wis.  108,          1296 
Shepaug  Voting  Trust  Cases,  60  Conn. 

553,  616 

Sheperd  v.  Naylor,  5  Gray  (Mass.)  591,        2207 
Shepherd's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Eq.  564,  134 

Shepherd  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130 

U.  S.  426,  1564 

Shepherd  v.  Bradstreet  Co.,  65  Fed.  R. 

142,  946, 947 

Shepherd  v.  Pepper,  133  U.  S.  626,  s.  c.  10 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  438,  688 

Shepley  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Me. 

395,  100,  638,  643,  684, 1351 

Shepley  v.  Cowan,  91  U.  S.  330,  1127, 1136 

Sheppard  v.  Newhall,  54  Fed.  R.  306, 

2389,  2391,  2392,  2394 
Sheridan  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mo. 

App.  68,  1724, 1726 


Sheridan  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y. 

39,  2586 

Sheridan  v.  New  Quay,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Com. 

B.  (N.  S.)  618,  2386,  2387 

Sheridan  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Chatham, 

etc.,  Bank,  127  N.  Y.  517,  354 

Sheridan  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Chatham 

Nat.  Bank,  52  Hun.  575,  509 

Sherley  v.  Billings,  8  Bush  (Ky.)  147, 

2580,2584 
Sherlock  v.  Ailing,  93  U.  S.  99, 

967,  2128,  2151,  2648,  2653 
Sherlock  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 

Ind.  22,  546, 1320, 1453 

Sherlock  v.  Winnetka,  68  111.  530,  1219 

Sherman  v.  Anderson,  27  Kan.  333,  1825 

Sherman  v.  Buick,  32  Cal.  241,  1340, 1386 

Sherman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Minn. 

259,  2030 

Sherman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Iowa 

45,  2497, 299 

Sherman  v.  Commercial  Printing  Co.,  29 

Mo.  App.  31,  300 

Sherman  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Mo. 

62,  1963, 1973,  2060 

Sherman  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  64  N.  Y. 

254,  2370 

Sherman  v.  Leonard,  10  R.  I.  469,  1070 

Sherman  v.  Maine  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86 

Me.  422,  1917 

Sherman  v.  Menominee,  etc.,  Co.,  77  Wis. 

14,  2050, 2704 

Sherman  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

Wis.  645,  1454,  1540, 1543 

Sherman  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  1  Fed.  R. 

226,  2270 
Sherman  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

N.  Y.  153,  2091 

Sherman  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn. 

227,  1-434, 1514, 1516, 1520,  1521 
Sherman  v.  Wells,  28  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  403,     2178 
Sherman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Morris,  43  Kan.  282,     509 
Sherman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Swigart,  43  Kan.  292, 

390,394 
Sherman  County  v.  Simons,  109  U.  S.  735, 

1241 
Shermerhorn  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

38  N.  Y.  103,  1839 

Shermerhorn  v.  Mt.  McGregor,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  52  N.  Y.  S.  R.  892,  1658,  1665 

Sherrard  v.  Lafayette  County,  3  Dill.  236, 

1242 
Sherrill  v.  Weisiger,  etc.,  Co.,  114  N.  Car. 

436,  325 

Sherry  v.  Perkins,  147  Mass.  212,          910,  2688 
Sherwood  v.  Saginaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 
Mich.  317,  1582 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCXC1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  M3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Sherwood  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R  Co.,  21  Minn. 

127,  1429, 1431,  1433, 1519,  1521, 1528,  1530 

Sherwood  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Minn. 

122,  1297.  1420, 1528 

Sherwood  v.  Whiting,  54  Conn.  330,  553 

Shewalter  v.  Pirner,  55  Mo.  218,  489 

Shick  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  1  Pears. 

(Pa.)  264,  1420 

Shickle  v.  Watts,  94  Mo.  410,  131,  157, 166,  261 
Shickle,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wiley,  etc.,  Co.,  61 

Mich.  226,  882 

Shields  v.  Casey,  155  Pa.  St.  253,  157 

Shields  v.  Clifton,  etc..  Co.,  94  Tenn.  123,  19 
Shields  v.  Coleman,  157  TJ.  S.  168,  786 

Shields  v.  Ohio,  95  U.  S.  319, 

463,  860,  869, 1064, 1065 

Shields  v.  Yonge,  15  Ga.  349,  2125 

ShiUabar  v.  Robinson,  97  U.  S.  68,  682 

Shinkle  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Fed. 

R.  690,  2658 

Shinner  v.  Ft.  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  58 

Fed.  R.  55,  147 

Shinners  v.  Proprietors,  etc.,  154  Mass. 

168,  2117 

Ship  v.  Crosskill,  L.  R.  10  Eq.  Cas.  73,  194 
Ship  Howard  v.  Wissman,  18  How.  (U.  S.) 

231,  2205, 2301 

Shipley  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Md. 

336,  1425, 1426 

Shipley  v.  Continental,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  13 

Phila.  (Pa.)  128,  9 

Shipley  v.  Mechanics'  Bank,  10  Johns. 

(N.  Y.)  484,  147 

Shipley  v.  City  of  Terre  Haute,  74  Ind.  297, 

1206, 1210, 1594, 1595 
Shipman  v.  .Etna  Insurance  Co.,  29  Conn. 

245,  137 

Shipper  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  47  Pa. 

St.  338,  474,  2166,  2282 

Shippy  v.  Village  of  Au  Sable,  85  Mich. 

280,  1982 

Shirk  v.  La  Fayette,  52  Fed.  R.  857,  658 

Shirk  v.  Thomas,  121  Ind.  147,  1488 

Shirk  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  (Ind.  App.)  42 

N.  E.  R.  656,  1781,  1785, 1981 

Shirley  v.  Waco  Tap.  R.  Co.,  78  Tex.  131,  717 
Shivers  v.  Wilson,  5  Earr  &  John.  130,  990 
Shober  v.  Lancaster,  etc.,  Assn.,  68  Pa.  St. 

429,  155 

Shockley  v.  Fisher,  75  Mo.  498,  212,  264,  853 
Shoemaker  v.  Kingsbury,  12  Wall.  2,  369,  2449 
Shoemaker  v.  United  States,  147  U.  S.  282, 

1338, 1414, 1419, 1435, 1470 
Sholl  v.  German  Coal  Co.,  118  111  427, 

1340, 1365 

Shoninger  v.  Day,  53  Mo.  App.  147,  2394 

Shorb  v.  Beaudry,  56  Cal.  446,  869 


Short  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Fed.  R. 

225,  940, 941 

Short  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Fed.  R. 

114,  929, 941 

Short  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

Miss.  848,  2047,  2706 

Short  v.  Stevenson,  63  Pa.  St.  95,  20 

Shorter  v.  Rome,  52  Ga.  621,  1240 

Shorter  v.  Smith,  9  Ga.  517,  48 

Shortle  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  130  Ind. 

505,  1459 

Shortle  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131 

Ind.  338,  1302 

Shotwell  v.  Smith,  3  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 

588,  747 

Shover  v.  Myrick,  4  Ind.  App.  7,  2151 

Shrainka  v.  Rohan,  18  Mo.  App.  340,          1599 
Shreveport  v.  Cole,  129  U.  S.  36,  2127 

Shrewsbury  R.  Co.  v.  Chester  R.  Co.,  14 

L.  T.  217,  749 

Shrewsbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  London,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  17  Q.  B.  652,  499 

Shrewsbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  London,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  2  Mac.  &  G.  324,  2663 

Shrewsbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northwestern, 

R.  Co.,  6  H.  L.  Cas.  113,  475,  643 

Shrewsbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stour  Valley 

Ry.  Co.,  21  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  628,  448 

Shrewsbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stour  Valley 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  De  G.  M.  &  G.  866,  640 

Shriver  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 

Minn.  506,  2250,  2267,  2346 

Shropshire  Union  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Queen, 

L.  R.  7  H,  L.  496,  138 

Shrunk  v.  President,  etc.,  Schuylkill 

Nav.  Co.,  14  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  71,  1401 

Shubrick  v.  Salmond,  3  Burr.  1637,  2290 

Shuettgen  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Wis.  498,  2002 

Shufelt  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Mich.  327, 

1777, 1800 
Shaman  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

111.  App.  472,  1854 

Shumway  v.  Wai  worth,  etc.,  Co.,  98  Mich. 

411,  2083 

Shurley  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  (Pa.  St.) 

15  Atl.  R.  567,  1807 

Shurtz  v.  Schoolcraft  &  T.  R.  R.  Co,,  9 

Mich.  269,  28 

Shute  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  111.  436,   1545 
Shyrock  v.  Bashore,  82  Pa.  St.  159,  854 

Sibilrud  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

Minn.  58,  1901 

Sibley  v.  City  of  Mobile,  3  Woods  535,         1160 
Sibley  v.  Quinsigamond  Nat.  Bank,  133 

Mass.  515,  145 

Sibley  v.  Smith,  46  Ark.  275,  2713 


cccc 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-442,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  ITT,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-2725.] 


Sicardi  v.  Keystone  Oil  Co.,  149  Pa.  St. 

148,  855 

Sichler  v.  Look,  93  Cal.  600,  665 

Sickles  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App. )  ,35  S.  W.  R.  493,  2468,  2704 

Siddall  v.  Pacific  Mills  Co.,  162  Mass.  378,  2022 
Sidenbender  v.  Charles,  4  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.) 

151,  521 

Sidener  v.  Norristown,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co., 

23  Ind.  623,  1546, 1547 

Sides  v.  Portsmouth,  59  N.  H.  24,  1642 

Sidman  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  In- 

terst,  Com.  R.  512,  2501 

Sidney,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bird,  L.  R.  31  Ch.  Div. 

328,  15 

Siebe  v.  Joshua,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Cal.  390,  391 
Siebert  v.  Rosser,  24  Minn.  155,  1134, 1135 

Siebold,  Ex  parte,  100  U.  S.  371,  967 

Siela  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Mo. 

430,  2012 

Siford's  Case,  11  Coke  46,  536 

Sika-v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Wis.  370,  1866 
Sikes  v.  State,  (Tex.)  28  S.  W.  R.  688,  1054 
Silberman  v.  Clark,  96  N.  Y.  522,  2213 

Silk  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  27  N.  J.  L.  539, 

242,  876 

Sill  v.  Village  of  Corning,  15  N.  Y.  297,  982 
Silliman  v.  Fredericksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

27  Gratt.  (Va.)  119,  76,  310,  629,  633,  639 

Silver  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  Co.,  78  Mo.  528, 

1808, 1820, 1822 

Silver  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  101  Mo.  79,  1377 
Silver  Hook  R.  v.  Greene,  12  R.  1. 164, 

204,  205,  319,  320,  355 
Silverthorne  v.  Warren  R.  Co.,  33  N.  J.  L. 

173,  924 

Simkins  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  S.  Co.,  11  Cush. 

102,  2210 

Simmonds  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

Conn.  264,  1894, 1907, 1911 

Simmons  v.  Law,  3  Keyes  (N.  Y.)  217,  2359 
Simmons  v.  Mumford,  5  R.  I.  472,  1070 

Simmons  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  Co.,  113  N.C.  147,  76 
Simmons  v.  Poughkeepsie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

N.  Y.  S.  632,  1845 

Simmons  v.  Taylor,  38  Fed.  R.  682,  628 

Simmons  Hardware  Co.  v.  Waibel,  1  So. 

Dak.  488,  736 

Simms  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  26  S. 

Car.  490,  2169 

Simon  v.  Sevier,  etc.,  Co.,  54  Ark  58,  360,  853 
Simon  v.  Steamship  FungShuey,  21  La. 

Ann.  363,  2329 

Simons  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  18  C.  B. 

805,  2315 

Simons  v.  Mining  Co.,  61  Pa.  St.  202,  17 


Simons  v.  Southwestern  R.  Bank,  5  Rich. 

Eq.  (S.  C.)  270.  13» 

Simons  v.  Vulcan  Oil,  etc.,  Co.,  61  Pa.  St. 

202,  17,  19,  373,  375,  578 

Simonson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

Iowa  87.  215* 

Simonson  v.  Thompson,  25  Minn.  450,  1126 
Simpson  v  Building  Assn.,  38  Ohio  St. 

349,  507 

Simpson  v.  Denison,  10  Hare  51,  573- 

Simpson  v.  Moore,  30  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  637, 

418,  422. 
Simpson  v  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  J. 

&  S.  (N.  Y.)  419,  1880 

Simpson  v  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

N.  Y.  Supp.  341,  2611 

Simpson  v  Ottawa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Ch. 

Chamb.  R.  (Can.)  126,  739 

Simpson  v.  Reynolds,  71  Mo.  594,       '  260 

Simpson  v.  Westminster  Hotel  Co.,  8  H. 

L.  Gas.  712,  492- 

Simpson  Co.  v  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

19  S.  W.  R.  (Ky.)665,  124 

Sims  v.  Adams,  78  Ala.  395.  774 

Sims  v.  Hines,  121  Ind.  534,  1552 

Sims  v.  Street  R.  Co.,  37  Ohio  St.  556, 

162,  346,  378,  385- 
Singer  v  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  6  Mo. 

App.  427,  632,  642,  64S 

Singer,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Elizabeth,  42  N.  J.  L. 

249,  1158- 

Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  McCollock,  24  Fed.  R. 

667,  715 

Singer  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Union,  etc., 

Co.,  1  Holmes  (U.  S.)  253,  13(X> 

Singerly  v.  Pox,  75  Pa.  St.  112,  785,  793,  79t> 
Single  v.  Supervisors,  38  Wis.  364,  1172. 

Singleton  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Com. 

B.  (N.  S.)  287,  1828,  2002 

Singleton  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  41  Mo.  465,  2703 
Singleton  v.  Southwestern  R.  Co.,  70  Ga. 

464,  525, 60$ 

Sinia  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Miss. 

547,  1455 

Sinking  Fund  Cases,  99  U.  S.  700,  869, 113s 
Sinnett  v.  Moles,  38  Iowa  25,  191, 121S 

Sinnickson  v.  Johnson,  17  N.  J.  Law  129,  1413 
Sinnot  v.  Davenport,  22  How.  227,  1076,  2(55(5 
Sinram  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Ind. 

244,  1804 

Siordet  v.  Hall,  4  Bing.  607,  2268,  2299 

Siordet  v.  Hall,  1  Stra.  128,  '2268 

Sioux  City  v.  Weare,  59  Iowa  95,  1144 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  Co.  v  Griffey,  72  Iowa 

505,  1124,  112> 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  Land  Co.  v.  Griffey,  143 

U.  S.  32,  1132 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCC1 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-t, 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-S16U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  3165-2725.} 


Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  117  U.  S.  406,  1132 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  27  Fed.  R  770.  1269,1276,1278 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Countryman, 

159  U.  S.  377,  1129 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co  v.  Finlayson,  16 

Neb.  578,  2068 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  First.  Nat. 

Bank,  10  Neb.  556,  414,  415,  2199,  2204 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v  Osceola  Co.,  43 

Iowa  318,  1135 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sioux  City,  138 

U.  S.  98,  971 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sioux  City,  78 

Iowa  367,  1641 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  22  Neb. 

775,  2091 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

159  U.  S.  349,  1129 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weimer,  16  Neb. 

272,  1517,  1518 

Sira  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  Mo.  127, 

2454,  2480 
Sisco  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  R  Co.,  145  N.  Y.  296, 

1999,  2032 
Sitgreaves  v.  Farmers  ,  etc.,  Bank,  49  Pa. 

St.  359,  144 

Sixth  Avenue  R.  Co    v.   Kerr,  45  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  138,     4  1368,  1370,  1372,  1388,  1396 

Sjoberg  v.  Nordin,  26  Minn  501,  986 

Skelton  v.  Bliss,  7  Ind.  77,  1133 

Skiddy  v  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Hughes 

(U.S.)  320,  669 

Skidmoro  v.  West  Virginia,  et^  .  R.  Co., 

(W.  Va.)  23  S.  E.  R.  713,  2031 

Skillman  v.  Bollman,  73  Mo.  665,  2220 

Skinner  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Fed. 

R.  188,  2583 

Skinner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Iowa 

191,  2376 

Skinner  v.  Dayton,  19  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  513,     267 
Skinner  v.  Ft.  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Fed. 

R.  55,  145 

Skinner  v.  Hall,  60  Me.  477,  2227,  2243 

Skinner  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Ex.  787, 

2568 
Skinner  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Jur. 

289,  614 

Skinner  v.  Lucas,  68  Mich.  424,  786 

Skinner  v.  Maxwell,  66  N.  Car.  45, 

734,  736,  784,  785,  788,  808 
Skinner  v.  Nixon,  7  Jones  L.  (N.  Car.)  342, 

1554 
Skinner  v.  Smith,  134  N.  Y.  240,  483 

CORP. — xxvi 


Skip  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Eng.  L.  & 

Eq.  R.  396,  2035 

Skipp  v.  Eastern  Counties,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 

Exch.  223,  2073 

Skottowe  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Ore. 

430,  2589 

Skowhegan  Bank  v.  Cutler,  49  Me.  315,  146 
Skowhegan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kinsman,  77 

Me.  370,  173 

Skrainka  v.  Allen,  76  Mo.  384,  130 

Skrainka  v.  Scharringhausen,  8  Mo.  App. 

522,  532 

Skyrme  v.  Occidental,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Nev.  219, 

1605 
Slack  v.  Maysville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  B.  Mon. 

1,  1144, 1145, 1147, 1159, 1211, 1249 

Slade  v.  Van  Vechten,  11  Paige  21,  379 

Slater  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Iowa 

209,  1790 

Slater  v.  Jewett,  85  N.  Y.  61, 

2010, 2019,  2037,  2089 
Slater  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  2  Interst.. 

Com.  R.  243,  '2522 

Slater  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  29  S.  Car. 

96,  2264,  2265,  2347 

Slater  Woolen  Co.  v.  Lamb,  143  Mass.  420,  590 
Slatten  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Iowa 

148,  64,  1564,  1676,  2449 

Slattery  v.  O'Connell,  153  Mass.  94,  1983 

Slattery  v.  O'Connell,  10  L.  R.  A.  653,  1978 
Slattery  v.  Railroad  Co.,  23  Ind.  81,  2011, 2080 
Slattery  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mo. 

217,  878 

Slaughter  House  Cases,  16  Wall.  36,  961,  2650 
Slavens  v.  South  Pacific  Railroad  Co.,  51 

Mo.  308,  884 

Slayden  v.  Seip,  25  Mo.  App.  439,  426,  433 

Sleade  v.  Payne,  14  La.  Ann.  453, 

2354,  2358,  2370 

Sleat  v.  Fagg,  5  Barn.  &  Aid.  342,  2236,  2345 
Sleath  v.  Wilson,  9  Car.  &  P.  607,  303 

Slee  v.  Bloom,  5  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  366, 

88,  258,  735 
Slee  v.  Bloom,  19  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  456, 

218,  859,  861 

Slee  v.  Bloom,  20  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  669,  258 

Sleeper  v.  Goodwin,  67  Wis.  577,  258,  267,  269 
Sleeper  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  100  Pa.  St. 

259,  2483, 2500 

Slemmons  v.  Thompson,  23  Ore.  215,  147 

Slim  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

C.  B.  647,  254:{ 

Slim  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

L.  J.  C.  P.  2188, 
Slipher  v.  Earhart,  83  Ind.  173,  113, 17:< 


CCCC11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  !-!>/£,  Vol.  II.  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  3165-S725.] 


Sloan  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  62  Iowa  728, 

320,  408,  812,  813,  2061,  2108 
Sloan  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Ga.  15, 

2019,  2071 
Sloan  v.  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  61  Mo.  24, 

4,  958,  962 

Sloan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Mo.  220,  2289 
Sloane  v.  Anderson,  117  U.  S.  275,  939 

Slocum's  Appeal,  12  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  84,       1270 
Slocum  v.  Fairchild,  7  Hill  292,  2243 

Slocum  v.  Warren,  10  R.  1. 112,  252 

Sloman  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  6  Hun 

546,  2612,  2614, 2630 

Slossen  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

10  N.  W.  R.  860,  1942 

Slossen  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Iowa 

215,  1920,  1943 

Small  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Iowa  338, 

1810,  1811,  1870,  1873,  1937 
Small  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  <Iowa)  6 

Cent.  L.  J.  310,  1894 

Small  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Ga.  602,   1354 
Small  v.  Herkimer,  etc.,  Co.,  2  N.  Y.  330, 

215,  218 
Small  v.  Lawrenceburg,  etc.,  Co.,  128  Ind. 

231,  1069 

Small  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  45  Minn. 

264,  911 

Small  v.  Saloy,  42  La.  Ann.  183,  134 

Smalley  v.  Renken,  85  Iowa  612,  664 

Smart  v.  Louisiana,  etc.,  Co.,  47  La.  Ann. 

869,  2034 

Smart  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

N.  H.  233,  1460,  1509, 1560 

Smead  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

Ind.  104,  618,  620 

Smedis  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  Y. 

13,  1627, 1644, 1759 

Smedley  v.  Erwin,  51  Pa.  St.  445,  1341 

Smelser  v.  Wayne,  etc.,  Turnpike  Co.,  82 

Ind.  417,  876 

Smith's  Appeal,  69  Pa.  St.  474,  555 

Smith  v.  Adams,  130  U.  S.  167,  979 

Smith  v.  Alabama,  124  U.  S.  465, 

69,  967,  968, 1045,  2640,  2648 

Smith  v.  Allison,  23  Ind.  366,  176,  182 

Smith  v.  Alvord,  63  Barb.  415,  362 

Smith  v.  American  Coal  Co.,  7  Lans. 

(N.  Y.)  317,  146 

Smith  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  (Mich.)  66 

N.  W.  R.  479,  2233,  2264, 2320,  2332,  2347 

Smith  v.  Arnold,  106  Mass.  269,  523 

Smith  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Kan. 

7&S  19X1 

Smith  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Ohio 

St.  91,  1466 


Smith  v.  Baker,  42  Hun  504,  136 

Smith  v.  Bank  of  the  State,  18  Ind.  327,  342 
Smith  v.  Bivens,  56  Fed.  R.  352,  1413 

Smith  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  N.  H.  337,  890 
Smith  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  H  458, 

1570,  1576 
Smith  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  N.  H.  325, 

2611,2622 
Smith  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  N.  H.  25, 

1894, 1939 
Smith  v.  Bourbon  County,  127  U.  S.  105, 

1213, 1257 
Smith  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Iowa 

73,  2112,2122 

Smith  v.  Canada  Car  Co.,  6  Upper  Can. 

Pr.  R.  107,  134 

Smith  v.  Chamberlain,  38  S.  C  529,  282 

Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Wis. 

520,  2012 

Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Wis.  17, 

106,720 
Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (S.  Dak.) 

62  N.  W.  R.  967,  2151 

Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  S.  Dak. 

30,  2070 

Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  S.  Dak. 

71,  1766 

Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  108  Mo. 

243,  2476 

Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Iowa  512, 

879,  881, 1834,  1836 
Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Iowa 

518,  1823, 1841 

Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Iowa 

506,  1806 

Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  111.  511, 

1356,  1384, 1391, 1496,  1497  1499 
Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  111.  191, 

1483,  1486,  1491, 1559 

Smith  v.  City  of  Boston,  7  Gush.  254,  1631 

Smith  v.  City  of  Madison,  7  Ind.  86,  1104 

Smith  v.  City  of  Newborn,  70  N.  C.  14,  1104 
Smith  v.  City  of  Rochester,  92  N.  Y.  463,  1397 
Smith  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Ga. 

539,  2302, 2415 

Smith  v.  Colorado,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Fed.  R. 

399,  271 

Smith  v.  Connelly's  Heirs,  1 T.  B.  Mon. 

(Ky.)  58,  1527 

Smith  v.  Conway,  17  N.  H.  586,  1372 

Smith  v.  County  of  Clark,  54  Mo.  58, 

632,  634,  m7,  1240 
Smith  v.  Crescent  City,  etc.,  Co.,  30  La. 

Ann.  l'!7-<,  14fi 

Smith  v.  Danzig, 64  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  320,  742 
Smith  v.  Davis,  30  Cal.  536,  1104 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCC111 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-tM,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol 
Smith  v.  Dickson,  58  Iowa  444, 
Smith  v.  Dorn,  96  Cal.  73,  239 

Smith  v.  Downey,  8  Ind.  App.  175,  891 

Smith  v.  East,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Ga  183,        2137 
Smith  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  E.  Co  ,  35  N.  H. 

356,  1872 

Smith  v.  Eastern  R.  R.  Co.,  124  Mass.  154, 

648,  891,  892 
Smith  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  167  Pa.  St. 

209,  2721 
Smith  v.  Effingham,  2  Beav.  232,  783 
Smith  v.  Erb,  4  Gill  437,                                   342 
Smith's  Estate,  140  Pa.  St.  344,               422,  425 
Smith  v.  Evans,  6  Binney  102,                        562 
Smith  v.  Ferris,  6  Hun  (N.  Y  )  553,     1483, 1488 
Smith  v.  Findley,  34  Kan.  316,                       2424 
Smith  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Mich.  258,    2015 
Smith  v.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  43  Fed. 

R.  731,  629 

Smith  v.  Goldsworthy,  4  Q.  B.  (4  Ad.  &  E. 

N.  S.)  430,  126 

Smith  v.  Gould,  59  Wis.  631,  1343 

Smith  v.  Gower,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  171,  702 

Smith  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  35  U.  C.  Q. 

B.  547,  2626 

Smith  v.  Great  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

2  C.  P.  4,  2585 

Smith  v.  Greenhow,  109  U.  S.  669,  942 

Smith  v.  Hestonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Pa. 

St.  450,  1982 

Smith  v.  Hollett,  34  Ind.  519,  211 

Smith  v.  Hopkins,  10  Wash.  77,  786 

Smith  v.  Home,  8  Taunt.  144,  2315 

Smith  v.  Huckabee,  53  Ala.  191,  212,  261 

Smith  v.  Humeston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Iowa 

583,  2112 

Smith  v.  Humphrey,  20  Mich.  398,  1071 

Smith  v.  Hurd,  12  Mete.  (Mass.)  371, 

336,  397,  438,  576 

Smith  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Ind.  61,    207 
Smith  v.  Inge,  80  Ala.  283,  1560 

Smith  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58 

Iowa  622,  1878 

Smith  v.  Lansing,  22  N.  Y.  520,  376 

Smith  v.  Law,  21  N.  Y.  296,  238 

Smith  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  6  C. 

P.  14,  1936, 1939 

Smith  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5  C. 

P.  98,  1901, 1903,  1909, 1910 

Smith  T.  Los  Angeles  I  in.,  etc.,  Assn.,  78 

Cal.  289,  358 

Smith  v.  Los  Angeles  Super.  Ct.,  97  Cal. 

348,  760 

Smith  v.  Los  Angeles,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Cal. 

210,  460 
Smith  v.  Louisville,  etc.,R.  Co.,  124  Ind. 

394,  1991,  2465,  2581 


in,  pp.  ms-em,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 

Smith  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Ky.  11, 

1962, 1963 
Smith  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Miss. 

510,  1377 

Smith  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Ala. 

449,  955,  974,  1034,  2128 

Smith  v.  Lyon,  133  U.  S.  315,  928,  929 

Smith  v.  Maine  Central  R.  Co.,  87  Me.  339, 

1791 
Smith  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  Co.,  45  N.  /.  S. 

R.  865,  299 

Smith  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  N.  Y 

Supp.  759,  2475,  2580 

Smith  v,  Mayor,  etc.,  of  Saginaw,  81  Mich. 

123,  925 

Smith  v.  McCarthy,  56  Pa.  St.  359,  478 

Smith  v.  McCullough,  104  U.  S.  25, 

646,653,836 

Smith  v.  McNamara,  15  Hun  (N.  Y.)  447,    807 
Smith  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  R. 

304,  2020 

Smith  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  Co.,  (Tenn.)  1  S. 

W.  R.  104,  1990 

Smith  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 

N.  Y.  Supp.  1062,  2127 

Smith  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  100  Mich. 

148,  2412 

Smith  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  57  L.  T.  R.  813,    2404 
Smith  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Mo. 

App.  65,  1847 

Smith  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Mo. 

App.  80,  2246 

Smith  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Mo.  70, 

2052 
Smith  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  N.  H.  86, 

476,  537,  540,  2350,  2368,  2377,  2378 
Smith  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.Co.,  (Tenn.) 

18  S.  W.  R.  546,  136 

Smith  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Tenn. 

221,  138,  139, 145 
Smith  v.  Newbaur,  (Ind.)  42  N.  E.  Rep.  40, 

1598 
Smith  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Allen 

531,  2296,  2399,  2403,  2407 

Smith  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Cc  ;  59 Conn. 

203,  987,  1671 

Smith  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  N.  J. 

L.  7,  1035 

Smith  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  18  Abb.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  419,  854 

Smith  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  N.  Y. 

Supp.  400,  1770 

Smith  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Barb. 

225,  2250 

Smith  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y. 

222,  2318, 2511 


CCCC1V 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT.  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  1263-216H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

•j.1*    XT \7^_ .!_      «     —        T>      /""*,»        OO      II  ....  kJ»«:4l.    ,,     L:,..,  *-l,  ,..-,.*.,,-...,    T>      O^        OTt   T         T      /"* 


Smith  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Hun 

468,  2019, 2071 

Smith  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  N.  Y. 

58,  970,  1718,  1734 

Smith  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  114  N.  Car. 

728,  1759,  1953,  1956,  1967 

Smith  v.  North  Carolina,  R.  Co.,  68  N.  C. 

107,  276, 367 

Smith  v.  North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  64  N.  Car. 

235,  2321,  2347,  2632 

Smith  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  N.  Dak. 

17,  1936 

Smith  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  58  Fed. 

R.  513,  1128,  1132 

Smith  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.Co.,  1  Interst. 

C.  R.  611,  2687 

Smith  v.  Occidental,  etc..  Steamship  Co., 

99  Cal.  462,  2150 

Smith  v.  O'DonneU,  8  Lea  (Tenn.)  468, 

1581.  1585 
Smith  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  R.  I. 

22,  1895,  1905,  1940,  2009 

Smith  v.  Osborn,  53  Iowa  474,  1071 

Smith  v.  Oxford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  N.  J. 

Law  467,  1997,  2016 

Smith  v.  Peninsular  Car  Works,  60  Mich. 

501,  2023, 2068 

Smith  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160 

Pa.  St.  117,  1772 

Smith  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Pa. 

Co.  Rep.  R.  555,  2501 

Smith  v.  Poor,  40  Me.  415,  385,  427,  438 

Smith  v.  Poor,  3  Ware  (U.  S.)  148,  383 

Smith  v.  Port  Dover,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Am. 

&  Eng,  R.  Gas.  639,  736,  737,  738,  739,  741 

Smart  v.  Portsmouth  R.  Co.,  20  N.  H.  233, 

1550 

Smith  v.  Potter,  46  Mich.  258,  2009,  2014,  2088 
Smith  v.  Preferred,  etc.,  Assn.,  51  Fed.  R. 

520,  1573 

Smith  v.  Putnam,  61  N.  H.  632,  325,  855 

Smith  v.  Railroad,  99  U.  S.  398,  1262 

Smith  v.  Railway  Co.,  88  Tenn.  611,  1449 

Smith  v.  Reading  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Pa. 

Co.  Ct.  R.  49,  585 

Smith  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  N. 

Car.  241,  2553 

Smith  v.  Rude,  etc.,  Co.,  131  Ind.  150,  109 1 
Smith  v.  School  District,  40  Mich.  143,  1 172 
Smith  v.  Soward,  3  Pa.  St.  342,  2693 

Smith  v.  Shwley,  12  Wall.  a58,  542,  552 

Smith  v.  Silver  Valley,  etc.,  Co..  64  Md.  85, 

24,236 

Smith  v.  Skeary,  47  Conn.  47.  855 

Smith  v.  Smith,  3  Des.  Eq.  S.  Car.  557,  374 
Smith  v.  Smith,  62  111.  493,  394 


Smith  v. 

P.  346, 
Smith  v. 

350, 
Smith  v. 


Southeastern  R.  Co.,  39  L.  J.  C. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Tenn.  Ch. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Mo.  418, 


932 


2450 
Smith  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn. 

169,  2703 

Smith  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Minn.  1, 

1798,  2179,  2460,  2567,  2597 
Smith  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Minn. 

17,  2111 

Smith  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Minn. 

86,  2060 

Smith  v.  State,  21  Ark.  294,  86 

Smith  v.  State,  28  Ind.  321,  1054 

Smith  v.  State,  140  Ind.  343,  926 

Smith  v.  Stokes,  4  B.  &  S.  84,  1639 

Smith  v.  Street  R.  Co.,  87  Tenn.  626,  1636 

Smith  v.  Tallahassee,  etc.,  Co.,  30  Ala.  650, 

173,  192,  196,  24» 
Smith  v.  Trenton,  etc.,  Co.,  17  N.  J.  Law  5, 

1469 

Smith  v.  Tripp,  13  R.  I.  211,  2l:i> 

Smith  v.  Turner,  7  How.  283,  26:57 

Smith  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  141  Ind.  92, 

1774,  1734,  2108,  213* 
Smith  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Mo.  359, 

2084 
Smith  v.  Washington,  20  How.  (U.  S.)  135, 

141& 

Smith  v.  Wells,  20  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  158,       758- 
Smith  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Ala.  455, 

2264 

Smith  v.  Wilcox,  24  N.  Y.  353,  916 

Smith,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Butts,  72  Miss.  269,         160* 
Smith,  etc.,  Purifier  Co.  v.  McGroarty, 

136  U.S.  237,  .vl 

Smith  Bridge  Co.  v.  Bowman,  41  Ohio  St. 

37,  1599 

Smith  Bridge  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  72  111.  506,  1600 

Smoot  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Ala.  13, 

2025,  2078,  2088 
Smotherman  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.Co.,  29 

Mo.  App.  265,  255& 

Smyrl  v.  Niolon,  2  Bailey  Law  421,  2265 

Smyth  v.  Burns,  25  Miss.  422,  138 

Smythe  v.  Boswell,  117  Ind.  365,  983,  1015 

Smythe  v.  Scott,  124  Ind.  183,  874 

Snead  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  11 

Ind.  104,  23 

Sneath  v.  Valley  Gold,  L  R.  (1893)  1  Ch. 

477, 

Sneathen  v.  Grubbs,  88  Pa.  St.  147,  2196 

Snee  v.  Prescot,  1  Atk.  3,  245,  2390 

Snell's  Case,  L.  R.  5  Chan.  22,  21& 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCV 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2161*  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S725.] 


Snell  v.  Brown,  71  111.  133,  1572, 1577 

Snell  v.  Campbell,  24  Fed.  R.  880,  1161 

Snell  v.  City  of  Chicago,  133  111.  413, 

100, 109,  869 
Snell  v.  City  of  Chicago,  152  U.  S.  191, 

638,692 

Snell  v.  Cottingham,  72  111.  161,  1570 

Snellbaker  v.  Paducah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ky. 

597,  283 

Snider  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  77  Mo.  523,  2696 
Snider  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  63  Mo.  376, 

2323,2324 
Snider  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Mo. 

465,  1847 

Snider's  Sons  Co.  v.  Troy,  91  Ala.  224,  273 

Snively  v.  Loomis  Coal  Co.,  11  Nat.  Rep. 

207,  836 

Snoddy  v.  County  of  Pettis,  45  Mo.  361,  1534 
Snook  v.  Georgia  Imp.  Co.,  83  Ga.  61, 

67,  72, 184,  235,  895 
Snow  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Me.  230, 

1516,  1517,  1518,  1519, 1520, 1521, 1525 
Snow  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  12  Met.  (Mass.) 

44,  2631 

Snow  v.  Fitchburgh,  R.  Co.,  136  Mass. 

552,  1965 

Snow  v.  Housatonic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Allen 

441,  1997 

Snow  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  Ind.  422, 

2199,  2209,  2210,  2228,  2236,  2238,  2325,  2697, 2699 
Snow  v.  Smith,  4  Hughes  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  204,  938 
Snow  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fed.  R.  1,  932 
Snow  v.  United  States,  118  U.  S.  346,  930 

Snow  v.  Winslow,  54  Iowa  200,  784,  835,  844 
Snowden  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  Mass. 

220,  2558 

Snowden  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  N.  Car. 

93,  1855 

Snowden  v.  Wilas,  19  Ind.  10,  1325, 1326, 1327 
Snyder  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Mo. 

527,  1321, 1552 

Snyder  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo. 

413,  1964,  2463,  2603 

Snyder  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  55  Pa.  St. 

340,  1634 

Snyder  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

W.  Va.  14,  1895, 1923 

Snyder  v.  Studebaker,  19  Ind.  462,  273,  552 
Snyder  v.  Tunitas,  etc.,  Co.,  72  Cal.  194,  141 
Snyder  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Mo. 

613,  1876 
Snyder  v.  Western  Union  R.  Co.,  25  Wis. 

60,  1429, 1516, 1517, 1519, 1520 

Sobernheimer  v.  Wheeler,  45  N.  J.  Eq. 

614,  777 
Sobieski  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Minn. 

169,  1997 


Society  v.  Abbott,  2  Beav.  559,       336,  541, 1073 
Society  v.  Coite,  6  Wall.  594,  1073,  2643 

Society  v.  Goodrich  Transportation  Co.,  7 

Fed.  R.  257,  1915 

Society  v.  London,  29  Conn.  174, 

1155, 1163, 1221, 1224 
Society  v.  Town  of  New  Haven,  8  Wheat. 

(U.  S.)  464,  88,  863 

Sodergren  v.  Flight,  6  East  622,  2446 

Soderman  v.  Kemp,  145  N.  Y.  427,  2054 

Soens  v.  Racine,  10  Wis.  271,  1140 

Solan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  63 

N.  W.  R.  692,  2236,  2640,  2653 

Sollory  v.  Leaver,  L.  R.  9  Eq.  22,  733 

Solomon  v.  Bates,  (N.  Car.)  24  S.  E.  R. 

478,  387 

Solomon  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  103  N.  Y. 

437,  2547 

Solomon  v.  Nicholas,  113  111.  351,  1583 

Solomon's  Lodge  v.  Montmollin,  58  Ga. 

547,  555 

Solomon  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  30  Kan.  601,         2030 
Solon  v.  Williamsburgh,  etc.,  Bank,  114 

N.  Y.  122,  1245 

Somers  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129 

N.  Y.  576,  1411 

Somerset  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke,  61  Me.  379,          169 
Somerset,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gushing,  45  Me. 

524,  174, 210 

Somerville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doughty,  22  N. 

J.  L.  495,  1433, 1437, 1443, 1514 

Soon  Hing  v.  Crowley,  113  U.  S.  703,  1624 

Soper  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  310,  246,  367,  393 

Sorenson  v.  Menasha,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Wis. 

338,  2050,2065 

Sorrell  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  75  Ga.  509,  1011 

Soule  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Conn. 

575,  2128 

Southampton  Dock  Co.  v.  Richards,  2 

Eng.  Railw.  &  Canal  Gas.  215,  203 

Southard  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  26  N.  J.  L.  13, 

1305, 1310 
Southard  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 

Minn.  382,  2231,  2235,  2248,  2325,  2335 

Southbridge  Savings  Bank  v.  Mason,  147 

Mass.  500,  654 

Southcote's  Case,  4  Coke  83,  2314 

South,  etc.,  Brewery  Co.,  Re,  L.  R.  31  Ch. 

Div.  261,  118 

South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  (Ala.)  14  So.  R.  747,  896 

South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  102  Ala.  236,  1313 

South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Donovan,  84  Ala.  141, 

1741,  1967 


CCCCV1 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  77,  pp.  W-1262,  Vol 

South,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Henlein,  52  Ala.  606, 

2311,  2336,  2346,  2363,  2399,  2401,  2402,  2410,  2412 
South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Highland  Avenue, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Ala.  400,  1685 

South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  56  Ala.  507, 

1853, 1857 
South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLendon,  63  Ala. 

266,  1585 

South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  65  Ala.  193, 

954,  955,  973, 1885 
South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schaufler,  75  Ala.  136, 

2595,  2703 

South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Small,  70  Ala.  499,  1874 
South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  59  Ala.  272, 

2148 
South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  62  Ala. 

494,  1750, 2475 

South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  65  Ala.  74, 

1804, 1854, 1863 

South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  78  Ala.  587,  2700 
South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  66  Ala.  167, 

2350,  2351,  2354,  2357,  2368 

South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  72  Ala.  451,  2694 
South  Bay,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gray,  30  Me.  547, 

215,  343, 1224 
South  Boston  R.  Co.  v.  Middlesex  R.  Co., 

121  Mass.  485,  1627 

South  Bend  Toy,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pierre,  etc., 

Ins.  Co.,  4  S.  Dak.  173,  255 

South  Carolina  v.  Georgia,  93  U.  S.  4,  2645 
South  Carolina  v.  Seymour,  153  U.  S.  353,  2637 
South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  Exparte,  2  Rich. 

L.  (S.  Car.)  434,  1282 

South  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  Blake,  9  Rich. 
L.  (S.  Car.)  228, 

455,  458,  539,  1282,  1283,  1284,  1344,  1346,  1356, 
1369, 1385,  1499 
South  Carolina  R.  Co.  v  Columbia,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  13  Rich.  Eq.  (S.  Car.)  339,    1376, 1680 
South  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  McDonald,  5  Ga. 

531,  1019, 1600 

South  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  Nix,  68  Ga.  572, 

2127,  2134,  2488,  2575 
South  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  People's  Sav. 

Inst.,  64  Ga.  18,  886 

South  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  South  Carolina 

R.  Co.,  4  L.  R.  A.  209,  903 

South  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  Steiner,  44  Ga. 

546,  1443,  1634 

South  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  Wilmington, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  S.  Car.  410,  599,  608,  615 

South  Chicago  R.  R.  v.  Dix,  109  111.  237, 

7,  1271,  1355, 1356, 1365 
South  Covington,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Gest,  34 

Fed.  R.  628,  636 

South  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ware,  84 
Ky.  267,  2548,  2593 


777,  pp.  1265-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  H65-S735.] 

Southeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railway 

Commissioners,  3  Nev.  &  Mac.  464,  1002 

Southeastern  R.  Co.  v.  Railway  Commis- 
sioners, L.  R.  6  Q.  B.  D.  386,      989, 1009, 1015 
Southeastern  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners, L.  R.  5  Q.  B.  D,  217,  1016 
Southeastern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Reg.,  17  Q.  B. 

485,  1067 

Southerland  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  43 

Fed.  R.  646,  2005 

Southerland  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  Co.,  106 

N.  C.  100,  307,  308 

Southern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Union  L.  &  T.  Co., 

64  Fed.  R.  450,  645 

Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Armstead,  50  Ala.  350, 

2694 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Bank  of  Tupelo, 

(Ala.)  18  So.  R.  664,  2342 

Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Barnes,  36  Ga.  532,      2324 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Caperton,  44  Ala.  101, 

2342,  2694 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Craft,  49  Miss.  480, 

2203,2696 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Crook,  44  Ala.  468, 

286,  2177,  2207,  2209,  2329,  2339,  2359,  238$ 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Dickson,  94  U.  S.  549, 

2353,  2364,  2:384 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Everett,  37  Ga.  688, 

2358,2360 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Glenn,  16  Lea  472, 

2178,  2260,  2341 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Hess,  53  Ala.  19, 

2203,  2238 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Holland,  (Ala.)  19  So. 

R.  66,  2277 

Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Hunnicutt,  54  Miss. 

566,  2340 

Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Kaufman,  12  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  161,  2209,  2365,  2380 

Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  McVeigh,  20  Gratt. 

(Va.)  264,  410,  2178,  2182,  2700 

Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  2  McCrary  (U.  S.)  570,  533,  2170 

Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

8  Fed.  R.  799,  2284 

Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Moon,  39  Miss.  822, 

2167,  2263,  2324 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Newby,  36  Ga.  635, 

2177,  2186,  2188,  2208,  2267,  2350 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Purcell,  37  Ga.  103,  2320 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Seide,  67  Miss.  609,  2381 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Shea,  38  Ga.  519, 

2225,2238 
Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Van  Meter,  17  Fla. 

783,  2562,  2364,  2383- 

Southern  Ex.  Co.  v.  Womack,  1  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)  256,         411,  2177.  2209,  2269,  2306,  230T 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-14$,  Vol.  II,  pp.  IAS-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  U6S-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-i725.] 


Southern  Hotel  Co.  v.  Newman,  30  Mo. 

118,  255 

Southern  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Lanier,  5  Fla. 

110,  165, 642 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  146  N.  Y. 

352,  1*71 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  68  Fed. 

R.  333,  1121 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burke,  60  Fed.  R. 

704,  2029 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  California,  118 

U.  S.  109,  942 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cunningham, 

(Ala.)  20  So.  R.  639,  2707 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Denton,  146  U.  S. 

202,  34,  881,  884,  935, 2141 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  Doyle,  8  Sawyer, 

60,  s.  c.  11  Fed.  R.  253,  658 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Drake,  (Kan.)  35 

Pac.  R.  825,  2040 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Duncan,  16T£y. 

L.  R.  119,  2246 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Esquibel,  4  New 

Mexico  337,  694, 1123, 1129 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Groeck,  68  Fed. 

R.  609,  1127 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harrison,  73  Tex. 

109,  945 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hinsdale,  38 

Kan.  507,  2452,  2554 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hixon,  5  Ind. 

165,  198 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  69  Fed. 

R.  559,  2047 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  (Tex.) 

15  S.  W.  R.  121,  2270 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kaufman,  12 

Heisk.  161,  2309 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kendrick,  40 

Miss.  374,  283,  286 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  (Tex. 

C.  App. )  29  S.  W.  R.  394,  1963 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lafferty,  57  Fed. 

R.  536,  2013 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Leasch,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  21  S.  W.  R.  563,  2046 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maddox,  75  Tex, 

300,  2332, 2338 

Southern,  ete.,R.  Co.  v.  Markey,  (Tex.) 

19  S.  W.  R.  392,  1998 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Orton,  32  Fed.  R. 

457,  2, 101,  868, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1129, 1616 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pavey,  48  Kan. 

452,  2549 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pool,  160  U.  S. 

438,  2072 


Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Poole,  32  Fed.  R. 

451,  1124 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Raymond,  53Cal. 

223,  538, 1345, 1355, 138» 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reed,  41  Cal.  256, 

1632,1634 
Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rice,  38  Kan.  398, 

2480,  2575.  2577,  2578- 
Southern,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Rutherford,  62 

Fed.  R.  796,  909,  91» 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Sandford,  45  Kan. 

372,  2575 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schmidt,  44  Kan. 

374,  1856, 1857 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Seley,  152  U.  S.  145, 

2000,  2006,  2007,  2011,  2028,  2029,  2041,  2055 
Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  55  Fed.  R.  690,  1132 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stell,  (Tex.)  15 

S.  W.  R.  122,  2270 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  87  Pa. 

St.  190,  72 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Stoddard,  6  Minn. 

150,  1264,  1265, 1384 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Superior  Court, 

63  Cal.  607,  947 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tilley,  41  Fed.  R. 

729,  1128 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tomlinson,(U.  S.) 

16  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1171,  2147 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Towner,  41  Kan. 

72,  25, 168,  177,  466, 1186, 1224, 1254 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States,  69 

Fed.  R.  47,  1278 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walsh,  45  Kan. 

653,  2179, 2472 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  49  Cal. 

396,  1347, 1492,  1528,  1532, 1533 

Southern  R.,  etc.,  Assn.,  Re,  1  Interst. 

Com.  R.  278,  2675,  2676,  2677,  2678 

Southern,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Francis,  (Ala.) 

19  So.  R.  1,  1GL'.) 

Southern,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Lynch,  95  Ga. 

529,  2713 

Southgate  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Mo. 

89,  396 

Southmayd  v.  Russ,  3  Conn.  52,  259 

Southside  R.  Co.  v.  Daniel,  20  Gratt.(Va.) 

344,  1456 

South  Florida  Railroad  Co.  v.  Price,  32 

Fla.  46,  317,  318,  2162 

South  Florida  R.  Co.  v.  Rhoads,  25  Fla. 

40,  288,  2453,  2576 

South  Florida  R.  Co.  v.  Weese,  32  Fla.  212, 

883,2041 
South  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ayres,  66 

Ga.  230,  202 


CCCCV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


South  Joplin  Land  Co.  v.  Case,  104  Mo. 

572,  18 

South  London,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  39 

Ch.  Div.  324,  137 

South  Minnesota  R.  Co.  v.  Stoddard,  6 

Minn.  150,  1345 

South  Mountain,  etc.,  Mining  Co.,  In  re, 

7  Sawyer  (U.  S.)  30,  254 

South  Pacific  R.  Co.  v.  Laclede  County, 

57  Mo.  147,  1063 

South  Park  Comrs.  v.  Chicago,  B.  &  (X 

R.  Co.,  107  111.  105,  1110 

South  Park  Comrs.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co., 

13  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  415,  1110 

South  Park  Comrs.  v.  Dunlevy,  91  111.  49, 

1422, 1514 

South  Park  Comrs.  v.  Todd,  112  HI.  379,     1487 
South  Ottawa  v.  Perkins,  94  U.  S.  260, 

1153,  1175,1234 
South  Staffordshire  R.  Co.  v.  Burnside, 

5  Exch.  129,  220 
South  Wales  R.  Co.  v.  Local  Board  of 

Health,  4  El.  &  B.  189  (82  E.  C.  L.  188) ,  6 
South  Wales  R.  Co.  v.  Redmond,  10  Com. 

B.  N.  S.  675,  474,  476,  511 

South  Wales  R.  Co.  v.  Richards,  6  Eng. 

Railw.  Canal  Gas.  197,  1557 

South  Wales  R.  Co.  v.  Wythes,  5  DeQ.,  M. 

6  G.  880,  924, 1297 
South  Wales  R.  Co.  v.  Wythes,  1  K.  &  J. 

186,  1299, 1583 

South  Yorkshire  R.  Co.  v.  Great  Northern 

R.  Co.,  9  Exch.  55,  436,  476,  501 

Southwark  R.  Co.v.  City  of  Philadelphia, 

47  Pa.  St.  314,  103 

Southwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bently,  51  Ga. 

311,  2634 

Southwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Felder,  46  Ga. 

433,  2277,  2279,  2357 

Southwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Hickory,  etc., 

Ditch  Co.,  18  Colo.  489,  1493 

Southwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  57 

Ark.  355,  428 

Southwestern,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Mitchell,  69 

Ga.  114,  1327 

Southwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Paulk,24Ga. 

356,  1788,  2128,  2142 

Southwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Singleton,  66 

Ga.  252,  1961,  2554 

Southwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Southern, 

etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  46  Ga.  43,  1347, 1408 

Southwestern,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Webb, 48 Ala. 

585,  2167 

Southwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  116 

U.  S.  231,  .  1066 

Southworth  v.  Palmyra  R.  Co.,  2  Mich. 

287,  362 


Southworth  v.  Reid,  36  Fed.  R.  451,  940 

Soward  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Iowa 

386,  1832, 1840 

Spackman  v.  Evans,  L.  R.  3  H.  L.  171,         255 
Spancake  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

148  Pa.  St.  184,  2091 

Spangler  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Fed. 

R.  305,  614 

Spangler  v.  Danforth,  65  111.  152,  562 

Spangler  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  HI. 

276,  202,  203,  206, 211 

Spannagle  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  111. 

App.  460,  2547 

Sparbracker  v.  Larrabee,  64  Wis.  573,         1797 
Sparhawk  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Pa. 

St.  401,  515, 1035 

Sparhawk  v.  Yerkes,  142  U.  S.  1,  822 

Sparks  v.  East  Tennessee  R.  Co.,  82  Ga. 

156,  2060 

Sparks  v.  Liverpool  Water- Works,  13  Ves. 

428,  221 

Sparrow  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  7 

Ind.  369,  69,  447,  449,  450, 1224 

Spartanburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  DeGraffenreid, 

12  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  675,  176,  527 

Spartanburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ezell,  14 

S.  C.  281,  28,  29, 159 

Spaulding  v.  Arlington,  126  Mass.  492,         1454 
Spaulding  v.  Arnold,  6  N.  Y.  336,  1205 

Spaulding  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Wis. 

110,  1895,  1936, 1938 

Spaulding  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Wis. 

582,  1870, 1945 

Spaulding  v.  Flynt,  etc.,  Granite  Co.,  159 

Mass.  587,  2105 

Spaulding  v.  Lowell,  23  Pick.  71,  1104 

Spaulding  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Wis.  304,  1553,  1555 

Spaulding  v.  North  San.  Homestead  Assn., 

87  Cal.  40,  1202 

Spaulding  v.  Thompson,  etc.,  Society,  27 

Conn.  573,  1601 

Spealman  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  Co.,  71 

Mo.  431,  1031, 1883 

Spear  v.  Crawford,  14  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  20, 

224,  1292 

Spear  v.  Ladd,  11  Mass.  94,  246 

Spear  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119  Pa. 

St.  61,  2599 

Spears  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Neb. 

720,  2717 

Spears  v.  Spartanburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  S. 

Car.  158,  2279, 2366 

Specht  v.  Commonwealth,  8  Pa.  St.  312,     2647 
Speed  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Mo.  303, 

1587, 1588 
Speer  v.  Athens,  85  Ga.  49,  1100 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCC1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-lJ®,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2715.] 


Spellier,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Geiger,  147  Pa.  St. 

399,  365 

Spellier,  etc  ,  Co.  v.  Leedom,  149  Pa.  St. 

185,  191 

Spellman  v.  City  of  New  Orleans,  45  Fed. 

R.3,  966 

Spellman  v.  Lincoln,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  36  Neb. 

890,  2179 

Spence  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  79  Ala.  576, 

484,  626,  628,  630 
Spence  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (Va.)  20 

L.  R.  A.  578,  2695 

Spence  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (Va.)  22 

S.  E.  E.  815,  2302 

Spence  v.  Shapard,  57  Ala.  598,  269 

Spence  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  Mills,  115 

N.  Car.  210,  484 

Spencer  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  4 

Mackey  138,  1780 

Spencer  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  10  B.  I. 

14,  1302, 1404, 1455,  1456, 1563 

Spencer  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  29  Iowa 

55,  1783 

Spencer  v.  Merchant,  125  TT.  S.  345,  1091 

Spencer  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.,  120 

Mo.  154,  1640 

Spencer  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  17 

Wis.  487,  2563 

Spencer  v.  Montana,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  11  Mont. 

164,  1902 

Spencer  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  67  Hun 

196,  2006, 2007 

Spencer  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  130  Ind.  181, 

2069,  2706 

Spencer  v.  Pierce,  5  B.  I.  63,  634 

Spencer  y.  Point  Pleasant,  etc.,  B.  Co., 

23  W.  Va.  406,  898, 1632 

Spencer  v.  White,  1  Ired.  Law  236, 

2421,  2422,  2423 
Spering's  Appeal,  71  Pa.  St.  11, 

338,  373,  382,  384,  385 

Sperry  v.  Johnson,  11  Ohio  452,  177 

Spettigue  v.  Great  Western  E.  Co.,  15 

U.  C.  C.  P.  315,  2315 

Spicer  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  34 

W  Va.  514,  1741, 1952, 1966,  1968 

Spicer  v.  South  Boston  Iron  Co.,  138  Mass. 

426,  2010 

Spickler,  In  re,  43  Fed.  B.  653,  966 

Spidell  v.  Johnson,  128  Ind.  235,  1260 

Spies  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  40  Fed.  E. 

34,  622, 623 

Spillane  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  Ill  Mo. 

555,  1785 

Spiller  v.  Paris  Eink  Co.,  L.  E.  7  Ch.  D. 

368,  488 


Spinner  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  67  N.  Y. 

153,  1803, 1819, 1845, 1863, 1864, 1866 

Spinnetti  v.  Atlas,  etc.,  Co.,  80  N.  Y.  71, 

2328,2343 

Spinney,  Ex  parte,  10  Nev.  323,  1057 

Spinney  v.  Sportsman's,  etc.,  Assn.,  29  Mo. 

App.  326,  248 

Spirlock  v.  Port  Townsend,  etc.,  E.  Co., 

(Wash.)  42  Pac.  B.  520,  1913 

Spisak  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  152  Pa. 

St.  281,  2111 

Spitze  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  75  Md. 

162,  2150, 2158 

Spivay  v.  Osage,  etc.,  Mining  Co.,  88  Mo. 

68,  2074 

Split  Bock  Cable  Co.,  In  re,  128  N.  Y.  408, 

7, 1271, 1368 
Spofford  v.  Boston,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  128  Mass. 

326,  2285,  2486,  2667,  2671 

Spofford  v.  Bucksport,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  66  Me. 

26,  557, 1347, 1502, 1529, 1558 

Spohn  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  101  Mo. 

417,  2480 

Spohn  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  87  Mo. 

74,  2582, 2585 

Spokane,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McChesney,  1  Wash. 

609,  1601 

Spokane,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Spokane  Falls,  6 

Wash.  521,  1246, 1617 

Spokane  Falls,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Ziegler,  61 

Fed.  E.  392,  1135 

Spooner  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  115 

N.  Y.  22,  1795,  1957, 1969 

Spooner  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  23  Mo. 

App.  403,  2611,  2631 

Spooner  v.  Holmes,  102  Mass.  503,  632 

Spooner  v.  Phillips,  62  Conn.  62,  423 

Sprague  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  5  B.  I. 

233,  37 

Sprague  v.  Illinois  Eiver  B.  Co.,  19  111.  174, 

71,  235, 453 
Sprague  v.  Missouri  Pac.  B.  Co.,  34  Ran. 

347,  497,2327,2342 

Sprague  v.  Smith,  29  Vt.  421, 

612,  613,  615,  684,  812,  2168,  2228,  2493 
Sprigg  v.  Western  Tel.  Co.,  46  Md.  67,  349 
Spring  Co.  v.  Knowlton,  103  U.  S.  49,  126,  949 
Springer  v.  City  of  Chicago,  135  111.  552,  1439 
Springer  v.  Sheets,  115  N.  Car.  370,  933 

Springer,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  16  Lea  498, 

2475,2580 
Springfield  v.  Connecticut  Eiver  E.  Co.,  4 

Gush.  (Mass.)  63,  61,  902,  1612, 1634,  1650 

Springfield  v.  Sale,  127  111.  359,  1104 

Springfield  Engine  &  T.  Co.  v.  Green,  25 

111.  App.  106,  87 


ccccx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  ITT,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2T25.] 


Springfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Andrews,  68  111. 

56,  1849 

Springfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Calkins,  90  Mo. 

538,  1520 

Springfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flynn,  55  HI. 

App.  600,  2585 

Springfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rhea,  44  Ark. 

258,  1511,  1515, 1719 

Spring  Garden  Bank  v.  Hulings  Lumber 

Co.,  32  W.  Va.  357,  553 

Springport  v.  Teutonia  Savings  Bank,  75 

N.  Y.  397,  1230 

Spring  Valley  Water  Works  v.  San  Fran- 
cisco, 22  Cal.  434,  1498 
Spring  Valley  Water  Works  v.  Schottler, 

110  U.  S.  347,  89 

Sproat  v.  Donnell,  26  Me.  185,  2210, 2211 

Sproat  v.  Porter,  9  Mass.  300,  20 

Sprowl  v.  Kellar,  4  Stewart  &  P.  (Ala.) 

382,  2268 

Spurgin  v.  Adamson,  62  Iowa  661,  679 

Spurlock  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  61  Mo.  319,  149 
Spurlock  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  93  Mo. 

530,  2701 

Spurlock  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  Co.,  90 

Mo.  199,  335, 1205 

Squire  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Interst. 

Com.  R.  51,  2671 

Squire  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  98  Mass. 

239,  410,  2188,  2256, 2263,  2317,  2331,  2336,  2403 
2406,  2408,  2410 
Staats  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Keyes 

(N.  Y.)  196,  1830 

Stacey  v.  Vermont  Central  R.  Co.,  27  Vt. 

39,  1289, 1508 

Stacey  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Minn. 

158,  1843 

Stackman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Wis. 

428,  1999 

Stackpole  v.  Healy,  16  Mass.  133,  1628 

Stackpole  v.  Seymour,  127  Mass.  104,  147 

Stacy  v.  State  Bank,  5  111.  (4  Scam.)  91,  371 
Stadhecker  v.  Combs,  9  Rich.  (L.)  193,  2177 
Stafford  v.  Providence,  10  R.  I.  567,  1421 

Stafford  Nat.  Bank  v.  Palmer,  47  Conn. 

443,  273 

Stager  v.  Ridge  Avenue,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119 

Pa.  St.  70,  2050,  2065,  2704,  2721 

Stahl  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  155  Pa.  St. 

309,  1272 

Stamford  v.  Borough  of  Stamford  Horse 

R.  Co.,  56  Conn.  381,  59 

Stamford  Bank  v.  Ferris,  17  Conn.  259,  106 
Stanard  Milling  Co.  v.  White  Line,  etc., 

Co.,  122  Mo.  258,  2212,  2277,  2317,  2328 

Standard  Co.  v.  Flower,  46  La.  Ann.  315,  325 


Standing  v.  Bowring,  L.  R.  27  Ch.  Div. 

341,  13T 

Standish  v.  Narragansett,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill 

Mass.  512,  284,  2508 

Stange  v.  Dubuque,  68  Iowa  303,  1636 

Stanhope's  Case,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  161,  21& 

Stanley,  Ex  parte,  33  L.  J.  (Ch.)  535,  211,  649 
Stanley  v.  Birkenhead  R.  Co.,  6  Simons 

264,  21 

Stanley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Mich. 

202,  2026 

Stanley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Mo.  508, 

935,  946. 

Stanley  v.  Davenport,  54  Iowa  463,  9, 1614, 1620 
Stanley  v.  Supervisors,  121  U.  S.  535,  1062, 1070 
Stanley  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  Mo. 

161,  2407 

Stanley  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Interst. 

Com.  R.  176,  2637 

Stanley  v.  Wharton,  9  Price  301.  103£ 

Stanly  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  N. 

Car.  331,  873- 

Stannards,  etc.,  Association  v.  Brandes, 

35  N.  Y.  Supp.  1015,  1463 

Stanton  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Woods 

(U.  S.)  523,  631,  655,  706,  755,  116* 

Stanton  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Woods 

(U.  S.)  506,  818,  834,  838- 

Stanton  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Fed. 

R.  585,  842 

Stanton  v.  Allen,  5  Denio  434,  500,  2663- 

Stanton  v.  Eager,  16  Pick.  467,  2215, 2889, 2392 
Stanton  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Conn. 

272,  20, 21 

Stanton  v.  Wilkeson,  8  Ben.  (U.  S.)  357,  266 
Stanwood  v.City  of  Maiden,  157  Mass.  17,  1631 
Staples  v.  Fox,  45  Miss.  667,  990- 

Stapley  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1  Ex. 

21,  1762 

Star,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sibley,  57  111.  App.  315,  214» 
Stark  Bank  v.  United  States,  etc.,  Co.,  34 

Vt.  144,  377,  378,  578,  620 

Starbuck  v.  Housatonic  R.  Co.,  83  Hun 

534,  32& 

Starbuck  v.  Mercantile  Trust  Co.,  24  Atl. 

R.  32,  616 

Starbuck  v.  Mercantile  Trust  Co.,  9  Ry.  & 

Corp.  L.  J.  203,  347,  34» 

Starbuck  v.  Murray,  5  Wend.  148,  147& 

Starin  v.  Genoa,  23  N.  Y.  439,  1147, 1152 

Starin  v.  New  York,  115  U.  S.  248,  942 

Stark  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Iowa 

501,  898,  1390, 1391 

Stark  County  v.  Ballon,  103  U.  S.  745,  118& 
Starke  v.  Burke,  9  La.  Ann.  341,  258,  264 

Starke  v.  Burke,  5  La.  Ann.  740,  743,  795 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCX1 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S725.] 


Starkey  v.  DeGraff,  22  Minn.  431, 

1570, 1573, 1574, 1577 
Starnes  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  91  Tenn. 

516,  2337 

Starr  v.  Burlington,  45  Iowa  87,  1104 

Starr  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  J.  Law 

592,  1543, 1634, 1676 

Starr  v.  Rochester,  6  Wend.  565,  1558 

Starrett  v.  Rockland  Ins.  Co.,  65  Me.  374,  156 
State  v.  Ackerman,  (Ohio)  24  L.  R.  A.  298,  45 
State  v.  Adams,  44  Mo.  570,  335 

State  v.  Aetna  Life  Ins.  Co.,  117  Ind.  251,  1112 
State  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Miss. 

647,  907,  1010,  1040, 1041 

State  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Miss. 

653,  987, 1002 

State  v.  Ambs,  20  Mo.  214,  2647 

State  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  43  N.  J.  Law 

881,  1502 

State  v.  Anderson  County,  8  Baxter  249,  1245 
State  v.  Androscoggin  R.  Co.,  76  Me.  411,  1022 
State  v.  Ancker,  2  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  245,  292 
State  v.  Armell,  8  Kan.  288,  1547 

State  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Neb.  143, 

78,  79,  82,  86,  128,  348,  446,  447,  505,  569,  584, 
585,  586, 1288, 1290 
State  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8  Am. 

St.  R.  164,  75,  85,  86 

State  v.  Atherton,  40  Mo.  209,  328 

State  v.  Atkinson,  27  N.  J.  Law  420,  1470 

State  v.  Atlantic  City,  34  N.  J.  Law  99,  1651 
State  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Wood 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  434,  657 

State  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  60  Ga.  268,  1089 
State  v.  Babcock,  21  Neb.  599,  1183 

State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  How. 

(U.  S.)  534,  83 

State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Fed.  R. 

655,  2159 

State  y.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  W.  Va. 

362,  1019,  1020, 1035 

State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Gill 

(Md.)  363,  427,  428,  429,  431,  439,  441,  442 

State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Md.  49, 

1064,1068 
State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Md. 

482,  1968 

State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Md. 

339,  1756 

State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Md. 

489,  461, 469 

State  v.  Bailey,  19  Ind.  452,  29 

State  v.  Bailey,  16  Ind.  46,  77,  453,  454 

State  v.  Bank,  6  Gill  &  J.  205,  853,  859 

State  v.  Barksdale,  5  Humph.  154,  1021 

State  v.  Barron,  58  N.  H.  370,  859 

State  v.  Barron,  57  N.  H.  498,  86, 927 


State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 

108, 

State  v. 
State  v. 

204, 

State  v. 
State  T. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 
State  v. 


Bayonne,  35  N.  J.  L.  476,  1475 

Bayonne,  44  N.  J.  L.  114,  1104 

Bayonne,  51  N.  J.  L.  428,  1662 

Beackmo,  8  Blackf.  246,          975, 1417 
Bechtel,  22  Neb.  158,  1617 

Beck,  81  Ind.  500,  26,  56, 157 

Beckman,  57  N.  H.  174,          1049, 1050 
Beeman,  35  Me.  242,  1479 

Bell,  34  Ohio  St.  194,  1617 

Beloit,  20  Wis.  79,  1259 

Bentley,  23  N.  J.  L.  532,  1056 

Berdetta,  73  Ind.  185,  1651 

Bergen,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  N.  J.  L. 

83,1563 

Bergenthal,  72  Wis.  314,  248 

Bienville,  etc.,  Co.,  28  La.  Ann. 

247 
975 
1101 
1027 
1052 
1331 
1141 
927 
925 
237,238 


Billings,  55  Minn.  467, 
Binninger,  42  N.  J.  528, 
Bishop,  7  Conn.  181, 
Bishop,  51  Vt.  287, 
Blake,  36  N.  J.  L.  442, 
Blend,  118  Ind.  426, 
Boal,  46  Mo.  528, 
Board,  etc.,  92  Ind.  133, 
Bonnell,  35  Ohio  St.  10, 


Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Vt.  433, 

4,  85,  99,  2165 
State  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Me.  430, 

1752, 1754, 1790 

State  v.  Boyd,  86  N.  Car.  634,  1051 

State  v.  Bradley,  26  Fed.  R.  289,  943 

State  v.  Brands,  45  N.  J.  Law  332,  1528 

State  v.  Branin,  23  N.  J.  L.  484,  1068 

State  v.  Brassfleld,  67  Mo.  331,  1231 

State  v.  Brin,  30  Minn.  522,  5, 1054 

State  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  N.  Y.  75, 

1275, 1276 

State  v.  Brown,  27  N.  J.  L.  13,       544,  561, 1303 
State  v.  Brown,  38  Ohio  St.  344,  926 

State  v.  Brown,  etc.,  Co.,  18  R.  1. 16,  964 

State  v.  Brown,  etc.,  Co.,  (R.  I.)  17  L.  R. 

A.  856,  89 

State  v.  Bryce,  7  Ohio  (2d  pt.)  82,  369 

State  v.  Bull,  16  Conn.  179,  24 

State  v.  Burke,  33  La.  Ann.  498,  1010 

State  v.  Butler,  15  Lea  (Tenn.)  113,  825 

State  v.  Campbell,  32  N.  J.  L.  309, 

2497,  2503,  2574 
State  v.  Canal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  La.  Ann. 

526,  1641 

State  v.  Canal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  La.  Ann. 

333,  925 

State  v.  Cape  Girardeau  Railroad  Co.,  48 

Mo.  468,  52 


CCCCX11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-fTtS.} 


State  v.  Capner,  49  N.  J.  Law  555, 

1510, 1511, 1660 

State  v.  Cardozo,  8  S.  Car.  71,  1133 

State  v.  Carl,  43  Ark.  353,  2195 

State  v.  Carragan,  36  N.  J.  L.  52,  1420 

State  v.  Carrigan,  39  N.  J.  L.  35,  1083 

State  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Nev.  260,       1056 
State  v.  Central  Ohio,  etc.,  Ass'n,  29  Ohio 

St.  399,  26 

State  v.  Central  Iowa  R.  Co.,'  71  Iowa  410, 

599,  608,  615,  704,  722 
State  v.  Chamber  of  Commerce,  20  Wis. 

68,  578 

State  v.  Chapman,  44  Conn.  595,  232 

State  v.  Charleston,  1  Const.  R.  (Tread- 
way,  S.  C.)  36,  87 
State  v.  Charleston,  10  Rich.  (S.  Car.)  L. 

491,  1140, 1152, 1158, 1173 

State  v.  Cheraw,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  S.  Car. 

524,  119, 121, 124, 135, 147 

State  v.  Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  So.  Car. 

290,  1178 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  N.  W.  R. 

782,  991 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  2  L.  R. 

A.  564,  463 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Fed.  R. 

391,  942, 996 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Fed.  R. 

497,  930 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Iowa 

135,  1657 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Iowa 

262,  951 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Iowa 

304,  987,  988, 1013 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Iowa 

642,  1004 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Minn. 

402,  1319 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Minn. 

281,  978,  981,  987 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Minn. 

267,  995, 2655 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Neb. 

476,  987 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  25  Neb. 

156,  41,  470, 1348 

State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Neb.  165, 

37,1348 
State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Neb.  412, 

915,  919,  987,  1008, 1659, 1660, 1667 
State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  S.  D.  261, 

874,  875 
State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Wis.  259, 

919, 1010, 1728 
State  v.  Chovin,  7  Iowa  204,  288,  2452 


State  v.  Chue  Fan,  42  Fed.  R.  865,  930 

State  v.  Chute,  34  Minn.  135,  232 

State  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.,  18  Ohio  St. 

262,  85 

State  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Ohio 

St.  103,  1506, 1508, 1509, 1534 

State  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Ohio 

St.  130,  2284 

State  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Ohio 

St.  157,  1375 

State  v.  Citizens',  etc.,  Asso.,  6  Mo.  App. 

163,  927 

State  v.  City  of  Cincinnati,  23  Ohio  St. 

445,  276 

State  v.  City  of  Davenport,  12  Iowa  335,  1258 
State  v.  City  of  Elizabeth,  54  N.  J.  Law 

462,  1631 

State  v.  City  of  Fon  du  Lac,  42  Wis.  287,  1470 
State  v.  City  of  Jersey  City,  29  N.  J.  Law 

170,  962 

State  v.  City  of  Madison,  15  Wis.  30,  1262 

State  v.  City  of  Morristown,  93  Tenn.  239, 

1229,1230 
State  v.  City  of  Trenton,  53  N.  J.  L. 

132,  1623, 1624 

State  v.  City  of  Trenton,  54  N.  J.  L.  92,  1620 
State  v.  Clark,  14  S.  E.  R.  84,  957 

State  v.  Clark,  23  Minn.  422,  1145 

State  v.  Clarke,  25  N.  J.  Law  54,  1343 

State  v.  Clarke,  109  N.  Car.  739,  1048,  2500 

State  v.  Clay  County,  46  Mo.  231,  1259 

State  v.  Clemens,  38  Iowa  257,  1049 

State  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  Ind. 

75,  957 

State  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Ohio 

C.  C.  R.  604,  1030, 1043 

State  v.  Clinton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Rob.  (La.) 

445,  74 

State  v.  Cobb,  64  Ala.  127,  626 

State  v.  Collector,  etc.,  38  N.  J.  L.  270,  1068 
State  v.  Collectors  of  Chambersburg,  8 

Vroom  228,  1089 

State  v.  Commercial  Bank,  14  Miss.  218, 

76,298 

State  v.  Commissioners,  10  Kan.  569,  450 

State  v.  Commissioners,  12  Kan.  426,  1237 
State  v.  Commissioners,  28  Kan.  431,  1470 
State  v.  Commissioners,  38  Kan.  317,  1170 
State  v.  Commissioners,  23  N.  J.  L.  510, 

64,  558, 1355, 1358 

State  v.  Commissioners,  37  N.  J.  L.  228,  93 
State  v.  Commissioners,  11  Ohio  St.  183,  1242 
State  v.  Commissioners,  12  Ohio  St.  596,  1241 
State  v.  Commissioners,  37  Ohio  St.  526, 

1229,1237 

State  v.  Commissioners,  39  Ohio  St.  58,  1294 
State  v.  Concord  R.  Co.,  62  N.  H.  375.  477 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCX111 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  ITT, pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  216B-Z7S5.} 


State  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  N.  H.  85,  1040 
State  v.  Consolidation  Coal  Co.,  46  Md.  1, 

80,694 

State  v.  Coosaw,  etc.,  Co.,  45  Fed.  R.  804,  1016 
State  v.  Corbett,  57  Minn.  345,  957,  2500 

State  v.  Corrigan,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,  85  Mo. 

263,  1614.  1615, 1641 

State  v.  Corwin,  4  Mo.  609,  1026 

State  v.  County  Court,  51  Mo.  522,  1145, 1185 
State  v.  County  Judge,  12  Iowa  237,  1258 

State  v.  Cox,  88  Ind.  254,  388 

State  v.  Cozzens,  42  La.  Ann.  1069,  1042 

State  v.  Craig,  69  Mo.  565,  1259 

State  v.  Crane,  36  N.  J.  L.  394,  1470 

State  v.  Crawford,  28  Kan.  726,  903 

State  v.  Crawfordsville,  etc.,  Co.,  102  Ind. 
,    283,  79,82,83 

State  v.  Creeden,  78  Iowa  556,  2278 

State  v.  Critchett,  37  Minn.  13,  27,  30 

State  v.  Cruser,  14  N.  J.  Law  401,  1533 

State  v.  Cumberland,  etc.,  Co.,  40  Md.  22,  1083 
State  v.  Curran,  7  Eng.  (Ark.)  321,  90 

State  v.  Curtis,  9  Nov.  325,  276,  278,  341 

State  v.  Dallas  County,  etc.,  72  Mo.  329,  1145 
State  v.  Davis,  23  Ohio  St.  434,  22 

State  v.  Dawson,  3  Hill  (S.  Car.)  100,  1413 
State  v.  Dawson,  16  Ind.  40,  23,  24 

State  v.  Day,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  228,  930 
State  v.  Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Ohio  St. 

434,  900,  926, 1641 

State  v.  Dean,  23  N.  J.  L.  335,  1100 

State  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  (Del.)  31  Atl. 

R.  714,  32 

State  v,  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  N.  J.  L. 

473,  36 

State  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  N.  J.  L. 

55,  920,  2430,  2501,  2691 

State  v.  Demaree,  80  Ind.  519,  1039 

State  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Iowa 

419,  987,  988, 1003 

State  v.  Dillon,  36  Ind.  388,  27 

State  v.  Dillon,  125  Ind.  65,  232 

State  v.  District  Court,  42  Minn.  247, 

1654,  1659, 1662 

State  v.  District  Court,  35  Minn.  461,  1690 
State  v.  Divine,  98  N.  Car.  778,  974, 1813, 1870 
State  v.  Dodge  City  R.  Co.,  53  Kan.  377, 

56,570 
State  v.  Dodge  City,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  53  Kan. 

329,  917, 924 

State  v.  Doherty,  60  Me  504,  1198 

State  v.  Douglass,  44  Kan.  618,  1049,  1050 

State  v.  Dover,  10  N.  H.  394,  1534 

State  v.  Dover,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  N.  J.  L.  528, 

1369, 1510, 1527,  1534,  1535, 1691,  1692 
State  v.  Drummond,  46  N.  J.  L.  644,    1681, 1692 


State  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Iowa 

508,  1038 

State  v.  Easton,  etc  ,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  J.  L. 

181,  1393, 1483,  1485, 1490, 1491, 1654, 1681, 1692 
State  v.  East  Orange,  41  N.  J.  L.  127,  1624, 1677 
State  v.  Edgefield,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Lea 

(Tenn.)  353,  838 

State  v.  Edwards,  109  Mo.  315,  1052 

State  v.  Eleventh  Judicial  District  Ct.,  54 

Minn.  341,  1,14 

State  v.  Elizabeth,  37  N.  J.  L.  330,  1106,  1109 
State  v.  Ellis,  45  La.  Ann.  1418,  785 

State  v.  Ellwood,  17  R.  I.  763,  2714 

State  v.  Engle,  34  N.  J.  L.  425,  1083 

State  v.  Fagan,  22  La.  Ann.  545,  860 

State  v.  Fagan,  42  Conn.  32,  232 

State  v.  Ferguson,  31  N.  J.  L.  107,  360 

State  v.  Ferguson,  33  N.  H.  424,  274 

State  v.  Ferris,  42  Conn.  560,  113,  227,  228 

State  v.  Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.,  39  Minn.  538,  927 
State  v.  Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.,  49  Ohio  St.  440,  29 
State  v.  Findley,  67  Wis.  86,  1469 

State*.  First  National  Bank,  89  Ind.  302, 

146, 147 
State  v.  First  National  Bank,  2  S.  Dak. 

568,  1019 

State  v.  Fisher,  43  N.  J.  Law  377,  1528 

State  v.  Flavell,  24  N.  J.  L.  370,  1056 

State  v.  Fletcher,  24  Ore.  295,  2715 

State  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mich.  481,  1133 
State  v.  Florida,  etc.,  R.Co.,  15  Fla.  690, 

646,660 

State  v.  Floyd,  39  S.  Car.  23,  1038 

State  v.  Fond  du  Lac,  42  Wis.  287, 

1476, 1478,  1480 

State  v.  Ford  Co.,  12  Kan.  441,  30 

State  v.  Fore  Creek,  etc.,  Co.,  33  W.  Va. 

188,  963 

State  v.  Foster,  2  Halst.  (N.  J.)  101,  87 

State  v.  Foulkes,  94  Ind.  493,  20,  27 

State  v.  Fourth,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.,  15  N.  H. 

162,  84 

State  v.  Francis,  95  Mo.  44,  926 

State  v.  Fremont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Neb.  313, 

920,  978,  981,  987, 1011 
State  v.  Fremont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Neb. 

117,  2487 

State  v.  Fry,  81  Ind.  7,  1048,  2500 

State  v.  Fuller,  34  N.  J.  Law  227,  1102 

State  v.  Games,  68  Mo.  289,  792 

State  v.  Garroutte,  67  Mo.  445, 

1145, 1166, 1196, 1212 

State  v.  Gaster,  45  La.  Ann.  636,  982 

State  v.  Gates,  22  Wis.  210,  1258, 1259 

State  v.  Georgia  Co.,  (N.  C.)  54  Am.  &  Eng. 

R.  Cas.  299,  750,  752 

State  v.  Gibbs,  44  N.  J.  Law  169,  1533 


CCCCX1V 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1S6S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


State  v.  Gibson,  21  Ark.  140,  830 

State  v.  Gibson,  36  Ind.  389,  2643 

State  v.  Gilmore,  24  N.  H.  461,  1034,  2142 

State  v.  Glenn,  18  Nev.  34,  647 

State  v.  Glidden,  53  Conn.  46,  2688 

State  v.  Glover,  155  U.  S.  513,  1158 

State  v.  Gooch,  44  Fed.  R.  276,  966 

State  v.  Goode,  68  Iowa  593,  1053 

State  v.  Goodwill,  33  W.  Va.  179,  963 

State  v.  Goold,  53  Me.  279,  283,  2573 

State  v.  Goshen  Tp.,  14  Ohio  St.  569,  1223 
State  v.  Goss,  59  Vt.  524,  2310 

State  v.  Gracey,  11  Nev.  223,  925 

State  v.  Grand  Island  &  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  27 

Neb.  694,  923 

State  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  58  Me.  176, 

1034,  2137,  2458,  2481 
State  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  60  Me.  145, 

1034,  2126,  2137 
State  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Me. 

114,  1035, 2131 

State  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  14  Mont. 

381,  918 

State  v.  Green,  37  Ohio  St.  227,  232 

State  v.  Greene  County,  54  Mo.  540, 

1145, 1170, 1224, 1254 

State  v.  Greer,  78  Mo.  188,  231 

State  v.  Guerrero,  12  Nev.  105,  147 

State  v.  Guttenberg,  38  N.  J.  Law  419,  1197 
State  v.  Hager,  91  Mo.  452,  1208 

State  v.  Haight,  34  N.  J.  L.  319,  1068 

State  v.  Haight,  35  N.  J.  L.  40,  1068 

State  v.  Hamilton,  5  Ind.  310,  1058 

State  v.  Hamilton,  40  Kan.  323,  1237 

State  v.  Hancock,  33  N.  J.  L.  315,  1069 

State  v.  Hancock,  35  N.  J.  Law  537,  558, 1358 
State  v.  Hancock  County,  11  Ohio  St.  183, 

1161, 1190 
State  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  30  Mo.  App. 

494,  1026 

State  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  37  Mo.  265,  1062 
State  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R  Co.,  51  Mo.  532,  878 
State  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Mo.  13, 

919,  926, 1665, 1667, 1674 
State  v.  Hannibal  &  St.  J.  R.  Co.,  101  Mo. 

136,  1231 

State  v.  Hare,  121  Ind.  308,  696 

State  v.  Harper,  30  S.  Car.  586,  1172, 1231 

State  v.  Harris,  96  Mo.  29,  1164, 1180 

State  v.  Harrison,  113  Ind.  434,  985 

State  v.  Hastings,  24  Minn.  78,  1204 

State  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Conn. 

K!8,  596,  917, 1009 

State  v.  Haven,  59  Vt.  399,  1053 

State  v.  Haworth,  122  Ind.  462,  1058, 1166 

State  v.  Hayes,  78  Mo.  307,  2725 

State  v.  Hays,  50  Mo.  34,  637 


State  v.  Heckard,  62  Mo.  App.  427,  394 

State  v.  Heidinhain,  42  La.  Ann.  483,          1G^ 
State  v.  Helgen,  1  Speer  (S.  Car.)  310,        1026  ' 
State  v.  Henderson,  38  Ohio  St.  644,  494 

State  v.  Herrmann,  75  Mo.  340,  1094 

State  v.  Hessenkamp,  17  Iowa  25,       1049, 1050 
State  v.  Hicks,  44  La.  Ann.  770,  2644 

State  v  Highland,  25  Minn.  355,  1212 

State  v.  Hilbert,  72  Wis.  184,  98, 1611 

State  v.  Hill,  1  Houst.  Grim.  (DeL)  421,     1054 
State  v.  Hinson,  82  N.  Car.  597,  1051, 1052 

State  v.  Hirsch,  125  Ind.  207,  1021 

State  v.  Hoboken,  35  N.  J.  L.  205,  1393 

State  v.  Hoboken,  41  N.  J.  L.  1641, 
State  v  HoUaday,  72  Mo.  499,  1210 

State  v  Horn,  34  Kan.  556,  1510 

State  v.  Hoskins,  60  Minn.  168,  2103 

State  v.  Hoskins,  58  Minn.  35, 

69,958,961,971,2103 
State  v.  Hoskins,  (Minn.)  25  L.  R  A.  759, 

69,  958,  961,  971,  2103 

State  v.  Hotaling,  44  N.  J.  L.  347,  1105 

State  v.  How,  25  Ohio  St.  588,  985 

State  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  Co.,  (N.  J.) 

25  Atl.  R.  853,  1482 

State  v.  Hudson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  N.  J. 

Law  548,  1500, 1527 

State  v.  Hudson  Terminal  R.  Co.,  46  N. 

J.  L.  289,  6, 1389 

State  v.  Hug,  44  Mo.  116,  1508 

State  v.  Hungerford,  39  Minn.  6, 

283,  287,  2507 

State  v.  Hunton,  28  Vt.  594,  228 

State  v.  Hurley,  54  Me.  562,  993 

State  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Fed.  R. 

721,  930, 1016 

State  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co.,  33  Fed. 

R.  730,  1403 

State  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co.,  27  111.  64,  1058 
State  v.  Independent  School  District,  44 

Iowa  227,  86 

State  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  Co.,  120  Ind.  575, 

951,996 
State  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  133  Ind. 

69,  69,  957, 1021, 1030, 1043 

State  v.  Inhabitants  of  City  of  Trenton, 

53  N.  J.  L.  132,  1623, 1624 
State  v.  Inhabitants  of  City  of  Trenton, 

54  N.  J.  L.  92,  1620 
State  v.  International  Invest.  Co.,  88  Wis. 

512,  56 

State  v.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.) 

35  S.  W.  R.  1007,  87 

State  v.  Intoxicating  Liquors,  73  Me. 

278,  2212 

State  v.  Ireland,  130  Ind.  77,  87 

State  v.  Iron,  etc.,  Co.,  37  Ohio  St.  45,  4 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCXV 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  M3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


State  v.  Jackson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  R. 

116,  1133, 1134 

State  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Fla. 

201,  770,  771,  774,  789,  798 

State  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Fla. 

590,  918,  1611,  1635,  1641,  1642 

State  v.  Janesville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Wis. 

72,  1007 

State  v.  Jennings,  27  Ark.  419,  1166 

State  v.  Jennings,  48  Wis.  549, 

1200, 1212,  1213,  1257 

State  v.  Jersey  City,  29  N.  J.  L.  170,  971 

State  v.  Jersey  City,  30  N.  J.  L.  148,  1104 

State  v.  Jersey  City,  42  N.  J.  L.  97,  1106, 1108 
State  v.  Jersey  City,  52  N.  J.  Law  65,  1639 
State  v.  Johns,  124  Mo.  379,  1050 

State  v.  Johnson,  26  Ark.  281,  1141 

State  v.  Jones,  51  Ohio  St.  492,  1059 

State  v.  Judges,  51  Minn.  539,  1102 

State  v.  Julow,  (Mo.)  31  S.  W.  R.  781,  2103 
State  v.  Justus,  11  Ore.  178,  2715 

State  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Kan.  497,  987 
State  v.-  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Fed. 

R.  722,  957,  1002, 1031,  1040,  1041 

State  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Ark. 

546,  1041 

State  v.  Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136  Ind. 

195,  957,  1043 

State  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Mo.  30, 

458,  459, 1065 

State  v.  Kill  Buck,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Ind.  71,  81 
State  v.  Kilty,  28  Minn.  421,  1049 

State  v.  Kingan,  51  Ind.  500,  79 

State  v.  Kiuney,  34  Minn.  311,  2575 

State  v.  Klein,  126  Ind.  68,  2651 

State  v.  Kluseman,  53  Minn.  541,  1049,  1050 
State  v.  Knight  Co.,  60  Fed.  R.  934,  230 

State  v.  Kolsem,  130  Ind.  434,  1058,  1166 

State  v.  Kupferle,  44  Mo.  154,  926 

State  v.  Kurtzeborn,  78  Mo.  98,  985 

State  v.  Ladies  of  the  Sacred  Heart,  99 

Mo.  533,  94 

State  v.  Lake  City,  25  Minn.  404, 

1195, 1212, 1257 
State  v.  Lake  Roland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Md.) 

at  Atl.  R.  1130,  2572 

State  v.  Lancaster  County,  6  Neb.  214, 

1170,  1200 

State  v.  Lathrop,  10  La.  Ann.  398,  1060 

State  v.  Latrobe,  81  Md.  222,  1624 

State  v.  Laughlin,  53  Mo.  App.  542,  247 

State  v.  Laverack,  34  N.  J.  L.  201,  1628 

State  v.  Lazarus,  40  La.  Ann.  856,  1133 

State  v  Loete,  16  Nov.  242,  228 

State  v.  Lindoen,  87  Iowa  702,  2715 

State  v.  Linkhaw,  69  N.  Car.  214,  2714 

State  v.  Linn  County  Court,  44  Mo.  504,      1140 


State  v.  Little,  49  N.  J.  Law  182,  1558 

State  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Ark. 

701,  1138 

State  v.  Loomis,  115  Mo.  307,  963 

State  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Term. 

445,  1638 

State  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Ind. 

114,  1037, 1564 

State  v.  Lubke,  15  Mo.  App.  152,  1534, 1551 
State  v.  Lyle,  100  N.  Car.  497,  1337 

State  v.  MacDonald,  26  Minn.  445,  1526 

State  v.  Macon  County  Court,  41  Mo.  453,  1215 
State  v.  Macon  County  Court,  68  Mo.  29,  1229 
State  v.  Madison,  7  Wis.  688,  538 

State  v.  Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Wis.  612, 

77, 1618, 1636 
State  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  60  Me.  490, 

1035,  2131 
State  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  66  Me.  488, 

455,  457,  458, 1090 
State  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  76  Me.  357, 

1034, 1767, 1774 

State  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  77  Me.  490,  1034 
State  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  81  Me.  84, 

1035,2558 
State  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  N.  H. 

528,  1034,  2066,  2137 

State  v.  Mansfield,  23  N.  J.  L.  510,  63,  539,  540 
State  v.  Manufacturers,  etc.,  Assn.,  24  L. 

R.  A.  252,  25,  337 

State  v.  Marietta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Ohio  St. 

154,  762, 816 

State  v.  Marshall,  69  Miss.  486,  257 

State  v.  Martin,  51  Kan.  462,  54,  75,  79 

State  v.  Mason  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Iowa 

516,  991, 1009, 1728 

State  v.  Mayhew,  2  GUI  (Md.)  487,  60 

State  v.  Mayor,  46  La.  Ann.  1276,  1212 

State  v.  Mayor,  32  Neb.  568,  1176 

State  v.  Mayor,  24  N.  J.  Law  662,  1476 

State  v.  Mayor,  27  N.  J.  L.  493,  1624 

State  v.  Mayor,  33  N.  J.  L.  57,  275 

State  v.  Mayor,  38  N.  J.  L.  85,  1104 

State  v.  Mayor,  41  N.  J.  L.  71,  1623 

State  v.  Mayor,  52  N.  J.  L.  65,  1613 

State  v.  Mayor,  52  Wis.  423,  1259 

State  v.  Mayor,  71  Wis.  502,  1557 

State  v.  Mayor,  109  D.  S.  285,  1168 

State  v.  Maze,  6  Humph.  (Tenn.)  17,  1026 
State  v.  McBride,  4  Mo.  303,  362 

State  v.  McCann,  28  Ohio  St.  198,  2643 

State  v.  McCrillus,  4  Kan.  250,  1259 

State  v.  McDaniel,  22  Ohio  St.  354,  230,  927 
State  v.  McGrath,  86  Mo.  239,  126 

State  v.  McHatton,  15  Mont.  159,  1423 

State  v.  McIver,2So.  Car.  25,  4 


CCCCXV1 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1S6S-S161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 


State  v.  McMinnville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Lea 

369,  601 

State  v.  Mercantile  Bank,  95  Tenn.  212,      1066 
State  v.  Merchant,  37  Ohio  St.  251,  786 

State  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  8 

Humph.  (Tenn.)  234,  86 

State  v.  Merry,  3  Mo.  278,  87 

State  v  Messenger,  27  Minn.  119,  1458 

State  v.  Mexican  Gulf  Ry.  Co.,  3  Rob. 

(La.)  513,  637 

State  v.  Meyer,  1  Speer  (S.  Car.)  305,  1026 

State  v.  Milk,  11  Fed.  R.  389,  1133 

State  v.  Miller,  1  Vroom  (N.  J.)  368,  1087, 1089 
State  v.  Milwaukee,  25  Wis.  122,  1168 

State  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Wis. 

579,  k77,  85,  927 

State  v.  Mims,  26  Minn.  191,  1053 

State  v.  Minneapolis,  32  Minn.  501,  1212 

State  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

Minn.  219,  915,  919, 1668,  1673 

State  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

Minn.  156,  987 

State  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.Co.,41  N.  W. 

R.  465,  991 

State  v.  Minnesota  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  36 

Minn.  246,  75,  76,  79,  694 

State  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Minn. 

213,  79,  82, 129 

State  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Ark. 

495,  75 

State  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  25  Neb.  164,   1348 
State  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Neb. 

550,  2671 

State  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  33  Kan. 

176,  919,  1667,  1672 

State  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Kan. 

497,  2530 

State  v.  Mitchell,  31  Ohio  St.  592,  1460 

State  v.  Mitchell,  50  Kan.  289,  986 

State  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Ala.  321, 

925,  1010,  2430 
State  v.  Monongahela  R.  Co.,  37  W.  Va. 

108,  1040 

State  v.  Montague,  117  U.  S.  602,  s.  c.  6 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  911,  647 

State  v.  Montclair  R.  Co.,  35  N.  J.  Law 

328,  61,  1372,  1378, 1557 

State  v.  Montgomery,  74  Ala.  226,  1242 

State  v.  Mooro,  104  N.  Car.  714,  2653 

State  v.  Mooro,  1115  N.  Car.  697,  965 

State  v.  Morgan,  28  La.  Ann.  482,  525 

State  v.  Morris,  73  Tex.  435,  84 

State  v.  Morris,  etc.,  Co.,  23  N.  J.  L.  360, 

299,  1019,  1020,  1036,  1038,  1613 
State  v.  Morristown  Fire  Ass'n,  23  N.  J.  L. 

195,      •  111 

State  v.  Musgang,  51  Minn.  556.  1054 


State  v.  Nashville  University,  4  Humph. 

(Tenn.)  157,  32 

State  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Tenn.  438,    106& 
State  v.  National  Docks,  etc.,  Co.,  55  N.  J. 

L.  194,  1493 

State  v.  Nebraska  Tel.  Co.,  17  Neb.  126, 

596,  2692 

State  v.  Neely,  30  S.  Car.  587,       1172, 1178, 1226 
State  v.  Nelson,  21  Neb.  572,  1202 

State  v.  Nelson,  (Ohio  St.)  39  N.  E.  R.  22,  2103 
State  v.  Nelson,  52  Ohio  St.  88,  21ft? 

State  v.  Neville,  110  Mo.  345,  1463 

State  v.  Newark,  1  Dutcher  (N.  J.)  315,         63 
State  v.  Newark,  26  N.  J.  L.  520,  1068 

State  v.  Newark,  27  N.  J.  L.  185,  ]  10:» 

State  v.  Newark,  28  N.  J.  L.  529,  1372 

State  v.  Newark,  35  N.  J.  L.  168,  1102 

State  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Conn. 

153,  921 

State  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Conn. 

134,  5%,  921,  2191 

State  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  43 

Conn.  351,  69,  921,  U> 

State  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  Co.,  45  Conn. 

331,  167$ 

State  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  30 

La.  Ann.  308,  146,  420 

State  v.  New  Orleans,  34  La.  Ann.  477,        1258- 
State  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  La. 

Ann.  589,  924, 1642 

State  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  La. 

Ann.  138,  915,  922 

State  v.  Newport  St.  R.  Co.,  16  R.  I.  533,    1620 
State  v.  Noble,  118  Ind.  350,  980,  982, 146» 

State  v.  Nonconnah,  etc.,  Co.,  (Tenn.)  17 

S.  W.  R.  128,  78. 

State  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  W.  Va. 

440,  1035 

State  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  9  Rich.  L. 

(S.  C.)  247,  917,  1007, 1667, 

State  v.  Northern  C.  R.  R.  Co.,  18  Md.  193, 

38,  471,  536,  648,  768- 
State  v.  Northern  Cent.  R.  Co.,  44  Md.  131, 

89,1090 
State  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  36  Minn. 

207,  45» 

State  v.  Norwalk,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.,  10 

Conn.  157,  1283, 1285 

State  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  30  Conn. 

290,  111 

State  v.  Noyes,  47  Me.  189, 

48,  66,  91,  92, 104,  962,  1045, 1381, 161S 
State  v.  Oberlin,  etc.,  Assn.,  35  Ohio  St. 

258,  79 

State  v  O'Connor,  78  Wis.  282,  1657 

State  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Ind.  362,       101S» 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCXV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  J,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  US-126Z,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1268-216^,  Vol.  IV  pp.  2165-2725.] 


State  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  38  W.  Va.  242, 

1040 
State  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 

R.  415,  143 

State  v.  Oliver,  55  Kan.  711,  1049 

State  v.  Osawkee  Township,  14  Kan.  418,  1140 
State  v.  Overton,  24  N.  3.  L.  435, 

274,  278,  282,  288,  2018,  2491,  2504 
State  v.  Park  &  Nelson  Lumber  Co., 

(Minn.)  10  Lewis  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  R. 

585,  76 

State  v.  Parker,  16  Nov.  79,  1052 

State  v.  Parkinson,  5  Nev.  15,  60 

State  v.  Passaic,  54  N.  J.  L.  340,          1107, 1108 
State  v.  Paterson,  etc!,  R.  Co.,  43  N.  J. 

Law  505,  915,  918,  924, 1009 

State  v.  Pawtuxet  Turnpike  Co.,  8  R.  I. 

182,  78 

State  v.  Peel,  etc.,  Co.,  36  W.  Va.  S02,          963 
State  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  Co.,  23  Ohio 

St.  121,  79 

State  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  133  Ind.  700, 

1043 
State  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  42  N.  J.  L. 

490,  880 

State  v.  Penny,  19  So.  Car.  218,  967 

State  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Fla. 

403,  915,  923, 1008 

State  v.  People's,  etc.,  Assn.,  42  Ohio  St. 

579,  79, 129 

State  v.  People's,  etc.,  Assn..  43  N.  J.  L. 

389,    '  147 

State  v.  Person,  32  N.  J.  L.  134,  93 

State  v.  Perth  Amboy,  52  N.  J.  L.  132,         1467 
State  v:  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Md. 

76,  2063 

State  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Md. 

555,  2027, 2063 

State  v.  Phillips,  79  Me.  506,  238 

State  v.  Pipher,  28  Kan.  127,  76 

State  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Ohio 

St.  239,  75,  927 

State  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  Ind. 

578,  455,  1043 

State  v.  Police  Judge,  111  U.  S.  716,  1258 

State  v  Pomeroy,  25  Kan.  349,  308 

State  v.  Porter,  26  Mo.  201,  1053 

State  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co..  56  Fed. 

R.  333,  942 

St.-ite  v.  Poynier,  36  La.  Ann.  572,  1054 

State  v  Prince,  45  Wis.  610,  1192 

State  v.  Proprietors  Morris  Aqueduct, 

(N.  J.)33Atl.  R.  252,  1391 

State  v.  Railroad  Comrs.,  56  Conn.  308,      1354 

CORP. — xxvii 


State  v.  Railroad  Comrs.,  41  N.  J.  Law 

235,  785, 859 

State  v.  Railroad  Co.,  24  W.  Va.  783,  2648, 2651 
State  v.  Railway  Co.,  40  Ohio  St.  504, 

76,  78, 1271 

State  v.  Rainey,  74  Mo.  229,  1213 

State  v.  Rapp,  39  Minn.  65,  1338 

State  v.  Ravine,  etc.,  Com.,  39  N.  J.  Law 

668,  975 

State  v.  Ray,  109  N.  Car.  736,  957, 1048 

State  v.  Real  Estate  Bank,  5  Ark.  595, 

79,  84,  854 

State  v.  Receiver,  etc.,  38  N.  J.  Law  299,  1068 
State  v.  Reed,  38  N.  H.  59,  1476 

State  v.  Republican  Valley  R.  Co.,  17  Neb. 

647,  918,  921,  958, 1009,  2352 

State  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  N.  C. 

634,  101, 603 

State  v.  Rio  Grande  R.  Co.,  41  Tex.  217,  87 
State  v.  Riordan,  24  Wis.  484,  1176 

State  v.  Rivers,  66  Iowa  663,  787 

State  v.  Rives.  5  Ired.  L.  (N.  C.)  297, 

77, 100, 105,  696, 1289 

State  v.  Robbins,  124  Ind.  308,  965 

State  v.  Robinson,  57  Md.  486,  425 

State  v.  Roggen,  22  Neb.  118,  1164 

State  v.  Rohlffs,  (N.  J.)  19  Atl.  R.  1099,  230 
State  v.  Rombauer,  46  Mo.  155,  147 

State  v.  Roscoe,  25  Minn.  445.  1212 

State  v.  Ross,  122  Mo.  435,  760,  786 

State  v.  Royalton,  etc.,  Co.,  11  Vt.  431,  76,  81 
State  v.  Runyon,  41  N.  J  L.  98,  1091 

State  v.  Rusk,  55  Wis.  465,  1120, 1126 

State  v.  Saline  Co.,  51  Mo.  350,  903, 1160 

State  v.  Saline  Co.  Ct. ,  48  Mo.  390,  1 163, 1172 
State  v.  Salt  Lake  City,  25  Minn.  404,  1187 
State  v.  Saunders,  (N.  H.)  18  L.  R.  A.  646,  903 
State  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  Co.,  26  Ga.  665, 

917. 1662 

State  v.  School  Dist.,  10 Neb.  544,  1237,1242 
State  v.  Scott,  22  Neb.  628,  1348 

State  v.  Scripture,  42  N.  H.  485,  1052 

State  v.  Seaboard,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  52  Fed. 

450,  456 

State  v.  Second  Judicial  Dist.  Ct., 

(Mont.)  27  L.  R.  A.  392,  757 

State  v.  Security  Bank,  2  S.  Dak.  538,  1019 
State  v.  Severance,  55  Mo.  378,  1058 

State  v.  Sewer  Commissioners,  39  N.  J. 

Law  665,  1467 

State  v.  Shardlow,  43  Minn.  524, 

987.  1659, 1662, 1663 

State  v.  Sharp,  106  Mo.  106,  1054 

State  v.  Shelbyville,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Ind.  151,,    26 


ccccxvm 


TABLE  iOF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  l-ltl£,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S715.] 


State  v.  Sherman,  22  Ohio  St.  411, 

101, 109,  719,  720,  1347, 1350 
State  v.  Shortridge,  56  Mo.  126,  1215 

State  v.  Simon,  20  Ore.  365,  985 

State  v.  Simpson,  2  Hawks  (N.  Car.)  460,  1053 
State  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Neb. 

682,  2652, 2684 

State  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Neb. 

a57,  570, 595 

State  v.  Slevin,  16  Mo.  App.  541,  1552 

State  v.  Smith,  49  N.  H.  155,  1028 

State  v.  Smith,  32  Ind.  213,  87 

State  v.  Smith,  15  Ore.  98,  227,  337 

State  v.  Smith,  48  Vt.  266,  127, 141, 142,  249,  578 
State  v.  Soragan,  40  Vt,  450,  2710 

State  v.  South  Orange,  46  N.  J.  L.  317,  1104 
State  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Minn.  | 

40,  958, 1009 

State  v.  Southern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  24  Tex. 

80,  77,  88,  90 

State  v.  Spartanburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8 

So.  Car.  129,  632,  635 

State  v.  St.  Paul  Co.,  etc.,  92  Ind.  42, 

27,  919, 1642, 1661, 1666,  1673 
State  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Minn. 

222,  84 

State  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Minn. 

363,  957 

State  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Minn. 

142,  2260 

State  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  49  Ohio  St.  137,  500 
State  v.  Steamship,  etc.,  42  Cal.  578,  1083 
State  v.  Stewart,  59  Vt.  273,  2688 

State  v.  Stewart,  74  Wis.  620,  1338, 1391 

State  v.  Stilsing,  52  N.  J.  L.  517,  995 

State  v.  Stoll,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  425,  57, 1176 
State  v.  Strong,  25  Me.  297,  1317 

State  v.  Sullivan,  120  Ind.  197,  796 

State  v.  Superior  Court,  8  Wash.  210,  784,  808 
State  v.  Supervisors,  25  Wis.  339,  1176 

State  v.  Swett,  97  Me.  99,  2310 

State  v.  Tappan,  29  Wis.  664,  1212,  1259 

State  v.  Taylor,  25  Ohio  St.  279,  86 

State  v.  The  Judges,  21  Ohio  St.  1,  1094 

State  v.  Thompson,  20  N.  H.  250,  2504 

State  v.  Tilly,  3  Ired.  (N.  C.)  Law  424,  308 
State  v.  Timken,  48  N.  J.  L.  87,  166 

State  v.  Town  of  Columbia,  111  Mo.  365,  1225 
State  v.  Town  of  Lime,  23  Minn.  521,  1204 

State  v.  Township  of  Union,  43  N.  J.  Law 

518,  1259 

State  v.  Trenton,  36  N.  J.  L.  79,  1614, 1615 

Stiitov.  Trenton,  36  N.J.  Law  198,  1343 

State  v.  Trenton,  36  N.  J.  Law  499,  1476, 1479 
State  v.  Trenton,  53  N.  J.  L.  132,  1623 

State  v.  Troth,  34  N.  J.  Law  377,  1272 

State  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Vt.  144,          1036 


State  v.  Tudor,  5  Day  (Conn.)  329,  233 

State  v.  Tupper,  Dudley  (S.  Car.)  135,  1639 
State  v.  Turk,  Mart.  &  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  287,  87 
State  v.  Union,  etc.,  Bank,  152  U.  S.  454, 

942,943 

State  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  70  Md.  69,  1739 

State  v.  Union  Township,  8  Ohio  St.  394,  1221 
State  v.  United  New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

43  N.  J.  Law  110,  1344 

State  v.  Utter,  14  N.  J.  L.  84,  927 

State  v.  Vanderbilt,  37  Ohio  St.  590, 

446,  447,  452,  572,  585 

State  v.  Vanderveer,  48  N.  J.  Law  80,  1502 
State  v.  VanDuyn,  24  Neb.  586,  926 

State  v.  VanGeison,  15  N.  J.  Law  339,  1475 
State  v.  Vermont  Cent.  R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  103, 

1019, 1036, 1038, 1613, 1638 
State  v.  Vermont  Central  R.  Co.,  30  Vt. 

108,  1038 

State  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  Ind.  466, 

819, 1021, 1038 

State  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mo.  562,  1026 
State  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mo.  144, 

957,  975, 1002, 1040 

State  v.  Walsh,  43  Minn.  444,  1053 

State  v.  Ware,  13  Ore.  380,  926 

State  v.  Weatherby,  45  Mo.  17,    •  1202 

State  v.  Weaver,  94  N.  Car.  836,  1054 

State  v.  Webb,  (Ala.)  20  So.  R.  462,  30 

State  v.  Weld,  39  Minn.  426,  926 

State  v.  Weldon,  47  N.  J.  Law  59,  1554 

State  v.  Wells,  8  Nev.  105,  985 

State  v.  Wentworth,  37  N.  H.  196, 

1034, 1049, 1050 

State  v.  West,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Wis.  197,  77 
State  v.  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  40  Kan.  96,  859 
State  v.  Western,  etc,,  R.  Co.,  56  Wis.  227, 

2601 
State  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  95 

N.  Car.  602,  862, 1036 

State  v.  Western,  etc.,  Society,  47  Ohio 

St.  167,  927 

State  v  Western  U.  Tel.  Co.,  113  N.  C.  213. 

988,  991,  995,  2655 

State  v.  Wetherill,  41  N.  J.  L.  147,  1068 

State  v.  Wheadon,  39  Ind.  520,  1563 

State  v.  Whitesides,  30  S.  Car.  579, 

1172, 1178, 1227,  1231, 1260 

State  v.  Whitworth,  22  Fed.  R.  75,  457 

State  v.  Whitworth,  22  Fed.  R.  81,  457 

State  v.  Wiley,  109  Mo.  439,  964 

State  v.  Wilmington  B.  Co  ,3  Harr.  (Del.) 

312,  917 

State  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

N.  Car.  143,  1OT) 

State  v.  Winona,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Minn.  315,  1087 
State  v.  Wood,  84  Mo.  378,  53,  76,  81 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I, pp.  i-442,  Vol.  II, pp.  U3-1Z62,  Vol.  ITT, pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


State  v.  Wood,  110  Ind.  82,  979 

State  v.  Woodruff,  36  N.  J.  L.  94,  1068 

State  v.  Woodruff,  etc.,  Co.,  114  Ind.  155, 

951, 1083 

State  v.  Woram,  6  Hill  (N.  Y.)  33,  32 

State  v.  Wright,  41  N.  J.  L.  478,  1063 

State  v.  Wright,  10  Nev.  167,  236 

State  v.  Yauger,  29  N.  J.  Law  384,  1527 

State  v.  Yellowstone  County,  12  Mont. 

503,  1259 

State  v.  Young,  26  Iowa  122,  1147 

State  Bank  v.  Chetwood,  8  N.  J.  Law  1,  328 
State  Bank  v.  Fox,  3  Blatchf.  (U.  S.) 

431,  128, 141 

State  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  U.  S.  369,  1061 
State  Bank  v.  MUwaukee,  18  Wis.  281,  111 
State  Bank  v.  People,  5  111.  303,  1063 

State  Bank  v.  State,  1  Blatchf.  (Ind.)  267,  84 
State  Bank  v.  State,  12  Am.  Dec.  234,  865 

State  Board  v.  Citizens',  etc.,  Co.,  47  Ind. 

407,  324,  503,  505,  507,  508,  513,  620 

State  Board  v.  West  Point,  50  Miss.  638,  1259 
State  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  In  re,  1  Hem.  &  M. 

457,  267 

State  Freight  Tax  Case,  15  Wall.  232, 

1073, 1076, 1079, 1083, 1084, 1086,  2637 
Staten  Island  R.  Co.,  In  re,  41  Hun  292, 

1527, 1534, 1535 
Staten  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Re.,  37  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  422,  160, 165 

Staten  Island  R.  T.  Co.,  Matter  of,  103 

N.  Y.  251,  1391 

State  Railroad  Tax  Cases,  92  U.  S.  576, 

1056,  1071,  1077, 1092, 1095 
State  Railroad  Tax  Cases,  115  U.  S.  321,  1091 
State  Reservation,  Matter  of,  192  N.  Y. 

734,  1552 

State  Sav.  Assn.  v.  Kellogg,  63  Mo.  540,  270 
State  Savings  Assn.  v.  Kellogg,  52  Mo.  583, 

257,  270 
State  Tax  on  Foreign  Held  Bonds,  15 

Wall.  300,  1089 

State  Tax  on  Gross  Receipts,  15  Wall.  284, 

1084 
State  Treasurer  v.  Auditor-General,  46 

Mich.  224,  458, 1060 

State  Treasurer  v.  Somerville,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,28N.  J.  Law  21,  536 

Staton  v.  Norfolk  R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  C.  278, 

1413, 1564, 1565 
Stattuck  v.  Stoneham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

Allen  115,  1427 

Staub  v.  Kendrick,  121  Ind.  226,  2608,  2614 
Steacy  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Dill. 

(U.  S.)  348,  115 

Steadman  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Bank,  69 

Tex.  50,  94 


Steamboat  Co.  v.  Chase,  16  WTalL  532, 

2129,  2141 
Steamboat  Crystal  Palace  v.  Vanderpool, 

16  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  302,  2621 

Steamboat  "Emily"  v.  Kearney,  5  Kan. 

645,  2201 

Steamboat  New  World  v.  Kong,  16  How. 

(U.  S.)  469,  2163 

Steamboat  Virginia  v.  Kraft,  25  Mo.  76,     2442 
Steamboat  Wisconsin  v.  Young,  3  Greene 

(la.)  268,  2206 

Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Weed,  17  Barb.  378,         517 
Stearns  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Me.  95, 

1891, 1921 

Stearns  v.  Deerfield,  51  N.  H.  372,  1526 

Stearns  v.  Pullman  Car  Co.,  8  Ont.  171, 

2535,2539 

Stearns  v.  Richmond,  88  Va.  992,  1406 

Stearns  v.  Steams,  16  Mass.  167,  762 

Stebbins  v.  Central  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

54  Vt.  464,  1927 

Stebbins  v.  Kay,  4  N.  Y.  Sup.  566,  1104 

Stebbins  v.  Phoenix  F.  Ins.  Co.,  3  Paige 

(N.  Y.)  350,  149 

Stedman  v.  Vickery,  42  Me.  132,  890 

Steel  v.  Holladay,  19  Ore.  517,  825 

Steel  v.  Kurtz,  28  Ohio  St.  191,  2142 

Steel  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  16  C.  B.  550, 

1591 
Steel  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  32  Eng.  L.  & 

Eq.  366,  1588 

Steele  v.  Aspy,  128  Ind.  367,  738 

Steele  v.  McTyer,  31  Ala.  667,  2268 

Steele  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74CaL  323, 

1901,1940 

Steele  v.  Sturges,  5  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  442,      785 
Steele  v.  Townsend,  37  Ala.  247, 

2201,  2267,  2311,  2321,  2322,  2324,  2347 
Steers  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Steamship  Co.,  57 

N.  Y.  1,  2313 

Steers  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.,  57  N.  Y- 1, 

2322,  2483,  2632,  2633 
Steever  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  62  Iowa 

371,  414 

Steffe  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  156  Mass. 

262,  2123 

Steffenson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

Minn.  355,  2119 

Steger  v.  Arctic,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Tenn.  453,      1599 
Steiler  v.  Hart,  65  Mich.  644,  2024 

Stein  v.  Bienville  Water  Co.,  141  U.  S.  67. 

942, 1619 

Stein  v.  Howard,  65  Cal.  616,  129 

Stein  v.  Mobile,  24  Ala.  591,  1147 

Steinbrunner  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

146  Pa.  St.  504,  2152 

Steiner's  Appeal,  27  Pa.  St.  313,  107, 108 


ccccxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27M.] 


Steines  v.  Franklin  County,  48  Mo.  167, 

1171, 1172, 1217 
Steinhofel  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  ( Wis.) 

65  N.  W.  R.  852,  1773 

Steinman  v.  Wilkins,  7  W.  &  S.  (Pa.)466,  2439 
Steinmetz  v.  Versailles,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Ind.  457,  205 

Steinweg  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  43  N.  Y.  123, 

1898,  2289,  2292,  2332,  2474 

Stephen  v.  Smith,  29  Vt.  160,  283,  284,  2576 
Stephens  v.  Benton,  1  Duv.  (Ky.)  112,  631 
Stephens  v.  Commissioners,  36  Kan.  664,  1482 
Stephens  v.  FoUett,  43  Fed.  R.  842,  228 

Stephens  v.  Fox,  83  N.  Y.  313,  258 

Stephens  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Mo. 

221,  2033 

Stephens  v.  Huss,  54  Pa.  St.  20,  552 

Stephens  v.  Railway  Co.,  10  Lea  448,  2148 
Stephens  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  (Cal.) 

41  Pac.  R.  783,  1920 

Stephenson  v.  Duncan,  73  Wis.  404, 

2031,  2039,  2708 
Stephenson  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

34  Mich.  323,  1816 

Stephenson  v.  Hart,  4  Bing.  476,  2359,  2383 
Stephenson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Duer  (N.  Y.)  341,  316 

S4ephenson  v.  Southern,  etc.,R.  Co.,  93 

Cal.  585,  303, 1990 

Stern  v.  Michigan  Central  R.  Co.,  76 

Mich.  591,  1850,  2598,  2704 

Sternberger  v.  Cape  Fear,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

Car.  510,  994,995,2655 

Stertz  v.  Stewart,  74  Wis.  160,  1930, 1939 

Stetler  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Wis. 

609,  614, 2352 

Stetson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  111.  74,  1651 
Stetson  v.  City  Bank,  2  Ohio  St.  167,  867 

Stetson  v.  City  Bank,  12  Ohio  St.  577,  863 

Stevens  v.  Anson,  73  Me.  489,  1165 

Stevens  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  41  Iowa 

341,  1497 

Stevens  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Gray 

(Mess.)  262,  2254,  2443 

Stevens  v.  Brown,  20  W.  Va.  450,  888 

Stevens  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  31  Barb. 

590,  696 

Stevens  v.  Buffalo,  etc..  R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y. 

314,  536 

Stevens  v.  Carp  River  Iron  Co.,  57  Mich. 

427,  398 

Stevens  v.  Danbury,  53  Conn.  9,  1504 

Stevens  v.  Davison,  18  Gratt.  (Va.)  819, 

280,  578,  735,  736,  738  739,  748,  758 
Stevens  v.  Duck  River  Nav.  Co.,  1  Sneed 

(Tenn.)  237,  1503 

Stevens  v.  Eden,  etc.,  12  Vt  688,  360 


Stevens  v.  Erie  R.  R.  Co.,  21  N.  J.  E  q.  259,    61 
Stevens  v.  Flanagan,  131  Ind.  122,  555- 

Stevens  v.  Hill,  29  Me.  133,  355 

Stevens  v.  Mid-Hants,  etc..  R.  R.  Co., 

L.  R.  8  Ch.  1064,  637 

Stevens  v.  Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Exch. 

352,  1993 

Stevens  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

13  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  412,  634,  635,  657,  706 

Stevens  v.  Nichols,  130  U.  S.  230,  937 

Stevens  v.  Paterson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  N.  J. 

Law  532,  1403 

Stevens  v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  41  N.  Y.  149,     945 
Stevens  v.  Proprietors  of  Middlesex 

Canal,  12  Mass.  466,  1454,1539 

Stevens  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  29  Vt. 

545,  70,  232,  239,  375,  454,  508,  512,  911 

Stevens  v.  South  Devon,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

9  Hare  313,  419,  436- 

Stevens  v.  Stevens,  11  Mete.  (Mass.)  251,    1324 
Stevens  v.  Watson,  4  Abb.  App.  Dec. 

(N.  Y.)  302,  651 

Stevenson,  The  J.  C.,  17  Fed.  R.  540,  2267 

Stevenson  v.  Jewett,  16  Hun  210,  2050 

Stevenson  v.  Loehr,  57  111.  509,  1450- 

Stevenson  v.  Mayor,  20  Fed.  R.  586,  1628 

Stevenson  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  31  S. 

W.  R.  793,  1613 

Stevenson  v.  Montreal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  530,  2453 

Stevenson  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  26  S.  W.  R.  112,  2535 

Stewart's  Case,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  App.  574,  199 

Stewart's  Appeal,  56  Pa.  St.  413, 

2, 104,  569,  637,  1115,  1563 
Stewart  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (D.  C. 

App.)  23  Wash.  L.  Rep.  247,  2143 

Stewart  v.  Bardin,  113  N.  Car.  277,  684 

Stewart  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  146  Mass. 

605,  2468, 2558 

Stewart  v.  Boulware,  133  U.  S.  78,  825,  826,  827 
Stewart  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  Co.,  90  N.  Y. 

588,  299,1989,2475,2580 

Stewart  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  N.  J. 

Law  115,  1560 

Stewart  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Iowa 

282,  1860 

Stewart  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141  Ind. 

55,  2710 

Stewart  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89 

Mich.  315,  1729, 1731, 1734, 1957 

Stewart  v.  Erie  &  W.  Trans.  Co.,  17  Minn. 

372,  50,  412,  474,  490,  499,  508,  2166 

Stewart  v.  Firemen's  Ins.  Co.,  53  Md.  564,  425 
Stewart  v.  Gracy,  93  Tenn.  314,  2185,  2272 

Stewart  v.  Hovey,  45  Kan.  708,  1069 

Stewart  v.  Hoyt,  111  U.  S.  373,  875 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCXX1 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  l-U2,Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 
Stewart  v.  International,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  53 

Tex.  289,  2546,  2590 

Stewart  v.  Jones,  40  Mo.  140,  105,  637,  695 

Stewart  v.  Lansing,  104  U.  S.  505,  631,  634 

Stewart  v.  Lay,  45  Iowa  604,  263,  264 

Stewart  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  38  N.  J. 

L.  505,  373,  533,  2285,  2433 

Stewart  v.  Long  Island  B.  Co.,  102  N.  Y. 

601.  574 

Stewart  v.  Merchants'  D.  Co.,  47  Iowa 

229,  2178,  2212,  2236,  2308 

Stewart  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  36 

Minn.  355,  169 

Stewart  v.  Ohio  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  W. 

Va.  438,  1634 

Stewart  v.  Ohio  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (W. 

Va.)  20  S.  E.  R.  922,  2055,  2072 

Stewart  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  130  Ind.  242, 

2706 
Stewart  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  (Marion 

County,  Ind.,  Super.  Ct.)  14  Am.  &  Eng. 

R.  Cas.  679,  1742, 1958 

Stewart  v.  Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  9  Lea  104,         416 
Stewart  v.  Raymond,  etc.,  Co.,  7  S.  &  M. 

(Miss.)  568,  1487, 1536, 1545,  1549 

Stewart  v.  St.  Louis,  Ft.  S.  &  W.  R.  Co., 

41  Fed.  R.  736,  167,  372,  778,  779 

Stewart  v.  State,  105  N.  Y.  254,  1458 

Stewart  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Fed.  R.  8,  2686 

Stewart  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

McCrary  312,  2228 

Stewart  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

Ind.  44,  2126 

Stewart  v.  Waterloo  Turn  Verein,  71  Iowa 

226,  1019 

Stewart  v.  White,  98  Mo.  226,  1451 

Stewart,  etc.,  Co.'s  Appeal,  72  Pa.  St.  291,  106 
Stewart,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 

33  Neb.  29,  1597 

Stickley  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

Ky.  323,  608,  613 

Stickney  v.  Maidstone,  30  Vt.  738,  1789 

Stiles  y.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Ga.  370,    2545 
Stiles  v.  Davis,  1  Black  101,  2388 

Stiles  v.  Howland,  32  N.  Y.  309,  2389 

Stillman  v.  Dougherty,  44  Md.  380,  795 

Stilwell  v.  Williams,  6  Madd.  38,  731 

Stimson  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98 

Mass.  83,  2228,  2611,  2624,  2628 

Stimson  v.  Jackson,  58  N.  H.  138, 

2209,2309,2380 
Stimson  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75 

Wis.  381,  2598 

Stinson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Minn. 

284,  1432, 1512, 1513 

.Stinson  v.  Dunbarton,  46  N.  H.  385,  1533 


III,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27SB.] 
Stirk  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Ga.  495,    2003 
Stix  v.  Keith,  90  Ala.  121,  945 

Stock,  Ex  parte,  33  L.  J.  Ch.  731,  338 

Stockett  v.  Howard,  34  Md.  121,  493 

Stockholders  of  Shelby  R.  Co.  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Bush  (Ky.)  62,  237 
Stockmeyer  v.  Reed,  55  Fed.  R.  259,            2081 
Stockton  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Railroad  Co., 

32  Fed.  R.  9,         36, 1375. 1415, 1416,  2637,  2656 
Stockton  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  50  N.  J.  Eq. 

489,  515 

Stockton  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  50  N.  J.  Eq.  52, 

582,  902, 1380 

Stockton  v.  Frey,  4  Gil.  (Md.)  406,  2473 

Stockton  v.  Powell,  29  Fla.  1,  964 

Stockton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Galgiani,  49  CaL 

139,  1533, 1556 

Stockton,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Stock- 
ton, 51  Cal.  328,  185, 1139, 1339, 1344 
Stockwell  v.  State,  101  Ind.  1,  680 
Stoddard  v.  Shetucket,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Conn. 

542,  165, 428 

Stodder  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Hun 

221,  2472 

Stodhill  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Iowa 

341,  1539 

Stodhill  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Iowa 

26,  1301,  1302, 1357, 1454, 1456 

Stoeckman  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

15  Mo.  App.  503,  2134 

Stokes  v.  Knarr,  11  Wis.  389,  1544 

Stokes  v.  Lebanon,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.,  6 

Humph.  (Tenn.)  241,  214,  215 

Stokes  v.  Parker,  53  N.  J.  L.  183,  1450 

Stokes  v.  Phelps  Mission,  47  Hun  570,  482 

Stokes  v.  Saltonstall,  13  Pet.  (U.  S.)  181, 

2466,  2470,  2596 
Stokes  v.  Suffolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  N.  Car. 

178,  2478, 2590 

StoUenwerck  v.  Thatcher,  115  Mass.  224, 

2214,  2216,  2217 
Stone  v.  Cheshire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  N.  H. 

427,  1588, 1589 

Stone  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Mich.  76, 

2150 
Stone  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Iowa  82, 

2461,  2491,  2504,  2574 
Stone  v.  City,  etc.,  Bank,  L.  R.  3  C.  P. 

Div.  282,  260 

Stone  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  613,  2658,  2669,  2678 

Stone  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  N.  Y. 

104,  1647,  1978, 1981 

Stone  v.  Elliott,  11  Ohio  St.  252,  1221 

Stone  v.  Fairbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  111.  394, 

1411, 1564 


CCCCXX11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-lAS,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165~S7gS.] 

~nn    **       T?rt*~«A*.f-t     T    r*nn       (-     TVnr-4-    f^,*  1   1(1  Gt^kTTn*.    TT       T?lnAl*        OA    XT        V       Cl 


Stone  v.  Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co.,  116 

U.  S.  307,     69,  953,  978,  981,  991,  997,  2486,  2487 
Stone  v.  Hayes,  3  Denio  515,  395 

Stone  v.  Hills,  45  Conn.  44,  303 

Stone  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.Co.,  116  U.  S.  347, 

2485 

Stone  v.  Kellogg,  62  111.  App.  444,  387 

Stone  v.  Mississippi,  101  U.  S.  814,  1087 

Stone  v.  Natchez,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Miss.  646, 

978,  981,  997 
Stone  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116 

U.  S.  352,  2486 

Stone  v.  New  York,  25  Wend.  157,  1558 

Stone  v.  Rice,  58  Ala.  95,  2370 

Stone  v.  Swift,  4  Pick.  389,  2218 

Stone  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Brad. 

(111.)  48,  -414,  2200,  2202,  2204,  2218 

Stone  v.  Waitt,  31  Me.  409,  2376 

Stone  v.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Miss.  607,     981 
Stoneback  v.  Thomas  Iron  Co.,  (Pa.)  4 

Atl.  R.  721,  49 

Stoneham,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gould,  2  Gray 

(Mass.)  277,  219 

Stoneman  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Railroad  Co., 

58  Mo.  503,  1746,  1757, 1857,  2066 

Stoneman  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  52  N.  Y.  429, 

2208,  2612 
Stoney  v.  American  Life  Ins.  Co.,  11  Paige 

(N.  Y.)  635,  628 

Stopp  v.  Fitchburg  Co.,  80  Hun  178,  1775 

Stoops  v.  Greensburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Ind. 

47,  22, 23 

Storer  v.  Hobbs,  52  Me.  144,  1561 

Storey  v.  Ashton,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  476, 

302,303,2462 

Storm  v.  Ennantrout,  89  Ind.  214,  787 

Storm  Lake,  Town  of,  v.  Iowa  Falls,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  62  Iowa  218,  1488 

Storr  v.  Crowley,  McClelL  &  Y.  129,  2375 

Storrs  v.  City  of  Utica,  17  N.  Y.  104,  1589 

Storrs  v.  Pensacola  R.  Co.,  29  Fla.  617,        983 
Story  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa 

402,  1851, 1864 

Story  v.  New  York  El.  R.  Co.,  90  N.  Y.  122, 

12,  900, 1399, 1629, 1651 
Stotsenberg  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

165  Pa.  St.  377,  1999 

Stott  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  24  U.  C.  C.  P. 

347,  1987 

Stourbridge  Canal  Co.  v.  Wheeley,  2  B.  & 

AdoL  793,  62 

Stout  v.  Lye,  103  U.  S.  66,  677 

Stout  v.  Yaeger  Mill  Co.,  13  Fed.  R.  802,      856 
Stout  v.  Zulick,  46  N.  J.  L.  599,  272,  877 

Stoutenburgh  v.  Hennick,  129  U.  S.  141, 

1078,  2641,  2656 
Stovall  v.  Banks,  10  Wall.  (U.  S.)  583,          689 


Stover  v.  Flack,  30  N.  Y.  64,  263 

Stow  v.  Wyse,  7  Conn.  214,  237,  359,  360,  394 
Stowe  v.  Flagg,  72  111.  397,  153 

Stowe  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Mass. 

521,  2274,  2278,  2702 

Stoyston,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Graver,  45 

Pa.  St.  386,  354,  358 

Straiten  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Railroad,  2  E. 

D.  Smith  184,  2243 

Strand  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mich. 

216,  2548 

Strang  v.  Beloit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,'16  Wis.  635, 

1275, 1473, 1481, 1500, 1527 

Strang  v.  Cook,  47  Hun  46,  1230 

Strange  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Tex. 

162,  137 

Strasburg  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Echternacht,  21 

Pa.  St.  220,  153, 155- 

Stranton,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  16  Eq. 

559,  249 

Strasser  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128 

N.  Y.  157,  1614 

Stratton  v.  Allen,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  229,  378, 855. 
Stratton  v.  European  &  N.  A.  R.  Co.,  76 

Me.  269,  705 

Stratton  v.  Lyons,  53  Vt.  130,  363 

Strauder  v.  West  Virginia,  100  U.  S.  313,  929- 
Straughan  v.  Hallwood,  30  W.  Va.  274,  773- 
Straughan  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

38  Ind.  185,  157 

Strauss  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86 

Mo.  421,  2547 

Strawbridge  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

Md.  360,  330- 

Strawbridge  v.  Bradford,  128  Pa.  St.  200,  1978 
Street  v.  Laumier,  34  Mo.  469,  1881 

Street  v.  Maryland  Cent.  Ry.  Co.,  59  Fed. 

R.  25,  708,  837 

Street  v.  Maryland  Cent.  Ry.  Co.,  58  Fed. 

R.  47,  830 

Street  v.  Morrison,  10  New  Brans.  296,  2187 
Street  R.  Co.  v.  Bolton,  43  Ohio  St.  224,  2061 
Street  R.  Co.  v.  Eadie,  43  Ohio  St.  91, 

1790, 1799 
Street  R.  Co.  v.  West  Side  St.  R.  Co.,  48 

Mich.  433,  1626- 

Streeter  v.  Horlock,  1  Bing.  24,  2308- 

Stretton  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

N.  J.  Eq.  50,  1491,  1536 

Strick  v.  Swansea,  etc.,  Co.,  16  C.  B.  N.  S. 

245,  2684 

Strieb  v.  Cox,  111  Ind.  299,  1229 

Striegel  v.  Moore,  55  Iowa  88,  1931 

Striker  v.  Kelly,  2  Denio  323,  1469 

Strickland  v.  Barrett,  20  Pick.  415,  2283- 

Strickler  v.  Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  Ind. 

412,  1459,  1542, 1550> 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccccxxm 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I.  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT, pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  TTI,  pp.  1263-H6A,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  Z165-W25.] 


Stringer's  Case,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  475,  431,  436 

Stringer  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Iowa 

277,  1312, 1823 

Stringer  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  Co.,  96 

Mo.  299,  2561 

Stringham  v.  Oshkosh,  etc.,  Co.,  33  Wis. 

471,  361,  1391 

Strobe  v.  Downer,  80  Am.  Dec.  709,         677,  678 
Stroble  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Iowa 

555,  2112,  2121,  2122 

Strodderv.  Southern, etc., Co., 94 Qa.  636,  2149 
Strohecker  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  42 

Ga.  509,  61,  558, 1357 

Strohn  v.  Detroit;  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Wis. 

126,  2264 

Strohn  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Wis. 

554,  2324 

Strong  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  93 

N.  Y.  426,  127,  434,  441 

Strong  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  15  Mich. 

206,  2206, 2420 

Strong  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  62  N. 

W.  R.  799,  2020,  2042,  2059 

Strong  v.  McCagg,  55  Wis.  624,  757,  864 

Strong  v.  Natally,  4  B.  &  P.  (1  New  R  ) 

16,  2376 

Strong  v.  Smith,  15  Hun  222,  227 

Strong  v.  Wheaton,  38  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  616,      259 
Stroub  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  15  N.  Y. 

Supp.  135,  901 

Stroud  v.  Philadelphia,  61  Pa.  St.  255,       1102 
Strouss  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Fed.  R. 

209,  2264,  2469,  2(312,  2613,  2615 

Struthers  v.  Dunkirk,  etc.,  Railway  Co., 

87  Pa.  St.  282,     560, 1037, 1265,  1564, 1633, 1634 
Strutzel  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Minn. 

543,  1646 

Stryker  v.  Cassidy,  76  N.  Y.  50,  1605 

Stuart  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Jur.  209, 

10  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  57,  322 

Stuart  v.  Palmer,  74  N.  Y.  183,    1091, 1476,  1524 
Stuart  v.  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  32  Gratt.  (Va.) 

146,  157, 253 

Stuart  T.  West  End  Co.,  163  Mass.  391,       2024 
Stubbs  v.  Lister,  1  Younge  &  C.  Ch.  Gas. 

81,  221 

Stubley  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1 

Ex.  13,  1751,  1752 

Stucke  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Wis.  202, 

1803,  1863 
Studley  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Minn. 

249,  1779, 1784 

Stnebling  v.  Marshall,  10 Daly  (N.Y.  C.  P.) 

406,  2148 

Stuettgen  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Wis.  498,  1828 


Stumpe  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mo. 

App.  Reporter  633,  171T 

Sturge  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  DeG.,  M. 

&  G.  158,  119,  120 

Sturgeon  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Mo. 

569,  2402,  '2115 

Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  122,     265»> 
Sturges  v.  Knapp,  31  Vt.  1,  684 

Sturges  v.  Society,  130  Mass.  414,  1.392 

Sturges  v.  Stetson,  1  Biss.  (U.  S.)  246, 

128,  129,  219 

Sturges  v.  Vanderbilt,  73  N.  Y.  384,      74,  91,  94 
Sturdivant  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Tex.  C.  A.)  27  S.  W.  R.  170,  2564 

Sturgis  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Mich. 

619,  2550, 2591 

Sturtevant  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

Wis  63,  1536,  1547 

Stutsman  County  v.  Wallace,  142  U.  S. 

293,  1087 

Stuyvesant  v.  Mayor  of  New  York,  11 

Paige  (N.  Y.)  414,  1309 

Stuyvesant  v.  New  York,  7  Cowen  (N.  Y.) 

588,  277 

Stuyvesant  v.  Woodruff,  21  N.  J.  L.  133,    1303 
Stutz  v.  Armour,  84  Wis.  623,  2081 

Stutz  v.  Handley,  41  Fed.  R.  531, 

36, 130, 157,  236,  238,  261 
Stutz  v.  Handley,  7  By.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  407, 

36,  261 
Suburban,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Board,  153  Mass. 

200,  1616 

Suburban  Hotel  Co.,  In  re,  L.  R.  2  Ch- 

737,  862 

Suburban,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  128 

N.  Y.  510,  1374 

Suburban  R.  T.  Co.,  Matter  of,  38  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  553,  1495 

Success,  The,  7  Blatch.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  551,    2420 
Sue,  The,  222  Fed.  R.  843,  2644 

Suffield,  Town  of,  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  Co., 

53  Conn.  367,  1670 

Sufford  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Mass. 

583,  1893 

Sugarman  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

N.  Y.  Supp.  533,  1927 

Sugden  v.  Alsbury,  63  L.  T.  R.  576,  424 

Suit  v.  Woodhall,  113  Mass.  391,  2196 

Sullivan  v.  Commonwealth,  93  Pa.  St. 

284,  2715 

Sullivan  v.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  161 

Mass.  125,  2033,  2040,  2113 

Sullivan  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  Mo. 

66,  2091 

Sullivan  v.  India,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Mass. 

396,  2011, 2055 


CCCCXX1V 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
(  Vol.  I,  pp.  i-442.  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1263,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-37*5.} 


Sullivan  v.  Jefferson  Ave.  R  Co.,  (Mo.)  34 

S.  W.  R.  566,  2179,  2704 

Sullivan  v.  Lafayette  Co.,  61  Miss.  271,       1532 
Sullivan  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

Iowa  421,  2074 

Sullivan  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  117  Mo. 

214,  1784 

Sullivan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Pa. 

St.)34Atl.  R.  798,  2718 

Sullivan  v.  New  York,  etc. ,  R.  Co.,  62  Conn. 

209,  2079, 2091 

Sullivan  v.  New  York,  etc,  R.  Co.,  154 

Mass.  524,  1777 

Sullivan  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  148  Mass. 

119,  1992, 2574 

Sullivan  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Co  ,  24  Ore.  408,    1810 
Sullivan  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.;  (Pa.  St )  7 

Atl.  R.  177,  1764 

Sullivan  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

Pa.  St.  234,  1829,  2368,  2449,  2476,  2599 

Sullivan  v.  Portland,  etc  ,  R.  Co.,  4  Cliff. 

212,  711, 712 

Sullivan  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  U.  S. 

806,  703,  711,  712 

Sullivan  v.  Yicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  La. 

Ann.  800,  1964 

Sullivan  v.  Walton,  20  Fla.  552,  1248 

Sullivan  v.  Waters,  14  Ir   C.  L.  R.  460, 

1952, 1957,  2057 
Summerhays  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

2  Colo.  484,  2027 

Sulphur  Springs,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  650,        73, 1276 
Summers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Fed. 

R.  714,  1572 

Summers  v.  Crescent,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  La. 

Ann.  139,  2563 

Summers  v.  Dickinson,  9  Cal.  554,  1123 

Summers  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Tenn.)  35  S.  W.  R.  210,  2722 

Summit  v.  State,  8  Lea  (Tenn.)  413,  285 

Sumner  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  N.  C. 

289,  413 

Sumner  v.  Darnell,  128  Ind.  38,  1311 

Sumner  v.  Marcy,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  105,          348 
Sumner  v.  Southern  R.  Assn.,  7  Baxt. 

(Tenn.)  345,  2253 

Snnmer  v.  Walker,  30  Fed.  R.  261,      2224,  2244 
Sunbnry,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hummell,  27  Pa. 

St.  99,  1564 

Sunderland  Bridge  Case,  122  Mass.  459,      1379 
Sunnyside,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Reitz,  (Ind.)  43  N. 

E.  R.  46,          .  2720 

Supervisors  v.  Cook,  38  111.  44,  1246 

Supervisors  v.  Galbraith,  99  U.  S.  214, 

1145, 1155, 1163, 1170, 1239 
Supervisors  v.  Paxton,  57  Miss.  701,  1245 


Supervisors  v.  Randolph,  89  Va.  614,          1173 
Supervisors  v.  Rogers,  7  Wall.  175,  1281 

Supervisors  v.  Schenck,  5  Wall.  772, 

1171, 1182, 1238, 1239, 1246 
Supervisors  v.  United  States,  18  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  71,  1213,  1229, 1260 

Supply  Ditch  Co.  v.  Elliott,  10  Colo.  327, 

117, 146 

Supreme  Lodge  v.  Knight,  117  Ind.  489,       278 
Supreme  Lodge  v.  Wilson,  66  Fed.  R.  785, 

945 
Supreme  Sitting,  etc.,  v.  Baker,  134  Ind. 

293,  .          741 

Supreme  Sitting,  etc.,  v.  Baker,  (Ind.)  20 

L.  R.  A.  210,  758 

Susquehanna,  etc.,  Co  v.  Bonham,  9  W. 

&  S.  (Pa.)  27,  637 

Susquehanna,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gen.  Ins.  Co., 

3  Md.  305,  555 

Susquehanna  Ins.  Co.  v  Perrine,  7  Watts 

&  S.  (Pa.)  348,  275,  276 

Susquehanna,  etc.,  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Peo- 
ple, 15  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  267,  1038 
Sussex,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v  Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

19  N.  J.  Eq.  13,  64,  490,  499 

Sutherland  v.  Olcott,  95  N.  Y.  93,  126 

Sutherland  v.  Second  Nat.  Bank,  78  Ky. 

250,  2222 

Sutherland  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y. 

737,  2046, 2071 

Sutliff  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  24 

Ohio  St.  147,  624 

Sutliff  v.  Lake  County  Commissioners, 

147  U.  S.  230,  1228 

Sutro  v.  Pettit,  74  Cal.  332,  1176 

Sutter  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Baum,  66  Cal.  44,  380 

Button's  Case,  3  DeG.  &  Sm.  262,  263 

Sutton  v.  Jones,  15  Ves.  584,  781 

Button  v.  Louisville,  5  Dana  (Ky.)  28,        1426 
Sutton  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y. 

S  R  514,  2085 

Sutton  v  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  N.  Y. 

243,  1733, 1741, 1952 

Sutton  v.  Southeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

Jur.  N.  S.  935,  2430 

Sutton  v.  Town  of  Wauwatosa,  29  Wis. 

21,  2065 

Button's  Hospital,  Case  of,  10  Coke  1,          475 
Sutton  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hutchinson,  63  Fed 

R.  496,  851,  856,  857 

Sutzin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa)  63 

N.  W.  R.  709,  1969 

Suydam  v.  Marine,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Johns.  138,  2303 
Suydam  v.  Moore,  8  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  358,  93 

Suydam  v.  Williamson,  20  How.  427,          2722 
Suydam  v.  Williamson,  24  How.  (U,  S.) 

427,  1067 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCXXV 


[References  are  to  Pages,} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-V&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-2164,  Vol.  IV-  pp.  H65-S7S5.] 


Suyer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Railroad  Co.,  123 

111.  293,  1346,  1526 

Swain  v.  Shepherd,  1  Moody  &  R.  223,  2695 
Swan  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  72  Iowa 

650,  1327, 1730, 1732 

Swan  v.  County  of  Middlesex,  101  Mass. 

173,  1437, 1514, 1518,  1519,  1521 

Swan  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132 

Mass.  116,  283,  2507,  2574 

Swan  v.  Williams,  2  Mich.  427,  1332 

Swan  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Frank,  39  Fed.  R. 

456,  859 

Swann  v.  Clark,  110  U.  S.  602,  836,  841,  845 
Swann  v.  Jenkins,  82  Ala  478,  1119 

Swann  v.  Miller,  82  Ala.  530,  1129 

Swann  v.  Wright,  110  U-  S.  590,  705 

Swansea  Dock  Co.  v.  Levien,  20  L.  J.(Ex.) 

447,  205 

Swanson  v.  City  of  Lafayette,  134  Ind.  625, 

2029.  2105 
Swartont  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Wis. 

625,  1914 

Swartout  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 Hun 

(N.  Y.)  571,  1843 

Swartout  v.  Michigan  Air  Line  R.  Co.,  24 

Mich.  389,       29, 168, 183,  447,  453,  531,  551,  876 
Swartz  v.  Duncan,  38  Neb.  782,  325 

Swatara  R.  Co.  v.  Brune,  6  Gill  (Md.)  41,  192 
Swayze  v.  New  Jersey  Midland  R.  Co.,  36 

N.  J.  L.  295,  1425, 1526,  1535 

Sweaney  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  Co.,  54  Mo. 

App.  265,  1113 

Swearingen  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 

Mo.  73,  1835 

Sweatt  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  3  Cliff. 

(U    S)339,  4,1083 

Sweatt  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Nat.  Bank 

Reg  234,  106 

Sweeney  v.  Berlin,  etc.,  Envelope  Co.,  101 

N.  Y.  520,  2011,  2039,  2055,  2060 

Sweeney  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  Mass. 

5,  1587 

Sweeney  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  20  Barb. 

449,  2002 

Sweeney  v.  Central  Pacific  R.  Co.,  57  Cal- 

15,  1831, 2047 

Sweeney  v.  Chicago,  etc  ,  R.  Co.,  60  Wis. 

60,  1377 

Sweeney  v.  Grape  Sugar  Co.,  30  W.  Va. 

443,  855 

Sweeney  v.  Grand  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

Fed.  R.  3,  938 

Sweeney  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Tex.  438,  2091 
Sweeney  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33 

Minn.  153  2046 

Sweeney  v.  U.  S.,  109  U.  S.  618,  1571, 1574 


Sweeny  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Allen  368, 

1741, 1742, 1754, 1783, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1984, 2589 
Sweet  v.  Barney,  23  N.  Y.  335,  2215,  2352,  2375 
Sweet  v.  Barney,  28  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  403,  2178 
Sweet  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Hun 

643,  *       1632 

Sweet  v.  Buffalo,  etc...  R.  Co.,  79  N.  Y. 

293,  1386 

Sweet  v.  Clutts,  50  N.  H-  439  1405 

Sweet  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Mich. 

559,  2001 

Sweet  v.  Morrison,  116  N.  Y.  19,  1574, 1577 
Sweet  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Wis.  127,  2055 
Sweet  v.  Pym,  1  East  4,  389 

Sweny  v..Smith,  L.  R.  7  Eq.  324,  221 

Swepson  v.  Exchange,  etc.,  Bank,  9  Lea 

(Tenn.)  713,  855 

Swetland  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Mass. 

276,  2252, 2305 

Swett  v.  Stark,  31  Fed.  R.  858,  681 

Swift's  Appeal,  111  Pa.  St.  516,  1272 

Swift  v.  Pacific  Mail,  etc.,  Co  .  106  N.  Y- 

206,  497,  2210,  2225,  2243,  2244,  2246,  2325,  2696 
Swift  v.  Pacific  Mail,  etc.,  Co.,  30  Am.  & 

Eng.  R.  Cas.  105, 
Swift  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Fed. 

R.  59,  2637 

Swift  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Fed. 

R.  858,  951,  2432 

Swift  v.  Smith,  65  Md.  428,  232,  244,  246,  859 
Swift  v.  Staten  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123 

N.  Y.  645,  1733,  1743, 1957 

Swift  v.  Tyson,  16  Pet.  1,  2638 

Swift  &  Co.  v.  Crawford,  34  Neb.  450,  874 

Swift's,  etc..  Works  v.  Johnson,  26  Fed. 

R.  828,  785 

Swigert,  In  re,  119  111.  83,  1068 

Swigert  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Mo. 

475,  2545, 2548 

Swindler  v.  Hilliard,  2  Rich.  L.  (S.  Car.) 

286,  2269 

Swinney  v.  Ft.  Wayne,  etc,,  R.  Co.,  59  Ind. 

205,  560,  1037, 1390, 1442, 1481, 1483;  1493, 1535 
Swisshelm  v.  Swissvale,  etc.,  Co.,  95  Pa. 

St.  367,  555 

Swoboda  v.  Ward,  40  Mich.  420,  2055 

Swope  v.  Leffingwell,  105  U.  S.  3,  542 

Swope  v.  Villard,  61  Fed.  R.  417,  806 

Sword  v.  Young,  3  Lewis'  Am  R.  &  Corp. 

R.  451,  2359,  2364 

Sword  v.  Young,  89  Tenn.  126,  2364,  2383 

Syke's  Case,  L  R.  13  Eq.  Cas.  255,  202 

Sykes  v.  Columbus,  55  Miss.  115, 

1150, 1173, 1174, 1231 
Sykora  v.  Case.  etc..  Co..  59  Minn.  130,       2150 


CCCCXXV1 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-JU2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  5165-S725.] 


Syme  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  N.  Car. 

558,  1782, 1968 

Symmes  v.  Union  Trust  Co.,  60  Fed.  R. 

830,  713,  714,  715,  723,  724,  726 

Symns  v.  Schotten,  35  Kan.  310,  2394,  2396 

Symonds  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

Ohio  *47,  1424, 1426 

Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  R  ,  In  re,  91  N.  Y.  1, 

130,242 

Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  4  Hun  311,      1506 
Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gere,  4  Hun 

(N.Y  )  392,  160, 165, 192, 195 

Syracuse  Water  Co.  v.  Syracuse,  5  L.  R. 

A.  546,  48 


Taber  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R  Co.,  15  Ind. 

459,  536, 638 

Tabor,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McCormick, 

(Iowa)  57  N.  W.  R.  949,  178, 180, 187 

Tafft  v.  Presidio  &  F.  R.  Co.,  84  Cal.  131, 

135,146 
Taff  Vale  R.  Co.  v.  Giles,  23  L.  J.  Q.  B.  43, 

2411 
Taft  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  R.  I.  310, 

120, 121, 122, 125,  428 
Tagart  v.  Northern  Central  R.  Co.,  29  Md. 

557,  466 

Tagg  v.  McGeorge,  155  Pa.  St.  368,  2024 

Taggard  v.  Buckmore,  42  Me,  77,  1596 

.Taggart  v.  Newport  St.  Ry.  Co.,  16  R.  I. 

668,  12,  162° 

Taggart  v.  Western  Md.  R.  Co.,  24  Md. 

563,  29,71,160,167  171,234,250,527 

Talbot  v.  Dent,  9  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  526,  1211 

Talbot  v.  Hudson,  16  Gray  (Mass.)  417, 

1339,1340 

Talbott  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Co.,  41  Iowa 
.     247,  2312'  2653 

Talcott  v.  Township  of  Pine  Grove,  1 

Flip.  120,  596,  916 

Talcott  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  66  Hun  456, 

2626,  2630 
Talcott  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Hun 

492  2624 

Taliaferro  v.  Stevenson,  (N.  J.)  33  Atl. 

Rep.  383,  1608 

Talkington  v.  Parrish,  89  Ind.  202,  2722 

Talladega,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jenifer,  etc.,  Co., 

102  Ala.  259,  785 

Talladega  Insurance  Co.  v.  Landers,  43 

Ala.  115,  23 

Talladega  Insurance  Co.  v.  Peacock,  67 

Ala.  253,  31° 

Talley  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  6  C. 

p.  44,  2539,  2621 


Tallman  v.  Kimball,  74  Hun  279,  325 

Talmage  v  Pell,  7  N.  Y.  328,      489,  504,  548,  732 
Tama  Water  Power  Co.  v.  Hopkins,  79 

Iowa  653,  257 

Tanco  v.  Booth,  89  N.  Y.  St.  R.  82,  2634 

Tanfield  v.  Irvine,  2  Russ.  149,  778 

Tangier,  The,  32  Fed.  R.  230,  2420 

Tanner  v  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Ala. 

621,  1969- 

Tanner  v.  Oil -Creek  R.  Co.,  53  Pa.  St.  411, 

296,2368 

Tanner  v.  Scovell,  14  M.  &  W.  28,  2394 

Tarbell  v.  Northern  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  51,  2492 

Tarbell  v.  Royal  Exchange,  etc..  R.  Co., 

110  N.  Y.  170,  2321,  2368- 

Tarbox  v  East  S.  B.  Co.,  50  Me.  339,          2205- 
Tarbox  v  Gorman,  31  Minn.  62,  24T 

Tariffs,  In  re  Passenger,  2  Interst,  Com. 

Com.  R.  649,  2686- 

Tarpey  v  Deseret,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Utah  494,      543- 
Tarrant  v.  Webb,  18  C.  B.  797,  202S 

Tar  River,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Neal,  3  Hawks. 

(N.  C.)  520,  215- 

Tarry  v  Ashton,  L.  R.  1  Q  B.  Div.  314,      159* 
Tarwater  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Mo. 

193,  1864 

Tate  v.  Hyslop,  L.  R.  15  Q  B.  Div.  368,       2334 
Tate  v.  Meek,  8  Taunt.  280,  244T 

Tate  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mo.  149, 

1516, 1629- 
Tattan  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  2  Ell.  & 

Ell.  844,  2697 

Tattersall  v.  National,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  12 

Q.  B.  Div.  297,  2402: 

Taubman  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  Co.,  26  L.  T.  N. 

S.  704,  254:$ 

Tax  of  Delaware  Road,  18  Wall.  206,          1074 
Tax-payers,  etc.,  v.  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  11  Lea  329,  1146, 1167, 1216- 

Tayler  v.  Great  Indian,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

DeG.  &J  559,  116- 

Taylor  v.  Agricultural,  etc.,  Co.,  68  Ala. 

229,  347, 640- 

Taylor  v.  Albemarle,  etc.,  Co.,  105  N.  C. 

484,  3%,  488- 

Taylor  v.  Alliance  Trust  Co.,  71  Miss.  694,   6ftV 
Taylor  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Ry.,  55  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  275,  722- 

Taylor  v.  Baldwin,  14  Abb.  Pr.  (N.Y.)  166, 

803,804 

Taylor  v.  Bank  of  Ky.,  2  J.  J.  Marsh.(Ky.) 

564, 

Taylor  v.  Bay  City  St.  R.  Co.,  80  Mich.  77,    165^ 
Taylor  v.  Bay  City  St.  R.  Co.,  101  Mich. 

140,  163$ 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCXXV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1S62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp  ises- 


,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  1165-1725.] 


Taylor  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  86  Va.  506, 

1188, 1207, 1225 
Taylor  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Iowa 

114,  887 

Taylor  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Dill. 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  570,  1604 

Taylor  v.  Carew  Manf.  Co.,  143  Mass.  470, 

2074 

Taylor  v.  Cam 1,  24  Pa.  St.  259,  892 

Taylor  v.  Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

Iowa  371,  531,  1305, 1307,  1311,  1314 

Taylor  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Wis.  327, 

1328, 1541 
Taylor  v.  Chichester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  2 

Exch.  356,  476,  488 

Taylor  v.  Columbian  Ins.  Co.,  14  Allen 

(Mass.)  353,  772 

Taylor  v.  Commonwealth,  3  J.  J.  Marsh. 

401,  1469 

Taylor  v.  Cranberry,  etc.,  Co.,  94  N.  C. 

525,  2143 

Taylor  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Pa. 

St.  162,  1743, 1951, 1957, 1981 

Taylor  v.  Downer,  31  Cal.  480,  1104 

Taylor  v.  Fletcher,  15  Ind.  80,  173 

Taylor  v.  Gillean,  23  Tex.  508,  807 

Taylor  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48 

N.  H.  304,  2470,  2472 

Taylor  v.  Great  Northern  Railway  Co., 

L.  R.  1  C.  P.  385,  2304,  2355 

Taylor  v.  Griswold,  14  N.  J.  Law  222, 

226,  233,  275,  277 

Taylor  v.  Holmes,  127  U.  S.  489,  239,  877 

Taylor  v.  Mil,  1  N.  R.  566,  273 

Taylor  v.  Jenkins,  6  Jones  L.  (N.  C.)  316,  696 
Taylor  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

Mich.  74,  1023, 1024 

Taylor  v.  Life  Assn.  of  America,  3  Fed.  R. 

465,  781, 782 

Taylor  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Steam  Co.,  L. 

R.  9  Q.  B.  546,  2343 

Taylor  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  87  Me.  209,  2227 
Taylor  v.  Marcy,  25  111.  518,  1561 

Taylor  v.  Mason,  9  Wheat.  325,  1306 

Taylor  v.  Metropolitan  El.  R.  Co.,  50 

N.  Y.  Supr.  Ct.  311,  1538 

Taylor  v.  Miami,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Ohio  176,  127 
Taylor  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  29  L.  J.  Ch. 

731,  135 

Taylor  v.  Newberne,  2  Jones Eq.  (N.  Car.) 

141,  23 

Taylor  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  38  N. 

J.  L.  28,  61 

Taylor  v.  North  Star,  etc.,  Co.,  79  Cal. 

285,  221 

Taylor  v.  Palmer,  31  Cal.  240,  1113 


Taylor  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  50  Fed.  R.  755, 

2472,  2478,  2586 
Taylor  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Pa. 

St.)  34Atl.  R.  457,  1907 

Taylor  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

Phila.  (Pa.)  451,  832,  844 

Taylor  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Fed. 

R.  1,  791, 835 

Taylor  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Fed. 

R.  377,  837 

Taylor  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Fed. 

R.  381,  130 

Taylor  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Fed. 

R.  386,  476,  621 

Taylor  v.  Place,  4  R.  I.  324,  965 

Taylor  v.  Porter,  4  Hill  140,  963,  965 

Taylor  v.  Salmon,  4  Myl.  &  C.  134,  515,  902 
Taylor  v.  Second  Ave.,  etc.,  Co.,  17  J.  &  S. 

(N.  Y.)  513,  295 

Taylor  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Woods 

(U.  S.)  575,  120 

Taylor  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Fed.  E. 

152,  119, 130,  488 

Taylor  v.  Thompson,  42  111.  9,  1143 

Taylor  v.  Turner,  87  111.  296,  2215 

Taylor  v.  United  States,  3  How.  (U.  S.) 

197,  1033 

Taylor  v.  Ypsilanti,  105  U.  S.  60,  1087, 1234 
Taylor,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  79  Tex.  104,  2036 
Taylor,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montgomery,  (Tex. 

App.)  16  S.  W.  R.  178,  2340 

Taylor,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montgomery,  4  Tex. 

App.  (Civil  Cases)  401,  2412 

Taylor,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warner,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  31  S.^V.  R.  66,  1794 

Taymouth  Tp.  v.  Koehler,  35  Mich.  22,  324,  366 
Teachout  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 

75  Iowa  722,  238 

Teachout  v.  Van  Hoesen,  76  Iowa  113,  20 

Teague  v.  LeGrand,  85  Ala.  493,  891 

Tebbitts  v.  Rock  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

HI.  App.  567,  2199 

Tebbutt  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  6 

Q.  B.  73,  1965 

Teele  v.  City  of  Boston,  (Mass.)  42  N.  E. 

R.  506,  1512 

Teetsil  v.  Summons,  34  N.  Y.  S.  972,  2057 

Telander  v.  Sunlin,  44  Fed.  R.  564,  2081 

Telegraph  Co.  v.  Davenport,  97  U.  S.  369, 

135, 147 
Telegraph  Co.  v.  Texas,  105  TT.  S.  460, 

951,  967, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1084,  2661 
Telephone,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Forke,  2  Tex.  App. 

Civ.  Cas.  318,  1488 

Telfer  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co,,  30  N.  J. 

Law  188,  1756, 1758, 1761, 1763,  2151 


CCCCXXV111 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT, pp.  US-1S62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-5161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S7K.} 


Telford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gerhab,  (Pa.)  21  Am. 

&  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  471,  146 

Temperton  v.  Russell,  L.  R.  (1893)  1  Q.  B. 

715,  2688 

Templin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa 

548,  390,  391,  392 

Ten  Broeck  v.  Sherrill,  71  N.  Y.  276,  1352 

Tenbrooke  v.  Jahke,  77  Pa.  St.  392,  1887 

Ten  Eyck  v.  Pontiac,  etc.,  Co.,  74  Mich. 

226,  346,  365,  371 

Tennent  v.  City  of  Glasgow  Bank,  L.  R. 

4  App.  Cas.  615,  198,  200,  260 
Tennessee  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  117  U.  S. 

51,  1079, 1083 

Tennessee  v.  Union,  etc.,  Bank,  152  U.  S. 

454,  1017 

Tennessee  v.  Whitworth,  117  U.  S.  139, 

97,  457,  1065, 1067 
Tennessee  v.  Whitworth,  117  U.  S.  129, 

111,  1053 
Tennessee  Bond  Cases,  114  U.  S.  663,  s.  c. 

5  Sup.  Ct.  R.  974.  661 
Tennessee  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Waller,  37 

Fed.  R.  545,  944 

Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  3  Head 

(Tenn.)  596,  58,  60,  61, 1393,  1456 

Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bayliss,  75  Ala. 

466,  2476 

Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  East  Alabama 

R.  Co.,  73  Ala.  426,  231,  361 

Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  East  Alabama, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Ala.  516,  1698 

Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hayes,  97  Ala. 

586,  2109 

Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herndan,  100 

Ala.  451,  2124 

Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kyle,  93  Ala.  1,  2013 
Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  11  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  383,  1025 

Tennessee,  etc.,  Trans.  Co.  v.  Kavanaugh, 

93  Ala.  324,  474 

Tenney  v.  East  Warren  Lumber  Co.,  43 

N.  H.  343,  354 

Tennis  v.  Interstate,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Kan. 

503,  1966 

Terbell  v.  Lee,  40  Fed.  R.  40,  724 

Terpening  v.  Smith,  46  Barb.  (N.  Y. )  208,  1560 
Terre  v.  Eagle  Lock  Co.,  47  Conn.  141,  431 
Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baker,  122 

Ind.  433,  889,  894, 1477,  1745 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bissell,  108 

Ind.  113,  1634 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  107 

Ind.  336,  313 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Buck,  96  Ind. 

348,  1909,  2546,  2549,  2550 


Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  150  111.  502,  2174 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  73  Ind. 

168,  1760, 1761, 1778,  2477 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clem,  123  Ind. 

15,  1796,  2117,  2467 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crawford,  100 

Ind.  550,  1440, 1534 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Earp,  21  111. 

291,  1224 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitzgerald,  47 

Ind.  79,  2483,  2502,  2577,  2581,  2633 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graham,  95 

Ind.  286,  1787,  1947, 1955, 1967,  2069 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  81 

Ind.  19,  299, 1991,  2591 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mansberger, 

65  Fed.  R.  196,  2062,  2070,  2088 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCorkle,  140 

Ind.  613,  2707,  2721 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKinley,  33 

Ind.  274,  1404, 1456, 1564 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McMurray,  98 

Ind.  358,  313,  314,  407,  408 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 

90  Ind.  284,  1873 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peoria,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  61  111.  App.  405,  61 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pierce,  95  Ind. 

496,  1876 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rodel,  89  Ind. 

128,  1651 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott,  74  Ind. 

29,  1293 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sherwood,  132 

Ind.  129,  2320,  2346,  2347,  2348,  2406 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  12  Ind. 

App.  529,  1043 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  16  Ind. 

102,  1821 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stockwell,  118 

Ind.  98,  315,  316 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tappenbock, 

9  Ind.  App.  422,  1785 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Voelker,  129 

Dl.  540,  1024, 1746, 1774 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walsh,  11  Ind. 

App.  13,  1901, 1902, 1930, 1943 

Terrell  v.  Allison,  21  Wall.  (U.  S.)  289,         676 
Terrett  v.  Taylor,  9  Cranch  43,  1133, 1335 

Territory  v.  Lockwood,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

236,  926,927 

Terry  v.  Anderson,  95  U.  S.  628,  257, 1458 

Terry  v.  Eagle  Lock  Co.,  47  Conn.  141, 

127,  423,  440 
Terry  v.  Flushing,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Hun 

(N.  Y.)359,  2493 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCXX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[Vol.  I,  pp.  i-uz,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-126S,  Vol.  in,  pp.  nes- 


tt,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 


Terry  v.  Jewett,  78  N.  Y.  338,  2477,  2546 

Terry  v.  Little,  101  TJ.  S.  216,  262, 266 

Terry  v.  Martin,  (N.  M.)  32  Pac.  R.  157,       827 
Terry  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Bank,  66  Qa.  177, 

88,867 
Terry  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Barb.  . 

574,  1458 

Terry  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mo.  586,  1758 
Terry  v.  Tubman,  92  U.  S.  156,  257 

Terwilliger  v.  Great  Western  Tel.  Co.,  59 

111.  249,  292 

Tetherow  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Mo. 

74,  1795 

Teunenbrock  v.  South  Pac.  R.  Co.,  59  Gal. 

269,  1968 

Tewksbury  v.  Bronson,  48  Wis.  581,  1605 

Texas  Express  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

Fed.  R.  426,  2430 

Texas  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Worsham,  76  Tex. 

556,  46 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  78  Tex.  372, 

288,  818,  2234,  2250,  2341 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnhart,  5 Tex.  Civ. 

App.  601,  1021,  2250 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barrett,  67  Fed.  R. 

214,  2013 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ban-on,  78  Tex.  421,  2469 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bingle,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  29  S.  W.  R.  674,  2007 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Black,  87  Tex.  160, 

2461,  2463,  2464,  2555 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bloom,  60  Fed.  R. 

979,  710, 819 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bond,  62  Tex.  442,      2575 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boyd,  6  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  205,  2561,  2562 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  78  Tex.  397, 

2478,  2589,  2591 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Buckalew,  (Tex.)  34 

S.  W.  R.  165,  2473,  2567 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Capps,  (Tex.)  16  Am. 

&  Eng.  R.  Gas.  118,  2617 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Capps,  2  Tex.  App. 

(Civ.  Gas.)  35,  2617,  2629 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carlton,  60  Tex.  397, 

2015,  2169 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Casey,  52  Tex.  112,     2576 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Marshall, 

136  U.  S.  393,  477 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  84  Tex.  121,    813 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cornelius,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  30  S.  W.  R.  720,  2592 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cox,  145  U.  S.  593, 

806,  942,  2007,  2107,  2134 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crowder,  76  Tex.  499, 

2705 


Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cupps,  (Tex.)  16 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  2612, 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Curry,  64  Tex.  85,       2541 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  2  Tex.  App. 

(Civ.  Cas.)  156,  2339 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dennis,  4  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  90,  2488,  2496,  2503 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doherty,  (Tex.  App.) 

15  S.  W.  R.  44,  1800 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Durrett,  57  Tex.  48, 

1293, 1294 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eddy,  42  Ark.  527, 

1515, 1526 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ferguson,  1  Tex. 

App.  (Civ.  Cas.)  724,         2609,  2610,  2628,  2631 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fletcher,  6  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  736,  1786 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fuller,  5  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  660,  1769 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Qaines,  (Tex.)  27  S. 

W.  R.  266,  1320 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gains,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  26  S.  W.  R.  433,  1901 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Garcia,  62  Tex.  285,  2513 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gay,  86  Tex.  571, 

759,  767,  769,  805,  831 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Geiger,  79  Tex.  13,  813 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gentry,  69  Tex.  625, 

509,  641,  642,  653,  659 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Glenn,  (Tex.)  30 

S.  W.  R.  845,  1845 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Griffin,  76  Tex.  441,  831 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  66  Tex. 

92,  2474 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harrington,  62  Tex. 

597,  2708 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harrison  Co.,  54 

Tex.  119,  1209 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawkins,  (Tex.)  30 

S.  W.  R.  1113,  2233 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hayden,  6  Texas 

Civ.  App.  745,  2461 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hays,  5  Texas  Law 

R.  771,  1448 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoffman,  83  Tex.  286,  819 
Texas,  etc.,R.  Co.  v.  Hohn,  1  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  36,  1999 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hudman,  8  Tex.  C. 

App.  309,  .  2479 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Interst.  Com.  Com., 

162  U.  S.  197, 

2645,  2646, 2657, 2658, 2659,  2668,  2672,  2676,  2677, 

2682 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  85  Tex.  605,  88 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jarrell,  60  Tex.  267,  1541 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  2  Tex.  App. 

(Civil  Cases)  154,  2480 


ccccxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II.  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S7t6.} 


Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  76  Tex.  421, 

710,  819,  831,  2046 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  151  U.  S.  81, 

806, 117,  819 
Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Juneman,  71  Fed.  B. 

939,  1972 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Kirby,  44  Ark.  103, 

1520, 1521 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kuteman,  54  Fed.  E. 

547,  907, 2681 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Kuteman,  79  Tex. 

465,  2198, 2681 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lanham,  1  Tex. 

App.  (Civ.  Cas.)  99,  1879 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Leighty,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  32  S.  W.  E.  799,  2020 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lester,  75  Tex.  56,  308 
Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Levi,  59  Tex.  674, 

1895, 1929, 1930, 1932 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Levine,  87  Tex.  437,  1944 
Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Long,  1  Tex.  App. 

Civ.  Cas.  281,  1539 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  v.  Ludlam,  57  Fed.  E. 

481,  2454 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Ludlam,  (Tex.)  26  S. 

W.  E.  430,  284,  2485 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Lyons,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  34  S.  W.  E.  362,  2007,  2008 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Marlor,  123  U.  S. 

687,  623 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Marshall,  136  U.  S. 

393,  180, 1002, 1584 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Matthews,  60  Tex. 

215,  1426 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Mayes,  (Texas)  15  S. 

W.  B.  43,  957,  968 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  McCaughey,  62  Tex. 

271,  1605 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  McDonald,  2  Tex. 

App.  (Civil  Cases)  144,  2576 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  McQilvary,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  29  S.  W.  B.  67,  2458 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  McKee,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  29  S.  W.  B.  544,  2046 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Medaris,  64  Tex.  92,  1903 
Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Miller,  79  Tex.  78,  2545 
Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Minnick,  57  Fed.  E. 

362,  2029 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Minnick,  61  Fed.  B. 

635,  2031, 2046 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Moody,  (Tex.C.App.) 

23  S.  W.  B.  41,  1962 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Moore,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  27  S.  W.  B.  962,  604 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Murphy,  46  Tex.  356,  461 
Texas,  ete.,  B.  Co.  v.  Neill,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.) 

30  S.  W.  B.  369,  1794 


Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Nicholson,  61  Tex, 

491,  2198,  2290,  2401,  2409 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Nolan,  62  Fed.  B.  552, 

1794 
Texas  etc.,  B.  Co:  v.  O'Donnell,  58  Tex. 

27,  I960 

Texas,  etc,  E  Co.  v.  O'Fiel,  78  Tex.  486,  2014 
Texas,  etc.  B  Co.  v  Orr,  46  Ark.  182,  2589 
Texas  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Orr,  68  111.  500,  2470 
Texas,  etc.,  E  Co.  v.  Overall,  82  Tex.  247,  2468 
Texas,  etc.,  B  Co.  v.  Parrish,  1  Tex.  App. 

(Civ.  Cas.)  529,  2244 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Patton,  61  Fed.  B. 

259,  2047 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Pierce,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  30  S.  W.  B.  1122,  2592 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Powell,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  35  S.  W.  B.  841,  2498 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Beed,  (Tex.)  31 

S.  W.  E.  1058,  2091 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Ehodes,  71  Fed.  B. 

145,  2009, 2012 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Richards,  68  Tex. 

375,  2132, 2134 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Bobards,  60  Tex. 

545,  495,  527,  539, 1308 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eobertson,  82  Tex. 

657,  2136 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Bogers,  57  Fed.  B. 

378,  2032, 2049 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Bosedale,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  64  Tex.  80,  1635 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Boss,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  27  S.  W.  B.  728,  1918, 1920 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Bust,  19  Fed.  B.  239,  1571 
Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Bust,  17  Fed.  E.  275, 

746,826 
Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Scoville,  62  Fed.  B. 

730,  1987 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Skinner,  4  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  661,  305, 1957,  2060 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Smith,  67  Fed.  E.  524, 

2003,  2028,  2029,  2509,  2601 
Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Southern  Pac.  B. 

Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  970,  499, 500,  526 

Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Spradling,  72  Fed. 

152,  1774, 1792 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  State.  83  Tex.  1,  749,  763 
Texas,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  State,  41  Ark.  498,  1020 
Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Stribling,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  34  S.  W.  B.  1002,  2400 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Stuart,  1  Tex.  C.  A. 

642,  2564 

Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Sutor,  56  Tex.  496, 

1316, 1317, 1328 
Texas,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Tankersley,  63  Tex. 

57,  1932 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCXXX1 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1S62,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  U63-S161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-1725.] 


Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tatman,  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)  31  S.  W.  R.  333,  2084 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  3  Tex.  App. 

(Civ.  Cas.)  234,  2631 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

6  Fed.  R.  426,  2284 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  70  Fed. 

R.  944,  2008 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Virginia,  etc.,  Co., 

(Tex.)  7  S.  W.  R.  341,  873, 1880 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yolk,  151  U.  S.  73,  2069 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watkins,  (Tex.)  29 

S.  W.  R.  232,  1967 

Texas,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Watts,  (Tex.)  18 

S.  W.  R.  312,  831 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White,  82  Tex.  543,  819 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  62  Fed.  R. 

440,  1992 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Willis,  3  Tex.  App. 

(Civ.  Cas.)  94,  2632 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  83  Tex.  153,  546 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  60  Tex.  201,  1841 
Texas  Transportation  Co.  v.  Seeligson, 

122  U.  S.  519,  947 

Textor  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Md. 

63,  1629 

Thackrah  v.  Haas,  119  U.  S.  499,  136 

Thain  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  161  Mass.  353, 

1999,2046 
Thames,  The,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  98, 

2216,  2221,  2369,  2370 
Thames,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lathrop,  7  Conn. 

550,  1197 

Tharp  v.  Witham,  65  Iowa  566,  1466, 1540 

Thatcher  v.  Adams,  19  Neb.  485,  1070 

Thatcher  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  166  Pa.  St. 

66,  1648 

Thatcher  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  1  Interst. 

Com.  R.  356,  2687 

Thatcher  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

U.  C.  C.  P.  543,  2472 

Thatcher  v.  Maine  Central  R.  Co.,  85  Me. 

502,  1891, 1894, 1939 

Thatcher  v.  Powell,  6  Wheat.  119,  990 

Thayer  v.  Burchard,  99  Mass.  508,  2287 

Thayer  v.  Burger,  100  Ind.  262,  1529 

Thayer  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 Mich.  150,  1659 
Thayer  v.  Life  Assn.,  112  U.  S.  717,  933 

Thayer  v.  Middlesex,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Pick. 

326,  364 

Thayer  v.  Montgomery  Co.,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.) 

389,  630 

Thayer  v.  New  Bedford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125 

Mass.  253,  1403 

Thayer  v.  Tyler,  10  Gray  (Mass.)  164,  889 

Thayer  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Vt. 

440,  1580, 1581 


The  Adriatic,  16  Blatch.  (C.  C.)  424,  2205 

The  Alaska,  130  U.  S.  201,  2135,  2142 

The  Andover,  3  Blatchf.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  303,  2426 
The  Bank  Tax  Case,  2  Wall.  200,  1073 

The  Bark  Edwin,  1  Sprague  (U.  S.  Dist.) 

477,  2202 

The  Bark  Olbers,  3  Ben.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  148,  2205 
The  Barracouta,  39  Fed.  R.  288,  2343 

The  Berninia,  L.  R.  12  Prob.  Div.  58,  1790, 1799 
The  Binghamton  Bridge,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

51,  1382 

The  Bird  of  Paradise,  5  Wall.  545,  2390,  2447 
The  Brandford  City,  29  Fed.  R.  373,  2331,  2543 
The  Brig  Collenberg,  1  Black  (U.  S.)  170, 

2301,2420 

The  Buckeye,  7  Biss.  23,  2275 

The  Caledonia,  43  Fed.  R.  681,  2209 

The  Captain  John,  33  Fed.  R.  927,  2377 

The  City  of  Baton  Rouge,  19  Fed.  B.  461,  2276 
The  City  of  Norwalk,  55  Fed.  R.  98,  2129 

The  City  of  Salem,  2  Inters.  Com.  R.  418,  2637 
The  City  of  Salem,  37  Fed.  R.  846,  995,  2656 
The  Columbo,  3  Blatch.  521,  2207 

The  Convoy's  Wheat,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.)  225,  2248 
The  Cuba,  3  Ware  260,  2426 

The  Dan,  40  Fed.  R.  691,  2175 

The  Daniel  Ball,  10  Wall.  557, 

996, 1083,  2637,  2661 

The  David  and  Caroline,  5  Blatch.  266,  2283 
The  Delaware,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  579, 

2197,  2199,  2202,  2203,  2209, 2211,  2326 
The  Distilled  Spirits,  11  Wall.  356,  322 

The  Drew,  15  Fed.  R.  826,  2365 

The  D.  R.  Martin,  11  Blatch.  C.  C.  233, 

285,  2261 

The  Eddy,  5  Wall.  (TT.  S.)  481,  2444,  2446 

The  E.  H.  Pray,  27  Fed.  R.  474,  2391 

The  Freedom,  L.  R.  3  P.  O.  594,  2205,  2346 
The  Glover,  1  Brown  Adm.  166,  2358 

The  Graf  ton,  1  Blatchf.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  173,  2354 
The  GuidhaU,  58  Fed.  R.  796,  2329,  2331 

The  Guiding  Star,  53  Fed.  R.  936,  2275 

The  Guiding  Star,  62  Fed.  R.  407,  2204 

The  Hadjii,  18  Fed.  R.  459,  2337 

The  Harriman,  9  Wall.  161,  2290 

The  Harrisburg,  119  U.  S.  199,  2125,  2143 

The  Hermitage,  4  Blatchf.  474,  2276 

The  Hettie  Palmer,  63  Fed.  R.  1015,  2355 

The  Hindoustan,  67  Fed.  R.  794,  2348 

The  Home  of  The  Friendless  v.  Rouse,  8 

Wall.  430,  1090 

The  Huntress,  2  Ware  (U.  S.)  89,  2365 

The  Idaho,  93  U.  S.  575,  2202,  2214,  2356,  2386 
The  Ionic,  5  Blatch.  (U.  S.)  538,  2609 

The  Ismeale,  14  Fed.  R.  491,  2207 

The  Jarnecke  Ditch,  In  re,  69  Fed.  B.  161, 

937,938 


CCCCXXX11 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.]  t 

[  Vol.  T,  pp.  l-W,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1263,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


The  J.  C.  Stevenson,  17  Fed.  E.  540,  2267 

The  Jersey  City,  46  Fed.  E.  134,  2068 

The  J.  W.  Brown,  1  Biss.  76,  2206 

The  Keokuk,  9  Wall.  517,  2276 

The  Key  City,  14  Wall.  653,  465 

The  Kimball,  3  WalL  (U.  S.)  37,  2447 
The  Lady  Franklin,  8  Wall.  325,         2203,  2204 

The  Loon,  7  Blatch.  244,  2203 
The  Lydian  Monarch,  23  Fed.  E.  298,         2337 

The  Maggie  Hammond,  9  Wall.  435,  2264 

The  Majestic,  56  Fed.  E.  244,  2632 

The  Majestic,  60  Fed.  E.  624,  2633 

The  Maharjah,  40  Fed.  E.  784,  2008 

The  Merrimack,  8  Cranch  317,  2695 

The  Missouri,  30  Fed.  E.  384,  2276 

The  Mondego,  56  Fed.  E.  268,  2407 

The  Montello,  20  Wall.  430,  2637 

The  Morning  Light,  2  Wall.  560,  2299 

The  M.  M.  Chase,  37  Fed.  B.  708,  2396 

The  Nith,  36  Fed.  B.  86,  2282 
The  Nitre-Glycerine  Case,  15  Wall.(TJ.  S.) 

524,  2282 

The  Oriflamme,  1  Sawyer  176,  2205 

The  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  (U.  S.)  282,    1083 
The  Peter  der  Grosse,  L.  E.  1  Prob.  Div. 

414,  2207 

The  Pietro  G. ,  38  Fed f  E.  148,  2207 

The  Powhatan,  21  Blatch. (U.  S.  C.  C.)18,   2406 
The  Prize  Cases,  2  Black  635,  2269 

The  Prosperino  Palasso,  29  L.  T.  Sep. 

N.  S.  622,  2205 

The  E.  E.  Lee,  2  Abb.  (U.  S.)  49,  2621 

The  Eeuben  Doud,  46  Fed.  E.  800,  2382 

The  Bobert  HoUand,  59  Fed.  B.  200,          2129 
The  Saratoga,  20  Fed.  E.  869,  2343 

The  Schooner  Volunteer,  1  Sumn.  (U.  S.) 

551,  2447 

The  Scotland,  105  U.  S.  24,  32,  2637 

The  Steamer  Kathleen  Mary,  8  Benedict 

165,  2372 

The  Success,  7  Blatchf.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  551,   2420 
The  Sue,  22  Fed.  E.  843,  2644 

The  Tangier,  32  Fed.  E.  230,  2420 

The  Tax  Cases,  12  Gill  &  J.  117,  1058 

The  Thames,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  98, 

2216,  2218,  2221,  2370 

The  Tigress,  Browning  &  L.  (Eng.Adm)  38,  2391 
The  Tornado,  108  U.  S.  342,  2427 

The  Vidette,  34  Fed.  E.  396,  2391 

The  Waldo,  Davies  161,  (Irish)  2211 

The  Wanderer,  29  Fed.  E.  260,  2211 

Theatrical  Bates,  Re,  1  Interst.  Com.  E. 

18,  2687 

Thebus  v.  Smiley,  110  111.  316,  268,  270 

Thebold  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  66 

Miss.  279,  901, 1628, 1633 


Theroux  v.  Northern,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  64  Fed. 

E.  84,  2134,  2143 

Thetford's  Case,  1  Salk.  192,  279 

Thetford,  Town  of,  v.  Kilburn,  36  Vt.  179, 

1476 

Thew  v.  Porcelain  Mfg.  Co.,  5  S.  C.  415,       367 
Thiele  v.  McManus,  3  Ind.  App.  137,  1955 

Thigpen  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  32 

Miss.  347,  170 

Third  Avenue  B.  B.  Co.,  Matter  of,  121 

N.  Y.  536,  14 

Third  Nat.  Bank  v.  Seneca  Falls,  15  Fed. 

B.  783,  1239 

Thirteenth  St.  E.  Co.  v.  Boudrou,  92  Pa. 

St.  475,  2475,  2557 

Thirty-fourth  St.  E.  Co.,  In  re,  102  N.  Y. 

343,  1471 

Thorn  v.  Pittard,  62  Fed.  232,  2049,  2079 

Thomas'  Case,  L.  B.  13  Eq.  437,  254 

Thomas  v.  Boston,  etc.,  B.Co.,  10  Mete.  472, 

2167,  2279, 2351,  2366 
Thomas  v.  Brownville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  109 

U.  S.  522,  1568, 1569 

Thomas  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  38  S. 

Car.  485,  2548 

Thomas  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

61  N.  W.  E.  967,  1967 

Thomas  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.Co.,  49  Mo. 

App.  110,  2150 

Thomas  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  72  Mich. 

355,  2465,  2554,  2573 

Thomas  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  86  Mich. 

496,  1769 

Thomas  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  62  Fed. 

B.  17,  792,  911, 1047,  268& 

Thomas  v.  Citizens'  Horse  B.  B.  Co.,  104 

111.  462,  641,  642 

Thomas  v.  Citizens'  Pass.  B.  Co.,  132  Pa. 

St.  504,  1647,1649 

Thomas  v.  City,  etc.,  Bank,  40  Neb.  501, 

390,481 
Thomas  v.  City  of  Bichmond,  12  Wall. 

349,  2640 

Thomas  v.  Dakin,  22  Wend.  9,  10» 

Thomas  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  8  Fed. 

B.  729,  1732, 1733, 1738, 1740, 1762, 1779,  2717 
Thomas  v.  Geldart,  20  New  Brans.  95,  2574 
Thomas  v.  Great  Western  B.  Co.,  14  Up. 

Can.  Q.  B.  389,  2609 

Thomas  v.  Lancaster  Mills,  71  Fed.  E.  481, 

2306,  2307,  2333 
Thomas  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  (Ky.) 

35  S.  W.  E.  910,  2707 

Thomas  v.  Missouri  Pac.  E.  Co.,  109  Mo. 

187,  2015, 2016 

Thomas  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  B.  Co.,  139 

N.  Y.  163,  621 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccccxxxm 


[Tffferenct'x  arc  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  r.  pp.  l-US,  Vol.  TT,  pp.  U.1-1363,  Vol. 
Thomas  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  54 

N.  Y.  S.  R.  498,  622 

Thomas  v.  North  Staffordshire  R.  Co.,  3 

Nev.  &  Mac.  1,  2670 

Thomas  v.  North  Staffordshire  R.  Co.,  21 

Sol.  Jour.  183,  2280 

Thomas  v.  Peoria  By.  Co..  36  Fed.  R.  808, 

482,  708,  818 
Thomas  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148 

Pa.  St.  180,  2597 

Thomas  v.  Placerville,  etc.,  Mining  Co., 

65  Cal.  600,  880 

Thomas  v.  Quartermaine,  L.  R.  18  Q.  B. 

D.  685,  2113 

Thomas  v.  Railroad  Co.,  101  U.  S.  71, 

57,  70,  335,  504,  513,  515,  524,  525,  1920 
Thomas  v.  Rhymney  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Q.  B. 

226,  614 

Thomas  v.  Richmond,  12  Wall.  (U.S.)  349,  1217 
Thomas  v.  Royster,  (Ky.)  32  S.  W.  R.  613,  2128 
Thomas  v.  Snyder,  39  Pa.  St.  317,  242:? 

Thomas  v.  St.  Louis  &  C.  R.  Co.,  (C.  C.  S. 

D.  111.),  37  Fed.  R.  839,  1*58 

Thomas  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Fed. 

R.  200,  22(58,  2306,  2316,  2330 

Thomas  v.  Western  Car  Co.,  60  Am.  &  Eng. 

R.  Cas.  95,  708 

Thomas  v.  Western  Car  Co.,  149  U.  S.  95,  821 
Thomas  v.  West  Jersey  Co.,  101  U.  S.  71, 

104,  475,  476,  569,  570,  572,  579,  693, 1115 
Thomas  v.  Whallon,  31  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  172,  7% 
Thompsen  v.  Diffenderfer,  1  Md.  Ch.  489,  777 
Thompson,  Matter  of,  57  Hun  (N.  Y.)  419,  1385 
Thompson  v.  Abbott,  61  Mo.  176, 

455,  460,  461,  469 

Thompson  v.  Allen  County,  13  Fed.  R.  97,  1261 
Thompson  v.  Allen  County,  115  U.  S.  550,  1261 
Thompson  v.  Androscoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 

N.  H.  545,  975,  1399 

Thompson  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  54  Ga.  509, 

2069,  2110,  2123,  2718 
Thompson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Fed. 

R.  564,  202X,  2059 

Thompson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Mo. 

App.  321,  2340 

Thompson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  Mo. 

147,  1479 

Thompson  v.  City  of  Peru,  29  Ind.  305, 

1144,  1147,  1215 

Thompson  v.  Conway,  53  N.  H.  622,  1473,  1527 
Thompson  v.  Edward  P.  Allis  Co.,  89  Wis. 

523,  2074 

Thompson  v.  Fargo,  49  N.  Y.  188,  2384,  2695 
Thompson  v.  Grand  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Miss.  240,  1418, 1549 

Thompson  v.  Huron  Lumber  Co.,  4  Wash. 

600,  677 

CORP. — xxviii 


TIT,  pp.  ISM-SIR/,,  Vol.  TV,  pp.  2W.-I- :::.'.] 
Thompson  v.  Lambert,  44  Iowa  239, 

485,  487,  520,  642 
Thompson  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Nev. 

&  Mac.  115,  2669 

Thompson  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  27  N.  Y. 

Supp.  608,  2585 

Thompson  v.  Meisser,  108  HI.  359,  254 

Thompson  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 

Wis.  93,  1438 

Thompson  v.  Montana,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Mont.)  43  Pac.  496,  2072 

Thompson  v.  Natchez,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  64  Md. 

85,  362 

Thompson  v.  Natchez,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68 

Miss.  423,  631,  640 

Thompson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110 

N.  Y.  636,  1775 

Thompson  v.  New  York  &  H.  R.  Co.,  3 

Sandf.  Ch.  625,  48, 88, 1382 

Thompson  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Mont.  2J9,  1813 

Thompson  v.  Pac.  R.  Co.,  9  Wall.  579,  2643 
Thompson  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  14  Ad. 

R.  897,  547 

Thompson  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  45 

N.  J.  Eq.  870,  1613 

Thompson  v.  People,  23  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  537,  80 
Thompson  v.  Perrine,  103  U.  S.  806,  1172, 1173 
Thompson  v.  Perrine,  106  U.  S.  589, 

632,  634, 1150 
Thompson  v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  136  U.  S. 

287,  790 

Thompson  v.  Railroad  Companies,  6 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  134,  949 

Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav.  Bank,  19  Nev.  103, 

252,  263,  268,  269,  270 
Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav.  Bank,  3  Am.  St. 

Rep.  797, 

165,  251,  252,  257,  260,  263,  266,  268,  269,  270,  796 
Thompson  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 

S.  Car.  366,  1894 

Thompson  v.  Scott,  4  Dillon  (U.  S.)  508,  800 
Thompson  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

Minn.  13,  1598 

Thompson  v.  Thompson,  4  Gush.  (Mass.) 

127,  2390 

Thompson  v.  Tower  Mfg.  Co.,  87  Ala.  733,  77r» 
Thompson  v.  Truesdale,  (Minn.)  63  N.  W. 

R.  259,  2499 

Thompson  v.  Trail,  2  Car.  &  P.  334,  2222 

Thompson  v.Waters,  25  Mich.  214,  33, 543, 1202 
Thompson  v.  Whitewater,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132 

U.  S.  68,  s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  29,  6r.s 

Thompson  v.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  La. 

Ann.  1107,  2511,2518 

Thompson  v.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Miss. 

715,  1WJ! 


CCCCXXX1V 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216!.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Thompson  v.  Young,  2  Ohio  334,  329 

Thompson,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Capitol,  etc.,  Co., 

65  Fed.  B.  341,  322 

Thompson,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Simon,  20  Ore.  60, 

10, 11,  12,  2179 

Thomson's  Appeal,  89  Pa.  St.  36,  424 

Thomson  v.  Jessup,  15  Wall.  454,  1089 

Thomson  v.  Lee  County,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

327,  633,  1148, 1150,  1158 

Thomson  v.  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  9  Wall. 

(U.S.)  579,  22,52,1096,1097 

Thomson-Houston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Henderson, 

etc.,  Co.,  116  N.  Car.  112,  850 

Thoresen  v.  La  Crosse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

Wis.  597,  1647 

Thorington  v.  Gould,  59  Ala.  461,  341,  343 

Thorington  v.  Smith,  8  Wall.  1,  2269 

Thorn  v.  N.  Y.  Central  R.  Co.,  26  N.  J. 

Law  121,  35,  885 

Thornburg  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  141 

lad.  443,  2135,  2136 

Thornburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hine,  25  Ohio 

St.  629,  2128 

Thorndike  v.  County  Commissioners,  117 

Mass.  566,  1510 

Thorndike  v.  Locke,  98  Mass.  340,  133 

Thorne  v.  Travellers  Ins.  Co.,  80  Pa.  St. 

15,  365 

Thorne  Wire  Hedge  Co.  v.  Fuller,  122  U.  S. 

535,  939 

Thornton  v.  Bank  of  Washington,  3  Pet. 

(U.  S.)  36,  32 

Thornton  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131 

Ind.  492,  1775 

Thornton  v.  Lane,  11  Ga.  459,  257 

Thornton  v.  Marginal,  etc.,  Railway,  123 

Mass.  32,  88,  89,  92,  867,  868 

Thornton  v.  Sheffield,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Ala. 

109,  1309,  1328 

Thornton  v.  Wabash  Ry.  Co.,  81  N.  Y.  462, 

702,  714,  720,  725 
Thornton  v.  Washington  Savings  Bank, 

16  Va.  432,  787 

Thorogood  v.  Bryan,  8  C.  B.  115,  1790, 1791,1799 
Thorpe  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y. 

402,  2083,  2529,  2530,  2541,  2542,  2587 

Thorpe  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  27  Vt. 

140, 

4,  69,  958, 967,  969, 1358, 1622, 1810, 1811, 1890, 

1894 
Thouron  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Fed.  R.  673,  940 

Thrasher  v.  Pike  County  R.  R.  Co.,  25  111. 

340,  153, 211 

Thurber  v.  Cramp,  86  Ky.  408,  135, 146 

Thurber  v.  Miller,  67  Fed.  R.  371,  9& 

Thurlow  v.  Massachusetts,  5  How.  504,      2272 


Thurman  v.  Cherokee  R.  Co.,  56  Ga.  376,      819 
Thurman  v.  Wells,  18  Barb.  500,  2186,  2263 

Thurston  v.  Rosenfield,  42  Mo.  474,        771,  798 
Thurston  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Dill. 

321,  2454, 2574 

Thyng  v.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  156  Mass. 

13,  2015,  2105,  2122,  2124 

Tibbetts  v.  Knox,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Me.  437, 

1587, 1588, 1589,  1590 
Tibby  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Mo.  292, 

2083,2561 

Ticonic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lang,  63  Me.  480,  177 

Tide  Water  Canal  Co.  v.  Archer,  9  Gill  <fe 

J.  (Md.)  479,  1341,  1342,  1426 

Tiedeman  v.  Knox,  53  Md.  612,  2217,  2220 

Tiernan  v.  Riuker,  102  U.  S.  123,  2643 

Tierney  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33 

Minn.  311,  2079 

Tierney  v.  New  York  C.  &  H.  R.  Co.,  67 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  538,  2205 

Tierney  v.  New  York  Central  R.  Co.,  76 

N.  Y.  305,  2282,  2370 

Tiffin,  City  of,  v.  McCormack,  34  Ohio  St. 

638,  1590 

Tift  v.  Quaker  City  Nat.  Bank,  141  Pa.  St. 

550,  21 

Tigress,  The,  Browning  &  L.  38,  2391 

Tilden  v.  Minor,  45  Vt.  196,         2216,  2218,  2219 
Tileston  v.  Newell,  13  Mass.  406,  353 

Tillett  v.  Charing  Cross  Co.,  26  Beav.  419,    562 
Tillett  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N.  Car.) 

24  S.  E.  R.  Ill,  2476,  2568,  2569 

Tilley  v.  Cobb,  56  Minn.  295,  948 

Tilley  v.  Savannah,  etc.,,R.  Co.,  5  Fed.  R. 

641,  981,  997, 1001 

Tilley  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Ark. 

535,  1927, 1936 

Tillinghast  v.  Champlin,  4  R.  1. 173,  785 

Tillinghast  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Hun 

(N.  Y.)420,  667,669,671,699 

Timins  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa  94, 

1843, 1862 
Timm  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Wash. 

Ter.  299,  1805 

Timmons  v.  Switzer,  11  Ind.  363,  53ti 

Timpson  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  Co.,  52  Hun 

489,  2480 

Tingley  v.  Providence,  8  R.  1. 493,       1520, 1535 
Tinkham  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  53  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

393,  1308, 1309 

Tinkham  v.  Sawyer,  153  Mass.  485,  2024 

Tinsman  v.  Belvidere,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  26 

N.  J.  L.  148,  4, 1404 

Tio  v.  Vance,  11  La.  199,  2426 

Tippet*  v.  Walker,  4  Mass.  595,  354,  695 

Tipton  County  v.  Locomotive  Works,  103 

U.  S.  523,  1224 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCXXXV 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-126Z,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1S63-216&,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2726.] 


Tirrellv.  Gage,  4  Allen  245,  2290 

Tisdale  v.  Harris,  20  Pick.  (Mass.)  9,          133 
Tisloe  v.  Graeter,  1  Blackf.  353,  2313 

Tison  v.  Howard,  57  Ga.  410,  2218 

Tison  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  (Ga.)  24 

S.  E.  E.  456,  1854 

Tissue  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  112  Pa. 

St.  91,  1566 

Titcomb  v.  Fitchburg  E.  Co.,  12  Allen 

(Mass.)  254,  1984 

Titcomb  v.  Union  Marine,  etc.,  Co.,  8 

Mass.  326,  106 

Titus  v.  Bradford,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  136  Pa.  St. 

618,  2008,  2036,  2064 

Titus  v.  Cairo,  etc.,  Bank,  37  N.  J.  Law 

98,  367, 393 

Titus  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  61  N.  Y. 

237,  117 

Titus  v.  Mabee,  25  111.  257,  536,  654 

Titusville,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Warren,  etc., 

B.  Co.,  12  Pbila.  (Pa.)  642,  1276,  1626 

Tobey  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

62  N.  W.  E.  761,  2028 

Tobey  v.  County  of  Bristol,  3  Story  800,      1573 
Tobey  v.  Hakes,  54  Conn.  274,  147 

Tobey  v.  Eobinson,  99  111.  222,  128 

Tobey  v.  Bussell,  9  E.  I.  58,  264 

Tobias  v.  Michigan  Cent.  E.  Co.,  (Mich.) 

61  N.  W.  E.  514,  1760, 1794 

Tobie  v.  Commissioners  of  Brown  Co.,  20 

Kan.  14,  1438 

Tobin  v.  Crawford,  5  M.  &  W.  235,  2423 

Tobin  T.  Hartshorn,  69  Iowa  648,  1161 

Tobin  v.  Missouri  Pac.  E.  Co.,  (Mo.)  18  S. 

W.  E.  996,  1981 

Tobin  v.  Portland,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  59  Me.  183, 

1964, 1966,  2459 

Tobin,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fraser,  81  Tex.  407,          725 
Tod  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  65  Fed.  E. 

145,  934, 944,  947 

Tod  v.  Kentucky  Union  Land  Co.,  (C.  C.) 

57  Fed.  E.  47,  486,  619,  620 

Tod  v.  Kentucky  Union  E.  E.  Co.,  52  Fed. 

E.  241,  858, 1596, 1597, 1600, 1602 

Tod  v.  Kentucky  Un.  E.  Co.,  18  L.  E.  A. 

305,  1600 

Tod  v.  Wick,  36  Ohio  St.  370,  2654 

Todd  v.  Austin,  34  Conn.  78,  1332, 1371 

Todd  v.  Kankakee,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  78  HI.  530, 

1424 
Todd  v.  Missouri  Pac.  B.  Co.,  33  Mo.  App. 

110,  888 

Todd  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  3  Allen 

(Mass.)  18,  2512,  2563 

Todd  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  19  Ohio  St. 

514,  1317, 1318 


Todd  County  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Co.,  38 

Minn.  163,  1068 

Todhunter  v.  EandaU,  29  Ind.  275,  269 

Tolchester,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Steinmeier,  72  Md. 

313,  304, 1993 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Ambach,  10  Ohio 

Cir.  Ct.  E.  490,  2611 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v,  Apperson,  49  I1L  480, 

2466 
Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Arnold,  43  111.  418, 

1879, 1781 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Asbury,  84  HI.  429, 

2015,  2042 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Bailey,  145  HI.  159,  301 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Barlow,  71  111.  640, 

1850, 1851 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Beggs,  85  I1L  80, 

785,  812,  2473,  2509,  2512,  2518,  2567,  2599,  2703, 

2705 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Black,  88  111.  112, 

2042,2054 
Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Brannagan,  75  Ind. 

490,  2027,  2063,  2064,  2704,  2718,  2721 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Brooks,  81  111.  245, 

1961,  2462,  2509,  2554,  2705 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Chapin,  66  HI.  504, 

1832,1836 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  City  of  Lafayette, 

22  Ind.  262,  1069 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Clark,  49  HI.  App. 

17,  1795 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Cohen,  44  Ind.  444, 

1818, 1819 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Cole,  50  111.  184,  1826 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Conroy,  68  111.  560,  2470 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Corn,  71  111.  493,  1895 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Cosand,  6  Ind.  App. 

Ct.  E.  222,  1300 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Crane,  68  HI,  355,  1808 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Cupp,  9  Ind.  App. 

244,  1837 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Daniels,  16  Ohio  St. 

390,  539, 1270, 1284, 1345, 1355, 1385 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Deacon,  63  HI.  91, 

971, 1660, 1875 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  E. 

Co.,  71  HI.  434,  2402 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  E. 

Co.,  62  Mich.  564, 

1292, 1371, 1494, 1686, 1687, 1705, 1712 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.v.  Detroit,  etc.,  E.  Co., 

63  Mich.  645,  1690, 1693, 1698, 1702 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Dunlap,  47  Mich. 

456,     778, 1295, 134S,  1446,  1462, 1496, 1525, 1551 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  East  Saginaw.  etc., 

E.  Co.,  72  Mich.  206,         1270, 1354, 1358, 1497 


CCCCXXXV1 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  IZ6S-216U,  Vol.  TV,  pp.  2]RS-272.~>.] 


Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  76  111.  67, 

412,  497 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fergusson,  42  111. 

449,  .  1857 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fowler,  22  Ind.  316, 

1810 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goddard,  25  Ind. 

185,  1737 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grable,  88  111.  441,  1981 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Grush,  67  111.  262, 

1965,  2477,  2589 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  76  111. 

393,  2411 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  134  U.  S. 

296,  653, 1604 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Hammond,  33  Ind. 

379,  2353,  2607,  2608,  2629 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Harmon,  47  111.  298, 

299,  1987 
Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Hauck,  8  Ind.  App. 

367,  1949 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Head,  62  111.  233,  1862 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Hinsdale,  45  Ohio 

556,  584 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Howell,  38 Ind.  447,  1847  ! 
Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Hunter,  50  111.  325,  1459  j 
Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Jacksonville,  67  111. 

37,  958,  960,  971, 1624 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  49  Mich. 

148,  176, 550 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Johnston,  74  111.  83, 

1879, 1882 
Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Jones,  76  111.  311, 

1756, 1776 
Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Kingman,  49  I1L 

App.  43,  1942 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Larmon,  67  111.  68, 

993, 1889, 1897 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  La  very,  71  111.  522,  1809 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levy,  127  Ind.  168,  2211 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lockhart,  71  111.  627, 

2282,2306 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.'  Co.  v.  Loop,  139  Ind.  542,  1273 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maxfield,  72  111.  95, 

1909, 1924, 1942 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDonough,  53 Ind. 

289,  2505 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGinnis,  71  111. 

346,  1749 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Miller,  76  111.  278,  1761 
Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Milligan,  52  Ind. 

505,  1864 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Morrison,  71  111.  616, 

1404 
Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Munson,  57  Mich. 

42,  1417,  1418,  1501,  1502,  1530 


Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Muthersbaugh,  71 

111.  572,  1!>1O 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  77  111.  160,    1  <r> 
Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Owen,  43  Ind.  405, 

879,  882, 1842 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parker,  49  111.  :iS5,    1882 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pence,  68  111.  524, 

50,  l.s7:{ 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Co., 

54  Fed.  R.  730,  910,  914,  2170,  2688 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Co., 

54  Fed.  R.  746,  909,  910,  1136,  2036 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Co., 

53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  293,  914 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pindar,  53  111.  447, 

1895, 1899, 1926 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prince,  50  111.  26, 

315,  319 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Riley,  47  111.  514,        17-7 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roberts,  71  HI. 

540,  2700 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Bodrigues,  47  111. 

188,  315,  316,  317,  319,  403 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Eumbold,  40  111.  143,  612 
Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Spangler,  71  111. 

568,  1837 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Stephenson,  131 

Ind.  203,  1030,  1039 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  63  Ind. 

337,  1869 

Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Sweeney,  41  111. 
.  226,  1839 

Toledo,  etc.,B.  Co.  v.  Tapp,  6  Ind.  App. 

304,  2267,  2616,  2618,  2624 

Toledo,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  18  Ind.  215, 

1814,  1815 
Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  B.  Co., 

(Ohio)  1  Am.&Eng.  B.  Cas.  (N.  S.)  230, 

1268, 1627 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wand,  48  Ind.  476,    1900 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  Wingate,  143  Ind. 

125,  2547 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  34  Am.  R. 

277,  250S 

Tolman  v.  Abbot,  78  Wis.  192,  2228,  22*5 

Tolman  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  X.  Y. 

198,  1757,  1774 

Tombs  v.  Bochester,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  18  Barb.. 

583,  971, 1824, 1846 

Tome  v.  King,  64  Md.  166,  824 

Tome  v.  Parkersburg  E.  B.  Co.,  39  Md.  36,  117 
Tomlin  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  32  Iowa 

106,  1403 

Tomlin  v.  Tonica,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  23  111.  429 

(374),  208,209 

Tomlinson  v.  Branch,  15  Wall.  (U.  S.)  460, 

93,  457,  459,  462,  869,  10(33,  10f>:> 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCXXXV11 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-216/t,  Vol.  IV  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Tomlinson  v.  Bricklayers'  Union,  87  Ind. 

SOS,  336, 516 

Tomlinson  v.  Jessup,  15  Wall.  (U.  S.)  454, 

869,  1063,  1090 

Tomlinson  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  By. 

&  Corp.  L.  J.  154, 
Tomlinson  v.  Southern  Pacific  R.  Co., 

(Ariz.)  33  Pac.  R.  710,  2147 

Tommey  v.  Spartanburg,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Am. 

&  Eng.  R.  CaS.  632,  656 

Tommey  v.  Spartanburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 

Fed.  R.  429,  1604 

Tompkins  v.  Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  S. 

Car.  420,  1294, 1323, 1541 

Tompkins  v.  Clay  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Cal. 

163,  1790,  1799 

Tompkins  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

15  Fed.  R.  6,  651,  660 

Tompkins  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125 

U.  S.  109,  1139 

Tomkinson  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  L.  T. 

R.  812,  513 

Tomko  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  N.  Y.  S. 

144,  2072 

Tompson  v.  Huron,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Wash.  527,   826 
Tomvaco  v.  Simpson,  19  Com.  B.  N.  S.  453, 

2447 
Tonans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  84  Va.  192,  1997 

Tonawanda  R.  Co.  v.  Munger,  5  Denio  255, 

1850, 1863 

Tone  v.  Columbus,  39  Ohio  St.  281,  519 

Toner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Wis.  188, 

2052,  2087 

Toney  v.  Corless,  33  Me.  333,  2215 

Tonica,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McNeely,  21  111. 

71,  154 

Tonica,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stein,  21  111.  96, 

171, 173 

Toof  v.  Martin,  13  Wall.  (U.  S.)  40,  852 

Tool  Co.  v.  Morris,  2  Wall.  45,  2640 

Toomer  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  2 

Exch.  Div.  450,  989 

Toomey  v.  Donovan,  158  Mass.  232,  2113 

Toorney  v.  Eureka,  etc.,  Steel  Works,  89 

Mich.  249,  2050 

Toomey  v.  London,  etc.,'R.  Co.,  3  Com.  B. 

X.  S.  146,  2704,  2720 

Toomey  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  86  Cal. 

37 1,  1967 

Tootle  v.  Clifton,  22  Ohio  St.  247,  1405 

Topoka  v.  Martineau,  42  Kan.  387,  1525 

Topeka,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Roberts  45  Kan.  360,    1069 
Topeka,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Higgs,  38  Kan.  375, 

2179,  2472,  2558,  2572 
Topeka  Mfc.  Co.  v.  Hale,  39  Kan.  23,     114, 191 


Toponce  v.  Corrinne  Mill,  C.  &  S.  Co.,  6 

Utah  439,  325 

Torians  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Va. 

192,  2030 

Tornado,  The,  108  U.  S.  342,  2427 

Toronto  v.  Toronto,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Ont. 

App.  R.  30,  36  Am.  &  Eng.  Gas.  44,  1623 

Toronto,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dollery,  12  Ont.  App. 

679,  1644 

Toronto,  etc.,  Trust  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  123  N.  Y.  37,  771 

Torrance  v.  Amsden,  3  McLean  509,  1575 

Torrence  v.  Shedd,  144  U.  S.  527,  937,  939 

Torrey  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  N.  J. 

Eq.  293,  897, 1491 

Torry  v.  Beardsy,  4  Wash.  (U.  S.  C.  C.) 

242,  931 

Totten  v.  Tison,  54  Qa.  139,  119, 121, 125 

Tottendell  v.  Fareham,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  B.  1 

C.  P.  674,  367 

Tousey  v.  BeU,  23  Ind.  423,  916 

Touteng  v.  Hubbard,  3  Bosanquet  &  P. 

291,  2290 

Towanda,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Heeman,  86  Pa.  St. 

418,  303,  311, 1962, 1964 

Towanda  Bridge  Co.,  In  re,  91  Pa.  St.  216, 

1341, 1380 
Tower  v.  Providence,  etc.,  Co.,  2  R.  I.  404, 

1803,1863 
Tower  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Hill 

(N.  Y.)  47,  2182,  2620,  2621 

Towle  v.  American,  etc.,  Society,  60  Fed. 

R.  131,  757 

Towle  v.  Wilder,  57  Vt.  622,  888 

Towmley  v.  Central  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

N.  Y.  158,  2568 

Town  v.  Bank,  2  Doug.  (Mich.)  530,  853,  861 
Town  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Mich. 

214,  2046 

Town  Council  v.  Elliott,  5  Ohio  St.  113,  134 
Town  Council  of  Johnston  v.  Providence, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  R.  I.  365,  1650 

Town  Council  of  Town  of  Newa  rk  v.  Elli- 
ott, 5  Ohio  St.  113,  564 
Town  of  Albion  v.  Hetrick,  90  Ind.  545,       1790 
Town  of  Andes  v.  Ely,  158  U.  S.  312, 

643,  1222, 1231, 1237 
Town  of  Arcata  v.  Arcata,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

92  Cal.  639,  73, 1618 

Town  of  Bennington  v.  Park,  50  Vt.  178,  1141 
Town  of  Big  Grove  v.  Wells,  65  111.  263,  1164 
Town  of  Cameron  v.  Stephenson,  69  Mo. 

372,  1177 

Town  of  Cherokee  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  Co., 

52  Iowa  279,  1338 

Town  of  Cherry  Creek  v.  Becker,  123  N.  Y. 

161,  12(K 


CCCCXXXV111 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol. 

Town  of  Cherry  Creek  v.  Becker,  2  N.  Y. 

Supp.  514,  1198, 1230, 1244 

Town  of  Coloma  v.  Eaves,  92  U.  S.  484, 

1153, 1163, 1202, 1203,  1225, 1236, 1239,  1243 
Town  of  Concord  v.  Portsmouth  Savings 

Bank,  92  U.  S.  625,  356, 1146, 1199,  1240 

Town  of  Concord  v.  Robinson,  121  U.  S. 

165,  1145, 1168, 1174, 1241 

Town  of  Corning  v.  Head,  33  N.  Y.  S.  360, 

1038, 1040 
Town  of  Danville  v.  Montpelier,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  43  Vt.  144,  1198,1220 

Town  of  Danville  v.  Pace,  25  Gratt.  (Va.) 

1,  1335 

Town  of  Darlington  v.  Atlantic  Trust  Co., 

68  Fed.  R.  849,  1143, 1169, 1178, 1226 

Town  of  Daunesburgh  v.  Jenkins,  57  N.  Y. 

177,  1172, 1175 

Town  of  Douglas  v.  Niantic,  etc.,  Bank, 

97  I1L  228,  1220 

Town  of  Dundas  v.  Desjardins  Canal  Co., 

17  Grant's  Ch.  (Upper  Can.)  27,  659 

Town  of  Eagle  v.  Kohn,  84  111.  292, 

356, 1163, 1250 
Town  of  East  Hartford  v.  American,  etc., 

Bank,  49  Conn.  539,  2686 

Town  of  East  Hartford  v.  Hartford,  etc., 

Co.,  10  How.  (U.  S.)  536,  1088 

Town  of  East  Hartford  v.  Hartford  Bridge 

Co.,  17  Conn.  79,  1381 

Town  of  East  Lincoln  v.  Davenport,  94 

U.  S.  801,  456, 1224, 1254 

Town  of  Elgin  v.  Winona  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

36  Minn.  517,  1233 

Town  of  Eminence  v.  Grasser,  81  Ky.  52,     1244 
Town  of  Enfleld  v.  Jordan,  119  U.  S.  680, 

s.  c.  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  358,  629 

Town  of  Essex  v.  Day,  52  Conn.  483,  1211 

Town  of  Fairfleld's  Appeal,  57  Conn.  167, 

1671 
Town  of  Fairview  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

36  Minn.  505,  1242 

Town  of  Jamestown  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  69  Wis.  648,  914, 918, 1010, 1667 

Town  of  Johnston  v.  Providence,  etc.,  10 

R.  I.  365,  1673 

Town  of  Keithsburg  v.  Frick,  34  111.  405, 

1143, 1148 
Town  of  Knightstown  v.  Musgrove,  116 

Ind.  121,  1799 

Town  of  Lake  View  v.  Rose  Hill  Ceme- 
tery, 70  111.  191,  960 
Town  of  Lebanon  v.  Olcott,  1  N.  H.  339,     1341 
Town  of  Macon  v.  Patty,  57  Minn.  378, 

1100, 1113,  1331 
Town  of  Mentz  v.  Cook,  108  N.  Y.  504, 

1192, 124r 


,  III,  pp.  1263-216!,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 

Town  of  Middleport  v.  .Etna  Life  Ins. 

Co.,  82  111.  562,  1143, 1159, 1215 

Town  of  Monticello  v.  Banks,  48  Ark.  251,  1102" 
Town  of  Ontario  v.  Hill,  99  N.  Y.  324,  1241 
Town  of  Oregon  v.  Jennings,  119  U.  S.  74,  1222 
Town  of  Pana  v.  Bowler,  107  U.  S.  529,  1243 
Town  of  Paulet  v.  Clark,  9  Cranch  292,  2639 
Town  of  Pawlet  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

28  Vt.  297,  1582, 1587 

Town  of  Plainview  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  36  Minn.  505,  455, 1211, 1233,  1243- 

Town  of  Platteville  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  43  Wis.  493,  1186, 1190, 1210 

Town  of  Princeton  v.  Gieske,  93  Ind.  402,  1522 
Town  of  Queensbury  v.  Culver,  19  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  83,  633, 1162 

Town  of  Red  Rock  v.  Henry,  106  U.  S. 

596,  1170 

Town  of  Rensselaer  v.  Leopold,  106  Ind. 

29,  1370, 162& 

Town  of  Roberts  v.  Bolles,  101  U.  S.  119,  116S 
Town  of  Roxbury  v.  Central  Vermont  R. 

Co.,  4  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  204,  802 

Town  of  Roxbury  v.  Central  Vermont  R. 

Co.,  60  Vt.  121,  1653, 1665, 1674 

Town  of  Salem  v.  Henderson,  13  Ind.  App. 

563,  1109 

Town  of  Scipio  v.  Wright,  101  U.  S.  655,  1167 
Town  of  Solon  v.  Williamsburgh,  etc., 

Bank,  114  N.  Y.  122,  1245. 

Town  of  South  Ottawa  v.  Perkins,  94  U.  S. 

260,  1153, 1175, 1231 

Town  of  Springport  v.  Tentonia  Savings 

Bank,  75  N.  Y.  397,  1211, 123O 

Town  of  Storm  Lake  v.  Iowa  Falls,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  62  Iowa  218,  1488 

Town  of  Suffield  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  Co., 

53  Conn.  367,  1670 

Town  of  Thetford  v.  Kilburn,  36  Vt.  179,  147ft 
Town  of  Thompson  v.  Perrine,  106  U.  S. 

589.  632,  634, 1150 

Town  of  Troy  v.  Cheshire  R.  Co.,  23  N.  H. 

83,  1539 

Town  of  Venice  v.  Murdock,  92  U.  S.  494, 

356, 1202, 1239,  1256 
Town  of  Waterville  v.  Kennebec  Co.,  58 

Me.  80,  1151,  1178 

Town  of  Wayauwega  v.  Ayling,  99  U.  S. 

112,  1220 

Town  of  Weathersfield  v.  Humphy,  20 

Conn.  218,  1377 

Town  of  Wellsborough  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  182,  1215, 1229, 1243 

Town  of  Westbrook's  Appeal,  57  Conn.  95, 

599,  974, 1622,  1660,  1671 
Town  of  Wheatland  v.  Taylor.  29  Hun  70,  121& 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCCCXXX1X 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  T,  pp.  1-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  44.7-/2B2,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  1263-21G1,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  Si 


Town  of  Winchester  v.  Hinsdale,  12  Conn. 

88,  1533 

Town  of  Windham  v.  Litchfield,  22  Conn. 

226,  1493 

Town  of  Windsor  v.  Field,  1  Conn.  279,       1535 
Town  of  Windsor  v.  President,  etc.,  36 

N.  Y.  Supp.  863,  1671, 1674 

Townes  v.  Nichols,  73  Me.  515,  147 

Townley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  53  Wis. 

626,  1967, 1978 

Towns  v.  Cheshire  R.  Co.,  21  N.  H.  363, 

1825, 1837, 1841 
Towns  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  By.  Co.,  37  La. 

Ann.  630,  2078 

Townsend  v.  Briggs,  99  Cal.  481,  2713 

Townsend  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  111. 

545,  1497 

Townsend  v.  Mclver,  2  S.  Car.  25,  147 

Townsend  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

N.  Y.  295,  284,  2487,  2504,  2505,  2577 

Township  Board  v.  Hackmann,  48  Mo. 

243,  1340 

Township  of  Aston  v.  McClure,  102  Pa. 

St.  333,  1669 

Township  of  Crescent  v.  Anderson,  114 

Pa.  St.  643,  1791 

Township  of  East  Oakland  v.  Skinner,  94 

U.  S.  255,  1165, 1175 

Township  of  Elmwood  v.  Marcy,  92  U.  S. 

289,  1217, 1256 

Township  of  Kearney  v.  Ballantine,  54  N. 

J.  Law  194,  1476 

Township  of  Madison  v.  Gallagher,  159 

111.  105,  1340 

Township  of  Mahoney  v.  Comry,  103  Pa. 

St.  362,  1341 

Township  of  Midland  v.  County  Board, 

37  Neb.  582,  1208, 1211, 1230 

Township  of  North  Manheim's  Appeal, 

(Pa.)  14Atl.  R.  137,  902 

Township  of  North  Manheim  v.  Reading, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Phila.  (Pa.)  650,  1666 

Township  of  Pine  Grove  v.  Talcott,  19 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  666,  1256 

Township  of  Rock  Creek  v.  Strong,  96 

U.  S.  271,  1239 

Township  of  Wallace  v.  Great  Western 

R.  Co.,  3  Ont.  App.  R.  44,  495 

Tozer  v.  United  States,  52  Fed.  R.  917, 

2678,  2679,  2688 
Tracy  v.  Elizabethtown,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Ky.  259,    1344,  1385,  1390,  1463, 1476,  1478,  1532 
Tracy  v.  Elizabethtown,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 

Ky.  309,  1553 

Tracy  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  N.  Y. 

433,,  1837 


Tracy  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Bos. 

(N.  Y.)  396,  201S 

Tracy  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  67  How.  Pr.  154,  2535 
Tracy  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  N.  Y.  433, 

6, 1832,  1836,  1842,  1860 

Tracy  v.  Talmage,  14  N.  Y.  162,  487 

Tracy  v.  Wood,  3  Mason  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  132,  2163 
Trade  Auxiliary  Co.  v.  Vickers,  L.  R.  16 

Eq.  Cas.  303,  748 

Trader  v.  Jarvis,  23  W.  Va.  100,  642 

Tradesman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Knoxville,  etc., 

Co.,  (Tenn.)  32  S.  W.  R.  1097,  111 

Traer  v.  Clews,  115  U.  S.  528,  640 

Traer  v.  Stuart,  46  Iowa  15,  181 

Trafford  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  8  Lea  96, 

2135,  2141 

Trafford  v.  Boehm,  3  Atk.  440  (1746),  137 

Train  v.  Boston  Disinfecting  Co.,  144 

Mass.  523,  2653 

Trammell  v.  Clyde,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Interst. 

Com.  Com.  R.  376,  2683 

Trammell  v.  Clyde,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Interst. 

Com.  R.  120,  2677,  2678,  2685,  2686 

Trammell  v.  Mount,  68  Tex.  210,  1598 

Transcontinental  Lines,  Re  Tariffs  of,  2 

Interst.  Com.  R.  203,  2G81 

Transfer  Co.  v.  Kelly,  36  Ohio  St.  86, 

1791, 1799,  2570 
Transportation  Co.  v.  Chicago,  99  U.  S. 

635,  1415, 1564 

Transportation  Co.  v.  City  of  Elizabeth, 

37  N.  J.  L.  330,  1108, 1109 

Transportation  Co.  v.  Downer,  11  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  129,  2346,  2347,  2380,  2468,  2598 

Transportation  Co.  v.  Scheu,  19  N.  Y.  408,  885 
Transportation  Co.  v.  Wheeling,  99  U.  S. 

273,  1076 

Transylvania  University  v.  Lexington,  3 

B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  25,  1628 
Trapnell  v.  City  of  Red  Oak  Junction,  76 

Iowa,  744,  2050,  2065 

Trask  v.  California  R.  Co.,  63  Cal.  96,  2030 
Trask  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Gray  71,  1893 
Trask  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  124 

U.  S.  515,  629 

Trask  v.  Maguire,  18  Wall.  (U.  S.)  391,  702,  719 
Trask  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  156  Mass.  298,  2106 
Traut  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  W.  N. 

C.  540,  1525 
Travelers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Harris,  89  Ind.  363,     602 
Traverse  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seymour,  81 

Mich.  378,  898, 1558 

Travis  v.  Thompson,  37  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  236,  2443 
Trayser  v.  Trustees,  39  Ind.  556,  679 

Treadway  v.  Schnauber,  1  Dak.  236, 

1204,  1231,  1242 


ccccxl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  l-itS,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216.',,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  3165-2725.] 


Treadwell  v.  Salisbury,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Gray 

393,  348,  862,  867 

Treaclwell  v.  Whittier,  80  Cal.  574,  2474 

Treat  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131  Mass. 

371,  2586 

Trebilcock  v.  Wilson,  12  Wall.  (U.  S.)  687,  637 
Tregear  v.  Etiwauda  Water  Co.,  76  Cal. 

537.  114 

Treleven  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Wis. 

598,  2272 

Trenor  v.  Central  Pacific  R.  Co..  50  Cal. 

222,  317 

Trent,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wood,  4  Dougl.  287, 

2268,2300 

Trent  Navigation  v.  Wood,  3  Esp.  127,        2264 
Trenton  v.  Trenton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N.  J.)  27 

Atl.  R.  483,  1624 

Trenton  Banking  Co.  v.  Woodruff,  2  N.  J. 

Eq.  117,  320 

Trenton  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Perrine,  23 

N.  J.  L.  402,  872 

Trester  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  33  Neb. 

171,  55,  451,  455 

Trester  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  23  Neb. 

242,  1348 

Trevor  v.  Wbitworth,  L.  R.  12  App.  C. 

409,  140 

Tribbette  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  70  Miss. 

182,  895,  907, 1906 

Trickey  v.  Schlader,  52  111.  78,  1300 

Trinity,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  72  Tex. 

609,  2124 

Tripp  v.  Chard  Ry.  Co.,  11  Hare  264,  784 

Tripp  v.  Northwestern  Nat.  Bank,  41 

Minn.  400,  853 

Tripp  v.  Overocker,  7  Colo.  72,  1419 

Tripp  v.  Swanzey  Paper  Co.,  13  Pick.  291, 

640 

Trippe  v.  Fiske,  4  Colo.  24,  2147 

Trippe  v.  Huncheon,  82  Ind.  307,  259 

Trisconi  v.  Winship,  43  La.  Ann.  45, 

137,  338,  862 

Trist  v.  Child,  21  Wall.  441,  2640 

Trobridge  v.  Brookline,  144  Mass.  139,        1407 
Trogden  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Minn. 

198,  1555 

Trotlinger  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

11  Lea  (Tenn. )  533,  2485,  2499 

Trott  v.  Sarchett,  10  Ohio  St.  241,  176 

Trottier  v.  Red  River,  etc.,  Co.,  Mani- 
toba (T.  Wood)  255,  2442 
Trout  v.  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Gratt. 

<Va.)  619,  1804, 1843, 1863 

Trow  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Vt.  487, 

1807,  2470 
Trowbridge  v.  Chapin,  23  Conn.  595, 

2187,  2188,  2190,  2274 


Trowbridge  v.  Scudder,  11  Gush.  (Mass.) 

83,  272 

Troxler  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  N. 

Car.  377,  1901,  1909 

Troy  v.  Cape  Fear,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  N.  Car. 

298,  1953, 1967 

Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

86  N.  Y.  107,  569,  643 

Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cleveland,  6  How. 

(N.  Y.)  Pr.  238,  1474, 1492 

Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kane,  9  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

506,  1110 

Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kerr,  17  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

581,  67,  70,  71, 163,  637,  859 

Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  13  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

169,  1436, 1517, 1524, 1531 

Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newton,  8  Gray 

(Mass.)  596,  168 

Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northern  Tump.  Co., 

16  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  100, 

1434,  1517,  1520, 1521, 1522, 1524, 1526,  1555 
Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Potter,  54  Mo.  334,  1529 
Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Potter,  42  Vt,  265,  1389 
Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tibbits,  18  Barb. 

(N.Y.)297,  124,155,168,435 

Truax  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Wis. 

547,  1734 

Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Houst.  (DeL)  233,  2182 

Truckee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Campbell,  44  Cal.  89,  550 
Truesdale  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  Co.,  101  111.  561,  1651 
Truex  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Lans.  198,  2449 
Truman  v.  Rudolph,  22  Ont.  App.  250, 

2036,  2041,  2042 

Trumbo  v.  City  St.  Car  Co.,  89  Va.  780,  1979 
Trunick  v.  Smith,  63  Pa.  St.  18,  5,  49 

Truntle  v.  North  Star,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Minn. 

52,  2023 

Trustees,  Matter  of,  31  N.  Y.  574,  1091 

Trustees  v.  Auburn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Hill 

(N.  Y.)  567,  1543, 1676 

Trustees  v.  Bailey,  10  Fla.  238,  965, 1169 

Trustees  v.  City  of  Atlanta,  93  Ga.  468,  1381 
Trustees  v.  City  of  Chicago,  12  111.  403,  1108 
Trustees  v.  Connolly,  157  Mass.  272,  972 

Trustees  v.  Cowen,  4  Paige  510,  493 

Trustees  v.  Flint,  13  Mete.  539,  212,  273 

Trustees  v.  Garvey,  80  Ky.  159,  1209 

Trustees  v.  Greenough,  105  U.  S.  527, 

690,  789,  827, 828 

Trustees  v.  Haas,  42  Ohio  St.  239,  1369, 1458 
Trustees  v.  Heise,  44  Md.  453,  1607 

Trustees  v.  Hills,  6  Cow.  23,  341 

Trustees  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  77  Wis. 

158,  1613,  1634, 1676 

Trustees  v.  People,  63  111.  299,  1178 

Trustees  v.  Salmond,  11  Me.  109,  1372 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccccxli 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Trustees  v.  Waples,  3  Woods  (U.S.)  34,  212 
Tuchband  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 

N.  Y.  437,  880 

Tuck  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Ala. 

150,  2116 

Tuckahoe  C.  Co.  v.Tuckahoe,  etc.,  R.Co., 

11  Leigh  42,  48,1267,1381,1394,1547,1566 

Tucker  v.  Aiken,  7  N.  H.  113,  340 

Tucker  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Fed. 

R.  968|  1968, 1971 

Tucker  v.  Chaplin,  2  C.  &  K.  730,  2144 

Tucker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Wis.)  65 

N.  W.  R.  515,  1502 

Tucker  v.  Cracklin,  2  Stark.  339,  2381 

Tucker  v.  Duncan,  9  Fed.  R.  867,  1765, 1777 
Tucker  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Pa.  St.  281,  1453 
Tucker  v.  Ferguson,  22  Wall.  527,  638 

Tucker  v.  Oilman,  121  N.  Y.  189,  256 

Tucker  v.  Howard,  128  Mass.  361,  914 

Tucker  v.  Massachusetts  Cent.  R.  Co.,  116 

Mass.  124,  1553 

Tucker  v.  Massachusetts,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  118 

Mass.  546,  1431, 1516,  1520, 1522 

Tucker  v.  New  Hampshire  Sav.  Bank,  58 

N.  H.  83,  1221 

Tucker  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

124  N.  Y.  308,  1978, 1980 

Tucker  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  50  Mo.  385,  2415 

Tucker  v.  Sellers,  130  Ind.  514,  1202 

Tucker  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Ark. 

81,  1600 

Tucker  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mo. 

177,  313,  314,  315,  317 

Tucker  v.  State,  72  Ind.  242,  138 

Tuckerman  v.  Brown,  33  N.  Y.  297,  254 

Tuckerman  v.  Stephens,  etc.,  Co.,  32  N.  J. 

L.  320,  .  2300 

Tudon  v.  Macomber,  14  Pick.  (Mass.)  34, 

2208 
Tudor  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  154  I11..129, 

1344, 1616, 1622 
Tuebner  v.  California  St.  Ry.  Co.,  66  Cal. 

171,  13 

Tuff  v.  Warman,  5  C.  B.  N.  S.  573,  1793,  2070 
Tufts  v.  Charlestown,  4  Gray  (Mass.)  537, 

1437 
Tulare,  etc.,  Dist.  v.  Kaweah,  etc.,  Co., 

(Cal.)  44  Pac.  R.  662,  127 

Tuley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Mo.  App. 

432,  2517, 2561 

Tulk  v.  Moxhay,  2  Phila.  Ch.  774,  493, 1315 
Tulleys  v.  Keller,  45  Neb.  220,  481 

Tullis  v.  Hassell,  54  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  391,  2018 
Tunis  v.  Hestonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  Pa. 

St.  70,  226,  233 

Tunnel  v.  Pettijohn,  2  Hair.  (Del.)  48,  2280 
Tupp  v.  Swansey,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Pick.  291,  347 


TurberviUe  v.  Stampe,  1  Ld.  Raym.  264,  1888 
Turgeau  v.  Brady,  24  La.  Ann.  348,  774 

Turman  v.  Bell,  54  Ark.  273,  1593 

Turnbull  v.  Pay  son,  95  U.  S.  418,  162,  227 

Turnbull  v.  Prentiss  Lumber  Co.,  55  Mich. 

387,  262,  751,  774,  778 

Turner  v.  Althaus,  6  Neb.  54,  983, 1056 

Turner  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158  Mass. 

261,  1949 

Turner  v.  Commissioners,  27  Kan.  314,  1157 
Turner  v.  Cross,  83  Tex.  218, 

815, 1021,  2107,  2108 
Turner  v.  Grangers,  etc.,  Co.,  65  Ga.  649, 

200,  253,  260 
Turner  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Mo. 

602,  819 

Turner  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Biss. 

(U.  S.)  380,  686,  714,  715 

Turner  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8 

Biss.  (U.  S.)  315,  708 

Turner  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Mo. 

578,  1857 

Turner  v.  London  &  South  Western,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  L.  R.  17  Eq.  561,  969 

Turner  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (W.  Va.) 

22  S.  E.  R.  83,  2024 

Turner  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R:Co.,  95  111.  134, 

836,  838,  841,  842,  844,  846,  847 
Turner  v.  Sheffield,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Mees. 

&  W.  425,  1411,  1456 

Turner  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Mo. 

261,  1869 

Turner  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Mo. 

App.  632,  2209,  2232 

Turner  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  112  Mo.  542,  1320 
Turner  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  La. 

Ann.  648,  2479,  2589 

Turner  v.  Watkins,  31  Ark.  429,  659 

Turney  v.  Wilson,  7  Yerg.  340,  2695 

Turnpike  Co.  v.  Illinois,  96  U.  S.  63, 

59, 1C9,  571, 1615 
Turnpike  Co.  v.  State,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.)  210, 

48, 1381,  2653 

Turquand  v.  Marshall,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  376,  384 
Turrell  v.  Norman,  19  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  263,  1560 
Tuscaloosa,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Green,  48  Ala. 

346,  864 

Tustchell  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,R.  Co.,  39 

Fed.  R.  419,  1997 

Tuteur  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Wis. 

505,  2153 

Tutt  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  S.  Car. 

110,  1295 

Tutt  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  S.  Car. 

365,  1295 

Tuttle  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Minn. 

190,  1126 


ccccxlii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I, pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II, pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill, pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-Z72,1;.] 


Tattle  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  122  U.  S. 

189,  1999,  2000,  2029,  2039 

Tuttle  v.  Howe,  14  Minn.  145,  1605 

Tuttle  v.  Michigan  Air  Line  Co.,  35  Mich. 

247,  235,  237,  238,  454 

Tuttle  v.  Northern  Pacific,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Interst.  Com.  R.  483,  2522 

Tuttle  v.  Walton,  1  Ga.  43,  148 

Tutwiler  v.  Tuscaloosa  Coal,  I.&.  L.  Co., 

89  Ala.  391,  245 

Tweedy  v.  Bogart,  56  Conn.  419,  892 

Twelfth  St.  Market  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  142  Pa.  St.  580,  88 

Twells  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  3  Am.  Law 

Reg.  (N.  S.)  728,  2430,  2672 

Twin  Creek,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lancaster,  79  Ky. 

552,  154, 164 

Twin  Lick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marbury,  91  U.  S. 

587,          377,  379,  380,  578,  712,  713,  726,  855,  856 
Twist  v.  Winona,  etc.,  Railroad  Co.,  39 

Minn.  164,  1786,1980 

Twombly  v.  Madbury,  27  N.  H.  433,  1555 

Twycross  v.  Grant,  L.  R.  2  C.  P.  Div.  469,  15 
Twyford  v.  Wareup,  Cases  Temp.  Finch 

310,  562 

Tygard  v. Western  Md.  R.  Co.,  24  Md.  563,  183 
Tygert  Co.  v.  The  Charles  P.  Sinnickson, 

24  Fed.  R.  304,  2346 

Tyler,  In  re,  149  U.  S.  164,  788,  806,  809, 1070 
Tyler  v.  Beacher,  44  Vt.  648,  1337, 1338, 1339 
Tyler  v.  Chichester,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  2  Exch. 

256,  502 

Tyler  v.  Elizabeth  town,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Bush 

(Ky.)  510,  1152, 1270 

Tyler  v.  Hudson,  147  Mass.  609,  1383 

Tyler  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  Mass. 

238,  1767 

Tyler  v.  Ricamore,  87  Va.  466,  1910 

Tyler  v.  Sites,  88  Va.  470,  1787 

Tyler  v.  Trustees,  14  Ore.  485,  487 

Tyler  v.  Western  U.  Tel.  Co.,  54  Fed.  R. 

634,  1023 

Tyler  v.  Yreka,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Cal.  212,  670 

Tyler  R.  Co.  v.  Driscol,  52  Tex.  13,  1595 

Tyndale  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  156  Mass. 

503,  2124, 2718 

Tyrell  v.  Cairo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  7  Mo.  App. 

294,  629 

Tyrrell  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  Ill  Mass.  546,  2476 
Tysen  v.  Wabash  R.  R.  Co.,  8  Biss.  247, 

737,  741,  743,  746,  754 
Tysen  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Fed.  R. 

763,  465 

Tyson  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Iowa  207, 

1824, 1834 
Tyson  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Ala.  554,     2025 


Tyson's  Reef  Co.,  In  re,  3  W.  W.  &  A.  B. 
(Viet.  Sup.  Ct.)  Cas.  at  Law  162,  631 


U 

Udell  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Mo.  App. 

254,  2291 

Uline  v.  New  York  Central,  etc..  R.  Co., 

101  N.  Y.  98,  1037, 1538,  1676,  2717 

Ullman  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Mo. 

118,  1593- 

Ulman  v.  Mayor  of  Baltimore,  72  Md. 

587,  1477- 

Ulrich  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 

N.  Y.  80,  496,  2318,  2514,  2532. 

Ulrich  v.  People,  39  Mich.  245,  2715- 

Umsted  v.  Buskirk,  17  Ohio  St.  113, 

,261,  262,  263,  269- 
Underbill  v.  Santa  Barbara,  etc.,  Co.,  93 

Cal.  300,  481 

Underbill  v.  Saratoga  R.  Co.,  20  Barb. 

456,  1306,  1308,  1310= 

Underwood  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

How.  Prac.  537,  442,  912 

Underzook's  Case,  76  Pa.  St.  340,  2725- 

Unfried  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

W.  Va.  260,  211* 

Unger  v.  Forty-second  St.  R.  Co.,  51  N.  Y. 

497,  1645- 

Uniacke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Wis. 

108,  1517, 151» 

Union  Bank  v.  Board  of  Commissioners, 

116  N.  Car.  339,  1148, 118* 

Union  Bank  v.  Clossey,  10  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

271,  330> 

Union  Bank  v.  Ellicott,  6  G.  &  J.  363,  347 

Union  Bank  v.  Forstall,  11  La.  211,  328- 

Union  Bank  v.  Jolly,  J8  How.  (U.  S.)  503,  2141 
Union  Bank  v.  Jones,  4  La.  Ann.  236,  375. 

Union  Bank  v.  Laird,  2  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 

390,  149- 

Union  Bank  v.  Marin,  3  La.  Ann.  34,  68S 

Union  Bank  v.  Owen,  4  Humph.  (Tenn.) 

338,  249* 

Union  Bank  v.  Ridgely,  1  Harris  &  G. 

(Md.)  324,  278,  27» 

Union,  etc.,  Ass'n  v.  Seligman,  92  Mo.  635,  2291 
Union,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Baker,  42  Neb.  880,  1608 
Union,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Hunt,  76  Mo.  439,  19S 
Union,  etc.,  Co.,  In  re,  22  Wend.  591,  361 

Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bank,  2  Colo.  226,  555 

Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  51 

Fed.  R.  309,  354 

Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Curtis,  35  Ohio  St.  357, 

165,663 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccccxliii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-JU2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-U62,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  U6S-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


'Tnion,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hepner,  8  Colo.  App. 

313,  307 

Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Merrick  County,  3  Dill. 

359,  1245 

Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rocky  Mountain,  etc., 

Co.,  2  Colo.  565,  333 

Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Southern,  etc.,  Co.,  51 

Fed  K.  840,  626,  645 

Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Young,  19  Kan.  488,  301 
Union  Bridge  Co.  v.  Troy,  etc.,  Co.,  7 

Lans.  240,  600 

Union  Canal  Co.  v.  Loyd,  4  Watts  &  S. 

(Pa.)  393,  247,  321 

Union,  etc.,  Canals  v.  Towne,  1  N.  H.  44,  69 
Union  Canal  Co.  v.  Woodside,  11  Pa.  St. 

176,  1459 

Union  Cement  Co.  v.  Noble,  15  Fed.  R. 

502,  873 

Union  Cattle  Co.  v.  International  Trust 

Co.,  149  Mass.  492,  626 

Union  Depot,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Brunswick,  31 

Minn.  297,  1403, 1432,  1437 

Union  Depot,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

Co.,  113  Mo.  213,  2260 

Union  Depot  Co.  v.  Frederick,  117  Mo. 

138,  1498 

Union  Depot  Co.  v.  Morton,  83  Mich.  265,  992 
Union  Ex.  Co.  v.  Graham,  26  Ohio  St.  595, 

2282,2317 

Union  Ex.  Co.  v.  Shoop,  85  Pa.  St.  325,  2255 
Union  Ferry  Co.,  Matter  of,  98  N.  Y.  139, 

1341,  1382, 1383 
Union  Gold  Min.  Co.  v.  Rocky  Mountain 

Nat.  Bank,  96  U.  S.  640,  845 

Union  Hebrews  Assn.  v.  Benshimol,  130 

Mass.  325,  93 

Union  Hotel  Co.  v.  Hersee,  79  N.  Y.  454,  1129 
Union  Imp.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  69  Pa. 

St.  140,  93 

Union,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Slee,  123  111.  57,  1506 
Union  Ins.  Co.  v.  Frear,-etc.,  Co.,  97  111. 

537,  254 

Union  Mut.  F.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Keyser,  32  N.  H. 

313,  297, 345 

Union  Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Union 

Mills,  etc.,  Co.,  37  Fed.  R.  286,  738,  778 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Matter  of,  113  N.  Y. 

275,  1270 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  54  Kan.  352,  1688 
Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  52  Kan.  680,  1013 
Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Continental  R.  Co., 

11  Phila.  (Pa.)  321,  1626 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  14  Ga.  327,  88 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hand,  7  Kan.  380,  2472 
Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  158  U.  S.  326, 

2150,  2569 


Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  63  Fed.  R. 

800,  2149 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hause,  1  Wyo.  27,      1590 
Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shacklet,  119  111. 

232,  2142 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  16  Colo.  361,  1992 
Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Snyder,  152  U.  S. 

684,  2013 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  R.  Co., 

105  Mo.  562,  10, 1616,  1621, 1627 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  72  Md.  153, 

.       1774,1784 
Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sue,  25  Neb.  772, 

2479,  2590 
Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taggart,  149  U.  S. 

698,  2668 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  3  Colo. 

App.  526,  1922 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winkley,  159  Mass. 

133,  2422 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yeager,  34  Ind.  1, 

2193,  2197,  2200,  2214 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  33  Kan.  427,    1781 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  11  Colo. 

293,  59 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Arthur,  2  Colo.  App. 

159,  1893, 1923 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Artist,  60  Fed.  R. 

365,  318,  2150,  2161,  2164 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  Y.  Beatty,  35  Kan.  265, 

313,  319,  405 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Botsford,  141  U.  S. 

250,  2713 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  3  Fed.  R.  106,  1374 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  1  McCrary  (U.  S.)  452,        1267, 1376, 1377 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

163  U.  S.  564,  95 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  51  Fed.  R.  309, 

95,  238.491,  586,  589,  593, 1615 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Cooke  Dist.  Ct.  of 

Arapahoe  Co.  Apr.,  1892,  2438 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Credit  Mobilier,  135 

Mass.  367,  379, 1569 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Daniels,  152  U.  S. 

684,  2007,  2008,  2010,  2028,  2030 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Davidson,  (Colo.)  39 

Pac.  R.  1095,  1602 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  DeBusk,  12  Colo. 

294,  963, 1889, 1890, 1893, 1939 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Douglas  County,  31 

Fed.  R.  540,  1120 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Dunden,  37  Kan.  1, 

1980,  2142 


ccccxliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-W,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2M,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2125.} 


Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Durant,  1  Cent.  L.  J. 

581,  381 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Durant,  3  Dill.  (U.  S. 

C.  C.)  341,  1279 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Dyche,  31  Kan.  120,  1402 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Dyche,  28  Kan.  200,  1837 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Estes,  37  Kan.  715,  2058 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Foley,  19  Colo.  280, 

1629, 1638, 1651 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Fort,  17  Wall.  553,  2030 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Gilland,  (Wyo.)  34 

Pac.  R.  953,  1902 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Goodridge,  149  U.  S. 

680,  2286,  2433,  2668 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  91  U.  S.  343, 

596,  916,  917,  925, 1007, 1009, 1377,  2671 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  28  Kan.  206, 

1842, 1843,  1874 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hutchinson,  39  Kan. 

485,  1770 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  9  Colo.  379,1939 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  4  Colo.  App. 

325,  2083 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Keller,  36  Neb.  189, 

1935, 1938, 1939 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Leavenworth,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  29  Fed.  R.  728,  1376, 1476 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Lincoln  County, 

3  Dill.  (U.  S.)  300,  911, 1245 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Lincoln  County,  1 

Dill.  (U.  S.)  314,  22 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Marston,  30  Neb.  241, 

2325,2326 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Mertes,  35  Neb.  204,  1969 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McAlpine,  129  U.  S. 

305,  460 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McComb,  1  Fed.  R. 

799,  942 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McDonald,  152  U.  S. 

262,  1750,  1800,  1827, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1983 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Motzner,  (Kan.)  43 

Pac.  R.  785,  1896 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moyer,  40  Kan.  184,  2377 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Myers,  115  U.  S.  1,  930 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Nichols,  8  Kan.  505, 

2457,2603 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  (U.  S.)  16 

Sup.  Ct.  R.  618,]  2007 

Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  49  Fed.  R. 

538,  2001,  2007,  2046 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Peniston,  18  Wall. 

5,  1056 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Pillsbury,  29  Kan. 

652,  878 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Porter,  38  Neb.  226,  9J8 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Rainy,  19  Colo.  225, 

2317,  2399,  2407 


Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Rassmussen,  25  Neb. 

810,  1745, 1851, 1875 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Ray,  46  Neb.  750,        1932 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Springsteen,  41  Kan. 

724,  1997 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Sternberg,  13  Colo. 

141,  1876 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Tracy,  19  Colo.  331,    1893 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States,  99 

U.  S.  402,  121,  122 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States,  104 

U.  S.  662,  1138 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States,  117 

U.  S.  355,  2284,  2285,  2667 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Winterbotham,  52 

Kan.  433,  405,  2163 

Union  R.  and  Stock  Yard  Co.  v.  Moore,  80 

Ind.  458,  1438, 1512 

Union  Stock  Yards  Co.  v.  Wescott,  (Neb.) 

66  N.  W.  R.  419,  2216 

Union  School  Township  v.  First  Nat. 

Bank,  102  Ind.  464,  1244 

Union,  etc.,  Transit  Co.  v.  Shacklet,  119 

111.  232,  2510 

Union,  etc.,  Transportation  Co.  v.  Riegel, 

73  Pa.  St.  72,  2210,  2373,  2701 

Union,  etc.,  Trust  Co.  v.  Southern,  etc., 

R.  R.  Co.,  49  Fed.  R.  267,  710 

Union,  etc.,  Trust  Co.  v.  Southern  Cali- 
fornia Motor  Road  Co.,  (Cir.  Ct.)  51 

Fed.  R.  840,  483 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

7  Fed.  R.  513,  838,  842,  844 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Cuppy,  26  Kan.  754,       820 
Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Illinois  Mid.  Ry.  Co., 

117  U.  S.  434, 

446,  503,  507, 709,  710,  751,  818,  834,  837,  839,  840, 

841,843 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Kendall,  20  Kan.  515,    1,  7 
Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Monticello,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  63  N.  Y.  311,  634,  636 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Morrison,  125  U.  S.  591, 

s.  c.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1004,  709 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  (Ohio  Com.  PI.)  1  Ry.  &  Corp.  Law 

J.  50,  619 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

7  Chicago  Legal  News  33,  763 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

6  Bis.  (U.  S.)  197,  763,  764 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Souther,  107  U.  S.  591, 

707,  710 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  5 
Dill.  (U.  S.)  1,  664,  666 

Union  Trust  Co.  v  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
4  Dillon  (N.  S.)  114,  738,  741,  743,  744 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccccxlv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-442,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  1263-2164,  Vol.  TV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 


Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Thomason,  25  Kan.  1, 

815,  2115 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Weber,  96  111.  346,  787 
Union  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  1  Caines 

(N.  Y.)  381,  224 

United  Electric  R.  Co.  v.  Shelton,  89  Tenn. 

423,  1646 

United  New  Jersey  R.  Co.  v.  Jersey  City, 

53  N.  J.  L.  547,  1069 

United  New  Jersey  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Na- 
tional, etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  N.  J.  Law  90, 

1274,  1393, 1695 
United  Society  v.  Underwood,  9  Bush 

(Ky.)  609,  386,  387 

United  States,  Matter  of,  96  N.  Y.  227,  1334 
United  States  v.  Agler,  62  Fed.  R.  824, 

810,909 
United  States  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142 

U.  S.  615,  1133, 1134 

United  States  v.  Amedy,  11  Wheat.  (U.  S.) 

392,  32, 1020 

United  States  v.  Ames,  1  W.  &  M.  (U.  S.) 

76,  1375 

United  States  v.  Beebe,  127  U.  S.  338, 1134 
United  States  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

Fed.  R.  209,  1031, 1046,  1047,  2413,  2644 

United  States  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

98  U.  S.  334,  1126 
United  States  v.  Cassidy,  67  Fed.  R.  698,    2640 
United  States  v.  Chicago,  7  How.  (U.  S.) 

185,  1375 

United  States  v.  City  of  Elizabeth,  42  Fed. 

R.  45,  1262 

United  States  v.  City  of  New  Orleans,  98 

U.-S.  381,  1215 

United  States  v.  Clark,  96  U.  S.  37,  1260,  2640 
United  States  v.  Clark,  Fed.  Gas.  14805,  1047 
United  States  v  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

3  Interst.  C.  R.  290,  2523,  2689 

United  States  v.'Colton,  etc.,  Co.,  146 

U.  S.  615,  1128 

United  States  v.  Conner,  138  U.  S.  61, 

1028,1029 
United  States  v.  Coombs,  12  Pet.  (U.  S.) 

72,  1046, 2636 

United  States  v.  County  of  Clark,  95  U.  S. 

769,  1229 

United  States  v.  County  of  Clark,  96  U.  S. 

211,  1199,  1212, 1215 

United  States  v.  County  Ct.  of  Macon  Co., 

99  U.  S.  582,  1213,  1215, 1229,  1260 
United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  542, 

2650 
United  States  v.  Curtner,  (C.  C.  N.  D. 

Cal.)  38  Fed.  R.  1,  1121, 1123, 1124, 1129 

United  States  v.  Debs,  64  Fed.  R.  724, 

909,  910,  911, 1047 


United  States  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

40  Fed.  R.  101,  1010,  2261 

United  States  v  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150 

U.  S.  1,  1119, 1131 

United  States  v.  DeWitt,  9  Wall.  41,  966,  2650 
United  States  v.  Douglass,  113  N.  Car.  190,  932 
United  States  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  13  Fed.  R.  642,  1046,  2413,  2644 

United  States  v.  Egan,  Fed.  R.  112,  2689 

United  States  v.  Eight  Barrels  Distilled 

Spirits,  1  Ben.  (U.  S.)  472,  1029 

United  States  v.  Elliott,  62  Fed.  R.  801, 

909, 1047,  2688 

United  States  v.  Elliott,  64  Fed.  R.  27,  910 
United  States  v.  Engeman,  46  Fed.  R. 

898,  1415 

United  States  v.  Engerman,  46  Fed.  R. 

176,  1337 

United  States  v.  Ferreira,  13  How.  (U.  S.) 

40,  778, 980 

United  States  v.  Fiscus,  42  Fed.  R.  395,  966 
United  States  v.  Fisher,  2  Cranch  358,  2636 
United  States  v.  Fowkes,  53  Fed.  R.  13,  2688 
United  States  v.  Gettysburg,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

161  U.  S.  668,  1414 

United  States  v.  Gettysburg,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(U.  S.)  16  Sup.  Ct.  R.  427,  1334 

United  States  v.  Great  Falls  Manufactur- 
ing Co.,  112  U.  S.  645,  1414 
United  States  v.  Grant,  137  N.  Y.  7,  1070 
United  States  v.  Grundy,  3  Cranch  (U.  S.) 

^37,  74 

United  States  v.  Hanley,  71  Fed.  R.  672, 

2673,  2687 
United  States  v.  Hartwell,  6  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

385,  l<ei 

United  States,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hemmingway, 

39  Fed.  R.  60,  1083 

United  States  v.  Hill,  120  U.  S.  169,  1133 

United  States  v.  Howard,  17  Fed.  R.  638, 

1023,1026 

United  States  v.  Howell,  56  Fed.  R.  21,  2688 
United  States  v.  Insurance  Companies,  22 

Wall.  99,  S73 

United  States  v.  Jefferson  County,  5  Dill. 

310,  1168, 1258 

United  States  v.  Jefferson  County,  1  Mc- 

Crary  (U.  S.)  356,  1158, 1168, 1258 

United  States  v.  Jones,  109  U.  S.  513, 

1333,  1334, 1335,  1413, 1415, 1476 
United  States  v.  Kane,  23  Fed.  R.  748, 

809,  810,  811,  911 
United  States  v.  Kane,  9  Sawy.  (U.  S. 

C.  C.)  614,  1047,  2578 

United  States  v.  Kansas  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  99 

U.  S.  455,  649 

United  States  v.  Kimbal,  13  Wall.  636,       2212 


ccccxlvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  IAS-126S,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2T25.] 


United  States  v.  Kirby,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

482,  1047 

United  States  v.  Knight,  14  Pet.  301,  1134 
United  States  v.  Knight,  3  Inters.  C.  R. 

801,  '1 

United  States  v  Knight  &  Co.,  60  Fed.  R. 

934,  2662 

United  States  v.  Knight  Co.,  156  U.  S.  1, 

78,  2650,  2662 

United  States  v  Laescki,  29  Fed.  R.  699,  1027 
United  States  v.  Lament,  155  U.  S.  303,  1259 
United  States  v.  Land  in  Monterey  County, 

47  Cal.  515,  1446 

United  States  v.  Lincoln  County,  5  Dill. 

184,  1258 

United  States  v.  Little  Miami,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  (U.  S.  C.  C.  S.  D.  Ohio)  9  Reporter 
676,  1288 

United  States  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

Fed.  R.  480,  1046,  2644 

United  States  v.  Macdaniel,  7  Pet.  1,  1134 
United  States  v.  Macon,  99  U.  S.  582,  1168 
United  States  v.  Macon  County  Ct.,  35 

Fed.  R.  483,  1229 

United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  560,  2656 
United  States  v.  McKelden,  8  The  Rep. 

773,  237 

United  States  v.  McLaughlin,  30  Fed.  R. 

147,  1121,1124,1127,1133,1501 

United  States  v.  Mellen,  53  Fed.  R.  229, 

2679,  2689 

United  States  v.  Memphis,  97  U.  S.  284,  1^49 
United  States  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

Fed.  R.  237,  2170 

United  States  v.  Mexican,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

Fed.  R.  769,  930 

United  States  v  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 

Fed.  R.  26,  951,  2683 

United  States  v.  Miller  Co.,  4  Dill.  233,  1260 
United  States  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Fed.  R.  68,  1122, 1133 

United  States  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  65 

Fed.  R.  903,  2668 

United  States  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141 

U.  S.  358,  1127, 1131 

United  States  v.  Morsman,  42  Fed.  R.  448, 

2689 

United  States  v.  Muscatine  County,  2  Ab- 
bott (U.  S.)  53,  1262 
United  States  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

118  U.  S.  120,  1134 

United  States  v.  New  Orleans,  98  U.  S. 

381,  1168, 1259 

United  States  v.  New  Orleans  R.,  12  Wall. 

3tV>,  650,  653,  654,  655 

United  States  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  6 
Mont.  351,  1123 


United  States  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
(C.  C.  D.  Ore.)  41  Fed.  R.  842, 

1121, 1123, 1124,  1125 
United  States  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  152 

U.  S.  284,  1127, 1129 

United  States  v.  Norton,  97  U.  S.  164,  1170 
United  States  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  16 

Fed.  R.  524,  1334, 1338, 1495, 1497, 1502 

United  States  v.  Palmer,  3  Wheat.  610,  2269 
United  States  v.  Philbrick,  120  U.  S.  52,  CO 
United  States  v.  Power,  6  Mont.  271,  2175 

United  States  v.  Railroad  Co.,  17  Wall. 

322,  1142 

United  States  v.  Railroad  Bridge  Co.,  6 

McLean  (U.  S.)  517,  1334,  1374, 1375,  2639 
United  States  v.  Rauers,  70  Fed.  R.  748,  1413 
United  States  v.  Reese,  92  U.  S.  214,  2650 

United  States  v.  Reid,  12  How.  (U.  S.) 

361,  2638 

United  States  v.  Repentigny,  5  Wall.  211, 

1129, 1130 

United  States  v.  Ried,  42  Fed.  R.  134,  2715 
United  States  v.  Robeson,  9  Pet.  319,  1557 
United  States  v.  Ross,  92  U.  S.  281,  2715 

United  States  v.  Saul,  58  Fed.  R.  763,  1046 
United  States  v.  Seaman,  17  How.  225,  1259 
United  States  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  14 

Sawy.  (U.  S.)  620,  449 

United  States  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  39 

Fed.  R.  132,  1121 

United  States  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  46 

Fed.  R.  683,  462 

United  States  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  62 

Fed.  R.  531,  1119, 1120 

United  States  v  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co., 

146  U.  S.  570,  1123, 1127, 1128, 1129 

United  States  v.  Stanford,  69  Fed.  R.  25,  1138 
United  States  v.  Stanley,  (Civil  Rights 

Cases)  109  U.  S.  3,  2650 

United  States  v.  Thomas,  55  Fed.  R.  380,  1047 
United  States  v.  Thompson,  98  U  S.  486,  1134 
United  States  v.  Trans-Missouri,  etc., 

Assn.,  58  Fed.  R.  58,  499,  500,  526,  2664 

United  States  v.  Trans-Missouri  Assn.,  53 

Fed.  R.  440,  2664 

United  States  v.  Twenty-five  Thousand 

Gallons,  etc.,  1  Ben.  (U.  S.)  367,  1029 

United  States  v.  Twenty-five  Thousand 

Segars,  5  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  500,  1029 

United  States  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  91 

U.  S.  72,  660,  1138,  2645 

United  States  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  (C. 

C.  D.  Colo.)  2  Denver  Leg.  News  83,        1119 
United  States  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  37 

Fed.  R.  551,  1122, 1123, 1134 

United  States  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  98 
U.  S.  569,  713,  724,  902, 1568 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccccxlvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1M-12( 

United  States  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 

50  Fed.  B.  28,  525 

United  States  v.  Willamette,  etc.,  Co.,  54 

Fed.  E.  807,  1133 

United  States  v.  Wiltberger,  5  Wheaton 

(U.  S.)  76,  1021 

United  States  v.  Winona,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  67 

Fed.  E.  969,  1131, 1134, 1135 

United  States  v.  Winona,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  67 

Fed.  E.  948,  1135 

United  States  v.  Workingmen's  Assn.,  54 

Fed.  E.  994,  909,  2688 

United  States,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gildersleve,  29 

Md.  232,  2453 

United  States,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lee,  73  111.  142, 

543 
United  States,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Oliver,  16  Neb. 

612,  2394 

United  States,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Spencer, 

( W.  Va.)  21  S.  E.  E.  769,  1608 

United  States,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  79  Md. 

63,  1062 

United  States,  etc.,  Co.  v.  United  States, 

etc.,  Co.,  18  N.  Y.  199,  1477 

United  States,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc., 

B.  Co.,  32  Fed.  B.  480,  539 

United  States,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wilder,  116  111. 

100,  2035 

United  States  Ex.  Co.  v.  Backman,  28 

Ohio  St.  144,  2177,  2178,  2260,  2263,  2337 

United  States  Ex.  Co.  v.  Haines,  67  JR. 

137,  .  .  2210 

United  States  Ex.  Co.  v.  Harris,  51  Ind. 

127,  2245,  2340,  2341,  2343 

United  States  Ex.  Co.  v.  Keefer,  59  Ind. 

263,  2212,  2213,  2374 

United  States  Ex.  Co.  v.  Bush,  24  Ind. 

403,  2233 

United  States  Graphite  Co.  v.  Pacific, 

etc.,  Co.,  68  Fed.  B.  442,  882 

United  States  Ins.  Co.  v.  Shriver,  3  Md. 

Ch.  381,  321,  366 

United  States,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Weir,  96 

Ala.  396,  2116 

United  States  Bollingstock  Co.,  In  re,  55 

How.  Pr.  286,  '  39,844 

United  States  Boiling  Stock  Co.  v.  Atlan- 
tic, etc.,  E.  Co.,  34  Ohio  St.  450, 

322,  323,  324,  662 
United  States  Trust  Co.  v.  New  York, 

etc.,  B.  Co.,  101  N.  Y.  478,       733,  734,  746,  824 
United  States  Trust  Co.  v.  New  York, 

etc.,  B.  Co.,  67  How.  Pr.  390,  746 

United  States  Trust  Co.  v.  New  York, 

•  •to.,  B.  Co.,  25  Fed.  E.  800,  783 

United  States  Trust  Co.  v.  Omaha,  etc., 

By.  Co.,  63  Fed.  B.  737,  792 


Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 

United  States  Trust  Co.  v.  Omaha,  etc., 

B.  Co.,  61  Fed  E.  531,  773 

United  States  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc., 

By.  Co.,  32  Fed  B.  480,  651 

United  States  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc., 

B.  B.  Co.,  150  U.  S.  287,  707,  791,  821 

United  States  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  152  U.  S.  287,  821,  822 

Unity  v.  Burrage,  103  U.  S.  447,  1197 

Unity  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cram,  43  N.  H.  636,  271 

University  v.  People,  99  U.  S.  309,  1088 

University  of  Maryland  v.  Williams,  9 

Gill&  J.  (Md.)365,  91 

University  of  Minnesota  v.  St.  Paul,  etc., 

E.  Co.,  36  Minn.  447,  1372 

Un thank  v.  Henry  Co.  Turnp.  Co.,  6  Ind. 

125,  209 

Upham  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  85  Mich. 

12,  2557 

Uphoff  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  5  Fed.  E. 

545,  34, 935 

Upper  Appomattox  Co.  v.  Hardings,  11 

Gratt.  (Va.)  1,  1486 

Upshur  Co.  v.  Bich,  135  U.  S.  467,  930 

Uptegrove  v.  Central  B.  Co.,  37  N.  Y. 

Supp.  2345 

Upton  v.  Burnham,  3  Biss.  (U.  S.)  431,  145 
Upton  v.  Englehart,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.)  496, 

192, 197 
Upton  v.  Hansbrough,  3  Biss.  (U.  S.)  417, 

252,254 

Upton  v.  Jackson,  1  Flipp.  (U.  S.)  413,  199 
Upton  v.  National  Bank,  120  Mass.  153,  675 
Upton  v.  South  Beading  Branch  B.  Co.-, 

8  Gush.  (Mass.)  600,  1516 

Upton  v.  Tribilcock,  91  U.  S.  45, 

129, 130,  157,  163, 164, 167, 192, 200,  214,  224,  256, 
260,  795,  2686 
Urbanek  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  47  Wis. 

59,  1758 

Urias  v.  Pennsylvania  E.  Co.,  152  Pa.  St. 

326,  1775 

Urquhart  v.  Barnard,  1  Taunt.  450,  2303 

Usher  v.  Baymond  Skate  Co.,  163  Mass.  1,  399 
Usher  v.  West  Jersey,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  126  Pa. 

St.  206,  2133 

Utah,  etc.,  Bailway  Co.  v.  Fisher,  116 

U.  S.  28,  1127 

Utermehle  v.  McGreal,  1  App.  Dist.  Co- 
lumbia, 359,  684 
Utica  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cadwell,  3  Wend.  (N.Y.) 

296,  249 

Utica  Ins.  Co.  v.  Scott,  19  Johns.  1.  475 

Utica,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  In  re,  56  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

456,  1442, 1444, 1520, 1521 

Utica,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Brinckerhoff,  21 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  139,  184 


ccccxlviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-IM,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol 

V 

Vacation  of  Center  Street,  In  re,  115  Pa. 

St.  247,  1102 

Vail  v.  Fall  Creek  Turnpike  Co.,  32  Ind. 

198,  1507 

Vail  v.  Hamilton,  85  N.  Y.  453, 

113,  128, 141, 142 

Vail  v.  McKernan,  21  Ind.  421,  1133 

Vail  v.  Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  N.  J.  Law 

189,  1275, 1481, 1501, 1527 

Vail  v.  Upton,  85  N.  Y.  453,  113 

Vale  Mills  v.  Spalding,  62  N.  H.  605,  214 

Valk  v.  Crandall,  1  Sandf.  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 

179,  165 

Valin  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Wis. 

1,  1792 

Valle  v.  Carre,  36  Mo.  575,  2216 

Valley  Bank  v.  Ladies',  etc.,  Sewing  So- 
ciety, 28  Kan.  423,  859 
Valley  City  Salt  Co.  v.  Brown,  7  W.  Va. 

191,  1337 

Valley  By.  Co.  v.  Bohm,  34  Ohio  St.  114, 

1357, 1359, 1499 

Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Bohm,  29  Ohio  St.  633,       1486 
Valley  Ry.  Co.  v.  Lake  Erie  Iron  Co.,  46 

Ohio  St.  44,  162,  230, 348 

Valparaiso  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  123 

Ind.  467,  1663,  1664 

Vandall  v.  South  San  Francisco  Dock  Co., 

40  Cal.  83,  476 

Vandegrift  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Houst.  (Del.)  287,  562,  1440,  1822 

Vandegrift  v.  Rediker,  22  N.  J.  L.  185,       1803 
Van  Demark  v.  Barons,  52  Kan.  779,  256 

Vanderbilt  v.  Bennett,  2  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J. 

409,  234 

Vanderbilt  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  43  N.  J.  Eq. 

669,  790, 791 

Vanderbilt  v.  Little,  51  N.  J.  Eq.  289,  790 

Vandercook  v.  Williams,  106  Ind.  345, 

980, 1015 

Vanderheyden  v.  Young,  11  Johns.  150,       1203 
Vanderkar  v.  Rennselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 

Barb.  390,  1842 

Vanderlip  v.  City  of  Grand  Rapids,  73 

Mich.  522,  1397 

Vanderpoel  v.  Gorman,  140  N.  Y.  563,    394, 853 
Vanderslice  v.  Newton,  4  N.  Y.  130,  2693 

Vandeventer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 

Fed.  R.  32,  2471 

Vandewater  v.  Mills,  19  How.  (U.  S.)  82,    2276 
Vandewater  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135 

N.  Y.  583,  1678,  1745 

Vandewater  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Hun  32,  1740, 1762 


777,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  Slfi5-:?7 :.'.] 

Vandewater  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 

N.  Y.  Supp.  397,  1755. 

Vandewelden  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

Fed.  R.  54,  2149 

Vanderwerken  v.  Glenn,  85  Va.  9,  264 

Vanderwerker  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 

Vt.  130,  1572, 1574,  1579,  1580 

VanDoren  v.  Olden,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  176,  422 

VanDoren  v.  Robinson,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  256,      493 
VanDresser  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  48  Fed. 

R.  202,  611,  881,  882 

VanDusan  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  97  Mich. 

439,  283, 2487 

VanDyck  v.  McQuade,  86  N.  Y.  38, 

121,  433,  426,  86» 
Vandyke  v.  Cincinnati,  1  Disney  (Ohio) 

532,  1023 

VanAllen  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  7 

Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  515,  126,  206,  625 

Van  Alstyne  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

56  Tex.  377,  725 

VanAntwerp,  In  re,  56  N.  Y.  261,  1102 

VanAvery  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  35  Fed.  R. 

40,  2051 

VanBenthuysen  v.  Central  N.  E.,etc.,  R. 

Co.,  17  N.  Y.  S.  709,  669,  671,  747 

VanBenthuysen  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

Hun  627,  669,  671,  747 

VanBuren  Div.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v 

Lamphear,  54  Mich.  575,  21 

VanBuskirk  v.  Roberts,  31  N.  Y.  661,          2225 
Vance  v.  Little  Rock,  30  Ark.  435,  1169 

Vance  v.  McNabb,  etc.,  Coke  Co.,  92  Tenn. 

47,  72* 

Vance  v.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  4  Lea  (Tenn.) 

385,  384 

VanCott  v.  VanBrunt,  82  N.  Y.  535, 

131,  132,  167,  378 

Vane  v.  Newcombe,  132  U.  S.  220,         858,  1600 
VanEtten  v.  Newton,  134  N.  Y.  143,  2203 

VanGlalm  v.  DeRosset,  81  N.  Car.  467,         869 
VanHook  v.  Selma,  70  Ala.  361,  1625 

VanHook  v.  Somerville,  etc.,  Co.,  5  N.  J. 

Eq.  137,  362 

VanHook  v.  Whitlock,  26  Wend.  43,  1460 

VanHorn  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 

Iowa  33,  1025 

VanHorn  v.  Kermit,  4  E.  D.  Smith  453, 

2603,  2615,  2630 
VanHorn  v.  Newark,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  N.  J. 

Eq.  332,  900 

Vanhorne  v.  Dorrance,  2  Dall.  (U.  S.)  304, 

975,  1306, 1419 
VanHostrup  v.   Madison  City,  1  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  291,  1151,  1239,  1241,  124:5 

VanKeuren  v.  Central  R.  of  N.  J.,  3S  N.  J. 

L.  165,  47,  646,  654 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccccxlix 


[Reference*  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  U3-1SM,  r 

YauKirk  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  76  Pa. 

St.  66,  2484 

YanKleebk  v.  Dutchess  County  R.  Co.,  28 

N.  Y.  Supp.  902,  1725, 1726 

Vann  v.  Barnett,  2  Bro.  Ch.  158,  777 

VanNatta  v.  People's,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mo.) 

34  S.  W.  R.  505,  2179 

Vanneman  v.  Young,  52  N.  J.  L.  403,        27,  272 
Vaniieman  v.  Young,  3  Lewis  Am.  R.  R. 

&  Corp.  R.  660,  29 

VanNess  v.  Pacard,  2  Pet.  (U.  S.)  137,        2638 
Van  Norden  v.  Morton,  99  U.  S.  378,  1012 

Van  Orsdol  v.  Burlington  C.  R.  &  N.  R. 

Co.,  56  Iowa  470,  1539,  1563 

Van  Ostran  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 

Hun  590,  2590 

Van  Ostrand  v.  Wallkill,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

N.  Y.  Supp.  621,  1903 

Vansands  v.  Middlesex  Co.  Bank.  26 

Conn.  144,  148 

Van  Santvoord  v.  St.  John,  6  Hill  157, 

2194,  2228,  2241,  2170 
Van  Schaick  v.  Hudson  River,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

43  N.  Y.  527,  1956 

Van  Schoick  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co., 

20  N.  J.  Law  249,  1415, 1453, 1454 

Van  Slyke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Iowa  620,  1878, 1883 

Van  Slyke  v.  Trempealeau,  etc.,  Co.,  39 

Wis.  390,  9SO 

Van  Stone  v.  Still  well,  etc.,  Manufactur- 
ing Co.,  142  U.  S.  128,  1670 
Van  Tassell  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  Hospital, 

15  N.  Y.  Supp.  620,  318,  2161 

Van  Valkenburgh  v.  Milwaukee,  4;!  Wis. 

574,  1504,  1507 

Van  Vrakin  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68 

Iowa  576,  1725 

Van  Wagner  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co..  80 

Hun  278,  1730 

Van  Wagner  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

N.  Y.  Supp.  165,  1720 

Van  Wagoner  v.  Paterson,  etc.,  Co.,  23 

N.  J.  Law  283,  796 

Van  Wickle  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

N.  J*.  Law  162,  1526,  1535 

Van  Winkle  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Iowa)  61  N.  W.  R.  929,  2042 

Van  Winkle  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co., 

38  Ga.  32,  2267 

Van  Wyck  v.  Knevals,  106  U.  S.  360, 

550,  1118, 1123, 1132 
Vany  v.  Receiver  of  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

67  Fed.  R.  379,  949 

Van  Zant  v.  Waddel,  2  Yerg.  260,          974,  2103 

CORP. — xxix 


'.  777,  pp.  MKt-tieit,  Vol.  TV,  pp.  2165-2723.] 

Varco  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn. 

18,  1817, 1882 

Varner  v.  Martin,  21  W.  Va.  534, 

13132,  1337,  1339,  1340 

Varney  v.  Justice,  86  Ky.  596,  1141 

Varpenper  v.  Mexican,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

Fed.  R.  315,  2088 

Vars  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  23  U.  C.  C. 
•  P.  143,  1988 

Vary  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Iowa 

246,  *  2570 

Vatable  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  96 

N.  Y.  49,  221,  702,  703,  720,  721,  722,  724 

Vatterleiu  v.  Barnes,  124  U.  S.  169,  1452 

Vaughan  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

Mo.  App.  141,  1874 

Vaughan  v.  Providence,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  R. 

I.  578,  2443 

Vaughan  v.  Six,  etc.,  Casks  of  Wine,  7 

Ben.  506,  2207 

Vaughan  v.  Taft  Vale  R.  Co.,  5  H.  &  N.679, 

1888, 1891,  1896,  2467 
Vaughan  v.  Taff  Vale  R.  Co.,  3  H.  &  N. 

742,  1923 

Vauprhn  v.  Dayton,  12  Ind.  561,  536 

Vaughn  v.  Harp,  49  Ark.  160,  983 

Vaughn  v.  Smith,  58  Iowa  553,  1600 

Vautrain  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Mo. 

App.  538,  1997 

Vawter  v.  Franklin  College,  53  Ind.  88,         26 
Vawter  v.  Griffin,  40  Ind.  593,  133 

Vawter  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Mo.  679, 

2133,  2134 

Veazie  v.  Moor,  14  How.  568,  2656 

Veazie  v.  Penobscot  R.  Co.,  49  Me.  119, 

1642, 1669,  1794 

Vedder  v.  Fellows,  20  N.  Y.  126,      288,  289,  2504 
Veeder  v.  Lima,  19  Wis.  280,  1223 

Veeder  v.  Mudgett,  95  N.  Y.  295,  225 

Veerhusen  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

Wis.  689,  1839,  1862 

Veiller  v.  Brown,  18  Hun  (N.  Y.)  571,  134 

Venard  v.  Cross,  8  Kan.  248,  1475 

Venice  v.  Murdock,  92  U.  S.  494, 

356, 1202,  1239, 1256 
Venner  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  28  Fed. 

R.  581,  71,  349 

Verdier  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  S. 

Car.  476,  1122 

Vermilya  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Iowa 

606,  557,  1931 

Vermont  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Vt.  433,    99 
Vermont,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Windham  Bank,  41 

Vt.  489,  156 


ccccl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-V&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  t>63-1263,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1S63-2166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27S5.] 


Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baxter,  22  Vt.  365, 

1352, 1359,  1360, 1454, 1456, 1565, 1591 
Vermont,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Burlington,  28 

Vt,  193,  64 

Vermont,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Clayes,  21  Vt.  30, 

160, 165 
Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co., 

14  Allen  462,  2168,  2175,  2256 

Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  34  Vt.  1,      75,  86,  90, 104,  523,  541,  731,  861 
Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Cp.  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  46  Vt.  792,  773,  809 

Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  50  Vt.  500,  688,  839 

Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  63  Vt.  1,  594,  599 

Veruard  v.  Hudson,  3  Sumn.  (C.  C.)  405,  2207 
Verner  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Ala. 

574,  1955,  1956 

Verner  v.  General,  etc.,  Trust,  (L.  R.  1*94) 

2  Ch.  239,  433 

Verner  v.  Sweitzer,  32  Pa.  St.  208, 

2321,  2325,  2346,  2633 
Vernon  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Mont.  (Can.)  S.  C.  181,  1845 

Vernon  v.  Smith,  5  B.  &  Aid.  1,  1315 

Verona,  Appeal  of  Borough  of,  108  Pa.  St. 

83,  1545 

Verplanck  v.  Mercantile  Ins.  Co.,  2  Paige 

(N.  Y.)438,  775 

Verplanck  v.  Mercantile,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Edw. 

Ch.  84,  373 

Verplanck  v.  Wright,  23  Wend.  506,  493 

Verplank  v.  Caines,  1  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 

57,  736 

Vestry  of  St.  Pancras  v.  Batterbury,  2 

C.  B.  (N.  S.)  477,  2131 

Vick  v.  Lane,  56  Miss.  681,  262 

Vick  v.  La  Rochelle,  57  Miss.  602,  2r>3,  254 

Vickers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Fed. 

R.  139,  2156,  2159 

Vickery  v.  Blair,  134  Ind.  554,  1209,  1246 

Vickery  v.  Board,  134  Ind.  554,  1460 

Vicksburg  v.  Lombard,  51  Miss.  Ill,  1163 
Vicksburg  Bank  v.  Worrell,  67  Miss.  47,  1080 
Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.Co.  v.  Alexander,  62 

Miss.  496,  1780 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barrett,  67  Miss. 

579,  548 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bradley,  66  Miss. 

518,  1068 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Calderwood,  15 

L:i.  Ann.  481,  1424 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dillard,  35  La. 

Ann.  1045,  1426 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dennis,  116  U.  S. 

665,  1064 


Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKean,  12  La. 

Ann.  638,  159,  192, 196 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  119 

U.  S.  99,  308 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patton,  31  Miss. 

156,  1804,  1807,  1863,  1881 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Phillips,  64 

Miss.  693,  2131,  2148,  2575 

Vicksburg,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Putnam,  118 

U.  S.  545,  2152 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ragsdaler46 

Miss.  458,  494,  2266,  2304,  2305 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ragsdale,  54 

Miss.  200,  367,  494,  527, 1307,  1308, 1312 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sledge,  41  La. 

Ann.  896,  1119,  1130 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Stocking, 

(Miss.)  13  So.  R.  469,  2252 

Victor,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Muir,  20  Colo.  320,  2074, 2036 
Videtta,  The,  34  Fed.  R.  396,  2391 

Viele  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  184,  1298 
Vilas  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  17  Wis.  497,  106 
Vilas  v.  Page,  106  N.  Y.  439, 

465,  703,  705,  846,  847 
Vilhac  v.  Stockton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Cal. 

208,  1549 

Village  of  Glencoe  v.  People,  78  111.  382,  925 
Village  of  Hyde  Park  v.  Oak  woods,  etc., 

Association,  119  111.  141,  1372,  1381 

Village  of  Jamaica  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co., 

21  N.  Y.  Supp.  327,  1667 

Vilwig  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Va. 

449,  329 

Vimont  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa 

513,  934 

Vimont  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Iowa 

58,  2551, 2595 

Vincennes,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White,  124  Ind. 

376,  2005, 2029 

Vincent  v.  Chapman,  10  Gill  &  J.  (Md.) 

279,  382 

Vincent  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49111.  33, 

914,  2166,  2352,  2671,  2692 
Vincent  v.  Snoqualmie,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Wash. 

566,  481 

Vincent  v.  Stinehour,  7  Vt.  62,  2467 

Vineberg  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  13  Out. 

App.  Rep.  93,  2616,  2628,  2629 

Viner  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co..  50  N.  Y.  23,  2359 
Vinton's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.  434,  421 

Vinton  v.  Baldwin,  95  Ind.  433,  59,  2288 

Vinton  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  2  N.  Y. 

Supp.  367,  1205 

Vintoii  v.  Middlesex  R.  Co.,  11  Allen 

(Mas.-.)  304,  2574 

Vinton  v.  Schaub,  32  Vt.  612,  2009 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccccli 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  i-uz,  Vol.  II,  pp. 


z,  Vol.  in,  pp.  wes-nm,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 


Virginia  v.  Hall,  96  111.  278,  1113 

Virginia  v.  Eives,  100  U.  S.  313,  929 

Virginia  Coupon  Cases,  114  U.  S.  270,          1010 
Virginia  Land  Co.  v.  Haupt,  (Va.)  9 

Lewis'  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  Rep.  235,  200 

Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barksdale,  82  Vt. 

330,  1968 

Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  6 

Nev.  68,  185 

Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  5  Nev.  358, 

539,  1355, 1356, 1384, 1432, 1437, 1465, 1516, 1524, 

1526 
Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  8  Nev.  165, 

1435, 1515, 1525 
Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lovejoy,  8  Nev. 

100,  1369,  1424, 1468, 1475, 1510 

Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lynch,  13  Nev.  92,  1612 
Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lyon  County,  6 

Nev.  68,  1185 

Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roach,  83  Va.  375, 

2021,  2561 
Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sanger,  15  Gratt. 

230,  2470, 2477 

Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sayers,  26  Gratt. 

(Va.)  328,  2320,  2339,  2399,  2402,  2510 

Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Washington,  86 

Va.  629,  604 

Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White,  84  Ga. 

498,  1745 

Virginia  Steamboat  v.  Kraft,  25  Mo.  76,     2442 
Vose  v.  Bronson,  6  Wall.  452,  755 

Vose  v.  Cowdrey,  49  N.  Y.  336,  714,  724 

Vose  T.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Hurlst. 

&  N.  728,  2016,  2052 

Vose  T.  Reed,  1  Woods  (N.  S.)  647,  737 

Voshell  T.  Hynson,  26  Md.  82,  777 

Voss  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,(Ind.  App.) 

43  N.  E.  R.  20,  2538,  2541,  2629 

Vowell  v.  Thompson,  3  Cr.  C.  C.  (U.  S.) 

428,  226, 227 

VlierbooBi  v.  Chapman,  13  M.  &  W.  230,     2427 
Voak  v.  Northern  Cent.  R.  Co.,  75  N.  Y. 

320,  1758, 1788 

Voight  v.  Dregge,  97  Mich.  322,  256 

Volkman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Dak. 

69,  1870, 1871, 1878 

Volkmar  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  134 

N.  Y.  418,  1984 

Volkmar  St.,  Matter  of,  124  Pa.  St.  320,      1459 
Volunteer,  The  Scholner,  1  Sumn.  (U.  S.) 

551,  2447 

VonGlahn  v.  DeRosset,  81  N.  Car.  467,         863 
VonHoffman  y.  Quincy,  4  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

1160, 1168, 1170 

VonSchmidt  v.  Huntington,  1  Cal.  55,    235, 262 
Vowrhees  v.  Bank,  10  Pet.  449,  1475 


Voorhees  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Iowa 

735,  413 

Voorhees  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  140 

Ind.  220,  264,  732 

Voorhis  v.  Murphy,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  434,  1313 

Voris  v.  Renshaw,  49  111.  425,  1311 

Vredenburg  v.  Behan,  33  La.  Ann.  627,  271 
Vreeland  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  29  N.  J. 

Eq.  188,  157,  387 

Vrooman  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  N.  Y. 

Supp.  1128,  2572 

Vulcan  v.  Myers,  58  Hun  (N.  Y.)  161,  874 

Vy  vyan  v.  Arthur,  1  B.  &  C.  410,  1315 

W 

Wabash,  etc.,  Canal  v.  Spears,  16  Ind. 

441,  1404, 1564 

Wabash,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Beers,  2  Black  448,  1133 
Wabash,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  Lake  Fork 

Dist.,  134  IU.  384,  1115 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  In  re,  24  Fed.  R. 

217,  809 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brow,  65  Fed.  R. 

941,  946, 2151 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  152  I1L 

484,  2318, 2344 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  2  Bradw. 

(IU.)  516,  1831, 1847,  2002 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Trust  Co., 

22  Fed.  R.  272,  s.  c.  23  Fed.  R.  513,  745,  759 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Trust  Co., 

22  Fed.  R.  138,  677,  679,  745 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Trust  Co., 

22  Fed.  R.  269,  759 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Trust  Co., 

23  Fed.  R.  738,  1757 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Defiance, 

(Ohio  St.)  40  N.  E.  R.  89,  1619 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dougan,  142  IU. 

248,  888,894 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dykeman,  133 

Ind.  56,  774,  776 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Farver,  111  Ind. 

195,  1587, 1588, 1592, 1639 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Forshee,  77  Ind. 

158,  1833,  l&CT,  1838 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ham,  114  U.  S. 

587,  463,  465,  657,  849,  851,  860 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris  &  Co.,  55 
•  IU.  App.  159,  2225 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henks,  91  IU.  406, 

1762 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  lUinois,  118  U.  S. 

557,     951, 1083,  2432,  2487,  2637,  2G41,26r>l,  2655, 
2656,  2661,  2675 


cccclii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  T,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II.  pp.  US- 1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-S16U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-S7S''.] 


Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jaggerman,  115 

111.  407,  £.'27,  2230,  2318,  2701 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  96  Ind. 

40,  1902 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koenigsam,  13 

111.  App.  505,  2704 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Locke,  112  Ind. 

404,  2467,  2705,  2706 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCasland,  11 

111.  App.  491,  2400,  2415 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDaniels,  107 

U.  S.  454,  301, 1997 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDougall,  118 

111.  229,  1448 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moran,  13  111.  App. 

72,  2063 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morgan,  132  Ind. 

430,  2013 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nice,  99  Ind.  152,    1863 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Payton,  106  111. 

534,  569,  603,  608,  612,  2570 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pratt,  15  111.  App. 

177,  2410,  2412,  2697 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Savage,  UO  Ind. 

156,  2578, 2706 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rector,  104  111. 

296,  2459, 2544 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shacklet,  105  111. 

364,  1768,  1790, 1799,  2561,  2570 

Wasbash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Speer,  156  111.  244, 

1792 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stewart,  41  111. 

App.  640,  686,  705 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tretts,  96  Ind.  450, 

1837, 1847 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wallace,  110  Ind. 

114,  1773 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.Williamson,  3  Ind. 

App.  190,  608 

Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williamson,  104 

Ind.  154,  1822 

Waco  Tap  R.  R.  Co.v.  Shirley,  45  Tex.  355, 

659,  1572 

WaddeU's  Appeal,  84  Pa.  St.  90,          1337, 1360 
Wade  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  U.  S. 

327,  646,  658,  674 

Wade  v.  Hamilton,  30  Ga.  450,  2216 

Wade  v.  Hennessy,  55  Vt.  207,  1294, 1488 

Wade  v.  Lutcher,  etc.,  Co.,  74  Fed.  R.  517, 

2448 
Wade  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  78  Mo.  362, 

1882 

Wade  v.  Walnut,  105  U.  S.  1,  1252 

Wade  v.  Wheeler,  3  Lans.  201,  2189 

Wademan  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  N.  Y. 

568,  172.-),  172G 


Wadesboro,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burns.  114  N.  C. 

353,  75 

Wadhams  v.  Gay,  73  111.  415,  687 

Wadleigh  v.  Standard,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  76 

Wis.  439,  948 

Wadlington  v.  Newport  News,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  (Ky.)  20  S.  W.  R.  783,  2723 

Wadsworth  v.  St.  Croix  County,  4  Fed. 

R.  378,  1196 

Wadsworth  v.  Supervisors,  102  U.  S.  544, 

1138, 1145, 1146, 1171 
Wadsworth  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  18  Colo. 

600,  966,  1809, 1810 

Waffle  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  58  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  413,  140T 

Waffle  v.  Vanderheyden,  8  Paige  (N.  Y.) 

45,  910 

Wager  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  N.  Y.  526, 

901.  1542, 1634 
Wagner  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Ohio 

St.  563,  1447 

Wagner  v.  Meety,  69  Mo.  150,  1208, 122» 

Wagner  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  97  Mo.  512, 

2600,  260S 
Wagner  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Ohio 

St.  32,  1534 

Wagner  v.  Railway  Co.,  38  Ohio  St.  32,       1545 
Wagner  Free  Inst.  v.  Philadelphia,  132 

Pa.  St.  612,  89,  90 

Wahl  v.  Holt,  26  Wis.  703,  222S 

Wahl  v.  Shoulder,  (Ind.  App.)  43  N.  E.  R. 

458,  2592 

Wait  v.  Albany,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Lans.  475,  411 

Wait  v.  Bennington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Vt. 

268,  1841 

Wait  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Co.,  74  Iowa  207,    181& 
Wait  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  Association,  66  N. 

H.  581,  s.  c.  23  Atl.  R.  77,  14  L.  R.  A. 

356,  390, 391 

Wait  v.  Smith,  92  111.  385,  275 

Waite,  Re,  99  N.  Y.  433,  772 

Waite  v.  Northeastern  Ry.,  El.,  Bl.  &  El. 

719,  1982, 2069 

Waite  v.  Phosnix  Ins.  Co.,  62  Fed.  R.  769, 

945,  94ft 
Waite  v.  Windham  Co.  Mining  Co.,  36  Vt. 

18,  354, 365 

Wakefield  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Vt.  330,  1986 

Wakefleld  v.  Fargo,  90  N.  Y.  213,  266,  267 

Wakefield  v.  Newell,  12  R.  I.  75,  1405 

Wakefield  v.  South  Boston  R.  Co.,  117 

Mass.  544,  2499,  2505 

Waland  v.  Elkins,  1  Starkie  217,  2243 

Walbert  v.  Trexler,  156  Pa.  St.  112,  2057 

Walbridge  v.  Cabot,  67  Vt.  114,  1476, 1485 

Walcott  v.  Watson,  46  Fed.  R.  529.  941 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccccliii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  126S-S166,  Vol.  IV  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Wald  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Ky. 

645,  2617, 2631 

Wald  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  111. 

App.  460,  2631 

Waldele  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95 

N.  Y.  274,  308,  310 

Waldhier  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  87 

Mo.  37,  2065 

Waldhier  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Mo. 

514,  2546,  2703,  2721 

Waldo,  The,  Davies  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  161,  2211 
Waldo  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Wis. 

575,  191, 195,  512,  536 

Waldron  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Dak. 

351,  2187,  2361,  2454,  2612,  2613 
Waldron  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Me. 

422,  1845,  1846, 1872 

Waldron  v.  Romaine,  22  N.  Y.  368,  2215 

Waldron  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Mich. 

420,  562 

Waldrop  v.  Greenwood,  etc.,  Co.,  28  S. 

Car.  157,  308 

Wales  v.  Muscatine,  4  Iowa  302,  1019 

Walker,  Ex  parte,  25  Ala.  81,  736 

Walker  v.  Birch,  6  T.  R.  258,  2312 

Walker  v.  Birchard,  82  Iowa  388,  386 

Walker  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Gush.  1, 

1409, 1472, 1477 
Walker  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  Mass.  8, 

2011 

Walker  v.  Burt,  57  Ga.  20,  990 

Walker  v.  Cassaway,  4  La.  Ann.  19,  2254 

Walker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mo. 

275,  1542, 1560 

Walker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Iowa 

658,  2065 

Walker  v.  Cincinnati,  21  Ohio  St.  14, 

3, 1140, 1143, 1144, 1151, 1152 
Walker  v.  Grain,  17  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  119,  262,269 
Walker  v.  Devereaux,  4  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 

229,  28, 162,  912 

Walker  v.  Detroit  Transit,  etc.,  Co.,  47 

Mich.  338,  113, 116,  144,  395 

Walker  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Mich. 

446,  892,  2214,  2389 

Walker  v.  Dist.  of  Columbia,  6  Mackey 

352,  1104 
Walker  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Hare 

594,  562 

Walker  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Barb.  260, 

2476,  2703 
Walker  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  2 

Exch.  228,  316 

Walker  v.  Flint,  7  Fed.  R.  435,  766 

Walker  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  121  Mo.  575, 

303,1965 
Walker  v.  Jackson,  10  M.  &  W.  161,  2309  , 


Walker  v.  Joseph,  etc.,  Co.,  47  N.  J.  Eq. 

342,  143 

Walker  v.  Keenan,  73  Fed.  R.  755,  2410 

Walker  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mich.) 

62  N.  W.  R.  1032,  1059,  2151 

Walker  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1  C. 

P.  D.  518,  1586 

Walker  v.  Mad  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Ohio 

St.  38,  1265 

Walker  v.  Maitland,  5  Bam.  &  Aid.  171,  2333 
Walker  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Miss. 

245,  161,  192, 193, 195. 197 

Walker  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

Mass.  10,  1397, 1398, 1405, 1435, 1438, 1439 

Walker  v.  Railroad  Co.,  128  Mass.  8,  2080 
Walker  v.  Redington,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Me. 

191,  2072 

Walker  v.  State,  (Ga.)  23  S.  E.  R.  992,  1049 
Walker  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  23  L.  T.  R. 

(C.  P.)  14,  1993 

Walker  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  39  L.  J. 

C.  P.  346,  2583 

Walker  v.  Talbot,  (Mo.  Sup.)  27  S.  W.  R. 

366,  83 

Walker  v.  Tarrant  County,  20  Tex.  16,  1149 
Walker  v.  United  States,  4  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

163,  934 

Walker  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  La. 

Ann.  795,  2547 

Walker  v.  Wabash,  15  Mo.  App.  333,  2491, 2499 
Walker  v.  Walker,  5  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  425,  2375 
Walker  v.  Ware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  L.  J.  Eq. 

94,  1537 

Walker  v.  Wheeler,  2  Conn.  299,  1313 

Walker  y.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 

S.  C.  80,  275 

Walker  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  L.  J.  Q.  B. 

73,  2188 

Walkinson  v.  Wrexham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Nev.  &  Mac.  446,  2686 

Wall  v.  Helena  St.  R.  Co.,  12  Mont.  44,  1646 
Walla  Walla,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Hungate,  62 

Fed.  R.  548,  1071 

WaUace  v.  Bank,  89  Tenn.  630,  387 

Wallace  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  138  N.  Y. 

302,  2073 

W7allace  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Iowa 

547,  2149 

WaUace  v.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Ore.  174, 

1646, 1960 

WaUace  v.  Clayton,  42  Ga.  443,  2265,  2266 

WaUace  v.  Detroit  City  R.  Co.,  58  Mich. 

231,  1623, 1645 

WaUace  v.  Lincoln,  etc.,  Bank,  89  Tenn. 

630,  365, 438 

WaUace  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  12  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  460,  418 


ccccliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  T,  pp.  1-V&,  Vol.  II,  pp.  JU3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-S16H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S16S-17S5.] 


Wallace  v.  Loomis,  97  U.  S.  146, 

52,  447,  788.  818,  833,  834,  836,  837,  841 
Wallace  v.  Matthews,  39  Qa.  617,  2210 

Wallace  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mass.) 

42  N.  E.  R.  1125,  1781, 1980 

Wallace  v.  Rosenthal,  40  Ga.  419,  2256 

Wallace  v.  Sanders,  42  Ga.  486,  2201 

Wallace  v.  Scoggins,  17  Am.  St.  R.  752,  554 
Wallace  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  66  Fed.  R. 

260,  2024,2080 

Wallace  v.  The  Natchez,  31  Fed.  R.  615,  2394 
Wallace  v.  Townsend,  43  Ohio  St.  537,  171 
Wallace  v.  Vigus,  4  Blkf.  (Ind.)  260,  2203 

Wallace  v.  Walsh,  125  N.  Y.  26,  340 

Wallace  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  N.  Car. 

494,  1768,  2466,  2552,  2553,  2564 

Wallace  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Hous.  (Del.)  529,  2474,  2479,  2591 

Wallace  v.  Woodgate,  Ryan  &  M.  193,  2446 
Waller  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Mo. 

App.410,  2589 

Waller  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mo. 

App.  R.  56,  2479 

Waller  v.  Southeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  H. 

&  C.  102,  2030,  2080 

Walley  v.  Montgomery,  3  East  585,  2215,  2219 
Walling  v.  Congaree,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  So. 

Car.  388,  1998 

Walling  v.  Michigan,  116  U.  S.  446,  2652,  2656 
Walling  v.  Miller,  108  N.  Y.  173,  731,  808 

Wallingford  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 

S.  Car.  258, 

2250,  2267,  2295,  2346,  2347,  2403,  2408 
Wallkill  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Norton,  12  Abb. 

Pr.  (U.  S.)  317,  1479 

Wall  Street,  In  re,  17  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  617,  1420 
Wallworth  v.  Holt,  4  Mylne  &  Cr.  619,  241 
Wally's  Heirs  v.  Kennedy,  2  Yerg.  554,  974 
Walnut  v.  Wade,  103  U.  S.  683, 

633,  634,  635,  1220 
Walpole  v.  Bridges,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.)  222, 

2214,2300 
Walrath  v.  Champion,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Fed. 

R.  552,  402 

Walsenburg,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Moore,  5  Colo. 

App.  144,  389 

Walser  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Fed. 

R.  152,  262 

Walser  v.  Seligman,  21  Blatch.  (U.  S.) 

130,  257, 262 

Walsh  v.  Barton,  24  Ohio  St.  28,  517,  650,  652 
Walsh  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Wis.  23, 

2454,  2698 
Walsh  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  145  N.  Y.  301, 

1953, 1974 
Walsh  v.  Mathews,  29  Cal.  123,  1102 


Walsh  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Mo. 

582,  1985, 2717 

Walsh  v.  New  York  &  Brooklyn  Bridge, 

96  N.  Y.  427,  22 

Walsh  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160 

Mass.  571,  2134 

Walsh  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Ore.  250, 

1768 

Walsh  v.  Raymond,  58  Conn.  251,  811 

Walsh  v.  Sexton,  55  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  251,          144 
Walsh  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Mo. 

164,  1999 

Walsh  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Minn. 

367,  2068 

Walsh  v.  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Nev.  110, 

1825, 1826, 1872 
Walsh  v.  Whiteley,  L.  R.  21  Q.  B.  Div. 

371,  2011,  2029,  2055,  2116 

Walstab  v.  Spottiswoode,  15  Mees.  &  W. 

501,  20 

Waltemeyer  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 

Iowa  626,  1362,  1587,  1591 

Walter  A.  Wood  Harvester  Co.  v.  Rob- 
bins,  56  Minn.  48,  164 
Walters  v.  Anglo-American,  etc.,  Co.,  50 

Fed.  R.  316,  394,  778,  829 

Walters  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Iowa 

458,  214& 

Walters  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Iowa 

71,  1983, 2152 

Walters'  Second  Case,  3  DeG.  &  Sm.  244,     140 
Walters  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Fed. 

R.  369,  2220 

Walther  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  55  Mo.  271,         1873 
Walther  v.  Warner,  25  Mo.  277,  1425,  1549 

Walthers  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Mo. 

617,  1819 

Walton,  Ex  parte,  26  L.  J.  Ch.  545,  357 

Walton  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Wis. 

414,  1449 

Walton  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  139  Mass. 

556,  303,  305,  1965 

Walton  v.  Oliver,  49  Kan.  107,  271 

Walton  v.  RUey,  85  Kan.  413,  27,  773 

Walton  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Mo.  56, 

174fr 
Wai  worth  County  Bank  v.  Farmers',  etc., 

Co.,  14  Wis.  325,  391,  392 

Wamesit,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Allen,  120  Mass. 

352,  1561 

Wandell  v.  Corbin,  17  N.  Y.  S.  R.  718,         2458 
Wanderer,  The,  29  Fed.  R.  260,  2211 

Wanless  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  7 

H.  L.  Cas.  12,  1025 

Wanless  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  6  Q. 

B.  481,  1025, 1745. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccclv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  T,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-HG2,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1S6S-21M,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Wapello  County  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  44  Iowa  585,  1210 

Warburton  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  2  Exch.  30,  1588 

Ward  v.  Bonner,  80  Tex.  168,  2002,  2567 

Ward  v.  Brigham,  127  Mass.  24,  15 

Ward  v.  Carson  River,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Nev. 

14,  1929 

Ward  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn.)  63 

N.  W.  R.  1104,  1931 

Ward  v.  Davidson,  89  Mo.  445,  370,  374 

Ward  v.  Felton,  1  East  507,  2423 

Ward  v.  Flood,  fe  Cal.  36,  2643 

Ward  v.  Griswoldville,  etc.,  Co.,  16  Conn. 

539,  211, 261 

Ward  v.  Kitchen,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  31,  138 

Ward  v.  Mfg.  Co.,  16  Conn.  593,  751 

Ward  v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  418,  2643 

Ward  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119  111. 

287,  1349, 1361, 1495 

Ward  v.  Montclair  R.  Co.,  26  N.  J.  Eq. 

260,  714 

Ward  v.  New  England  Fibre  Co.,  154 

Mass.  419,  2106 

Ward  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  &5  W.  Va. 

481,  900 

Ward  v.  Paducah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Fed.  R. 

862,  1841 

Ward  v.  Polk,  70  Ind.  309,  378 

Ward  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Fed. 

R.  422,  1769 

Ward  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  N.  Y. 

Supp.  427,  1648 

Ward  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  25  Ore.  433, 

1967 

Ward  v.  Swift,  6  Hare  (Eng.)  309,  792 

Ward  v.  Salem  St.  R.  Co.,  108  Mass.  332, 

373,  378 

Ward  v.  Sea,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Paige  294,  343,  864 
Ward's,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Elkins,  34  Mich.  439,  2693 
Wardell  v.  Railroad  Co.,  103  U.  S.  651, 

345,  374,  378 
Wardell  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Dill. 

(U.  S.)  330,  1568, 1569 

Warden  v.  Board,  14  Wis.  672,  1070 

Warden  v.  Greer,  6  Watts  424,  2300 

Warden  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137 

Mass.  204,  2004 

Wardens  v.  Cope,  2  Ired.  (N.  Car.)  44,  1029 
Wardwell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 

Minn.  514,  2508,  2575 

Ware  v.  Barataria,  etc.,  Co.,  15  La.  169,  2580 
,  Ware  v.  Gowen,  65  Me.  534,  894 

Ware  v.  Grand  Junction  R.  Co.,  2  Russ.  & 

M.  470,  375,  515 

Ware  v.  Regent's,  etc.,  Co.,  3  De  Gex&  J. 

212,  515,  617,  902 


Ware  v.  Regent's  Canal  Co.,  28  L.  J.  Ch. 

153,  587 

Ware  v.  Supreme'  Sitting,  (N.  J.)  28  Atl. 

R.  1041,  770 

Warfield  v.  Marshall,  etc.,  Co.,  72  Iowa 

666,'  631, 85.> 

Waring  v,  Catawba  Co.,  2  Bay  (S.  C.)  109,  24ft 
Waring  v.  Cox,  1  Camp.  369,  2:<9'_> 

Waring  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Hare   ' 

482,  1299, 1584 

Waring  v.  Mayor,  8  Wall.  110,  2643 

Warmington  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 

Mo.  App.  159,  202» 

Warn  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Hun 

71,  2029 

Warner  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Iowa 

166,  2624, 2625 

Warner  v.  Callender,  20  Ohio  St.  190,  55, 183 
Warner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App. 

Rep.  490,  2073 

Warner  v.  Littlefield,  89  Mich.  329,  854 

Warner  v.  Mower,  11  Vt.  385,  237,  238,  359,  85:i 
Warner  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  N.  Y. 

465,  1755,  1760,  2064,  2718 

Warner  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,3Interst. 

Com.  R.  74,  2071 

Warner  v.  People's  St.  R.  Co.,  141  Pa.  St. 

615,  1644, 1649 

Warner  v.  Railroad  Co.,  39  Ohio  St.  70,  1545 
Warner  v.  Rising  Fawn,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Woods 

(U.  S.)  514,  636,  745 

Warner  v.  Western  R.  Co.,  94  N.  Car.  250,  270* 
Warner  v.  West  T.  Co.,  5  Rob.  (N.Y.)  490,  220s 
Warrell  v.  Wheeling,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  Pa. 

St.  600,  1449 

Warren,  In  re,  11  N.  Y.  Supp.  787,  4±> 

Warren  v.  Booth,  53  Iowa  742,  893 

Warren  v.  Booth,  51  Iowa  215,  892 

Warren  v.  Bunnell,  11  Vt.  600,  1340 

Warren  v.  Davenport  Fire  Insurance  Co., 

31  Iowa  464,  244 

Warren  v.  Englehart,  13  Neb.  283,  2126,  2141i 
Warren  v.  First  Division  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  18  Minn.  384,  1333, 1463, 1554 

Warren  v.  First  Div.  of  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  21  Minn.  424.  1457 

Warren  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  149  111.  9, 

38,  849,  853 
Warren  v.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Allen 

227,  2460,  2474,  2479,  2550 

Warren  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Iowa 

484,  1823 

Warren  v.  King,  108  U.  S  389,  118, 120, 121, 123 
Warren  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Ala.  582, 

461,469 
Warren  v.  Para,  etc.,  Co.,  (Mass.)  44 

N.  E.  R.  112,  385 


cccclvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  1 1,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


Warren  v.  Spencer  Water  Co.,  143  Mass. 

9,  1561 

Warren  v.  Union  Nat.  Bank,  ?  Phila.  156, 

772,  797 
Warren  v.  Marcy,  97  U.  S.  96, 

629, 1221,  1236, 1239, 1243, 1245 
Warren,  etc.,  Co.  v  Aetna,  etc.,  Co.,  2 

Paine  501,  363 

Warren  R.  Co.  v.  State,  29  N.  J.  Law  353, 

1655, 1666 
•Warwick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Birmingham,  etc., 

Co.,  5  L.  R.  Exch.  Div.  1,  2686 

Wasatch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jennings,  5  Utah 

243,  726 

Washburn  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Wis. 

474,  1795 

Washburn  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 

Wis.  364, 

1425,  1426, 1427, 1434,  1514, 1520, 1521, 1525, 1555, 

1556 
Washburn  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Head  (Tenn.)  638, 

296,  298,  305,  390,  402,  2057, 2083,  2084, 2509, 2560 

2601 
Washburn,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Providence,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  113  Mass.  490,  2229,  2243 

Washington  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

W.  Va.  190,  1854, 1857 

Washington  v.  Emery,  4  Jones  Eq.  (N. 

Car.)  32,  138 

Washington  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

111.  App.  658,  2148 

Washington  v.  Spokane,  (Wash.)  42  Pac. 

R.  628,  2179 

Washington  v.  Spokane,  etc.,  R.  Cof,  13 

Wash.  9,  2475 

Washington  Bank  v.  Lewis,  22  Pick. 

(Mass.)  24,  321,  366 

Washington  Bridge  Co.  v.  Land,  etc.,  Co., 

(Wash.)  40  Pac.  R.  982,  1576 

Washington  Cemetery  v.  Prospect,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  68  N.  Y.  591,  11347, 1387, 1546 

Washington  Ice  Co.  v.  Lay,  103  Ind.  48,     1498 
Washington  Imp.  Co.  v.  Kansas  Pacific 

R.  Co.,  5  Dill.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  489,  930 

Washington,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  In  re,  115  N.Y. 

442,  9 

Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alexander, 

etc.,  R.  R.,  19  Gratt.  (Va.)  592,  726 

Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baltimore  & 

Ohio  R.  Co.,  10  GiU  &  J.  392,  48 

Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  17 

Wall.  445,  492,  612 

Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cazenove,  83 

Va.  744,  1245 

Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coeur  D' Alone, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Ida.  991,  1468 


Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coeur  D'Alene, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Sup.  Ct.  239,      1265,  1278, 1350 
Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coeur  D'Alene, 

etc.,R.  Co.,  60  Fed.  R.  981,  1124,1281 

Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harmon's 

Adm.,  147  U.  S.  571,  2547 

Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDade,  135 

U.  S.  554,  2007,  2008,  2029 

Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northern  Pac. 

R.  Co.,  2  Idaho  513,  1123, 1124 

Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  18  Conn. 

53,  962 

Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  19  Md.  239,  84 
Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Switzer,  26 

Grat.  (Va.)  661,  1523, 1524, 1532 

Wasmer  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  N.Y. 

212,  612,  1642,  1670,  1674, 1795, 1920 

Waterbury's  Appeal,  57  Conn.  84,  1671 

Waterbury  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  388,  1626 

Waterbury  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Co.,  50 

Barb.  157,  740 

Waterbury  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  21 

Blatchf.  314,  294 

Waterbury  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

Fed.  R.  671,  1961, 1963,  2516,  2561,  2595 

Water  Comrs.,  Matter  of,  31  N.  J.  L.  72,     1503 
Water  Comrs.  v.  City  of  Hudson,  13  N.  J. 

Eq.  420,  1623 

Water  Comrs.  v.  Lawrence,  3  Edw.  Ch. 

(N.  Y.)  552,  1284 

Water  Co.  v.  Flash,  97  Cal.  610,  17 

Waterford,  etc.,  v.  People,  9  Barb.  161,       1020 
Waterford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dalbiac,  20  L. 

J.  Exch.  227,  28 

Waterford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pidcock,  8 

Exchq.  279,  163,  228 

Waterhouse  v.  Comer,  55  Fed.  R.  149,   810,  909 
Waterman  v.  Buck,  58  Vt.  519,  1546 

Waterman  v.  Chicago  &  I.  R.  Co.,  139  111. 

658,  342, 371 

Waterman  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

Vt.  610,  1456 

Waterman  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8  Gray 

(Mass.)  433,  124, 125 

Waters  v.  Bay  View,  61  Wis.  642,  1405 

Waters  v.  Lilley,  4  Pick.  (Mass.)  145,         1318 
Waters  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  11 

Pet.  (U.  S.)  213,  2333 

Waters  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  N. 

Car.  338,  2699 

Watertown  F.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Simmons,  131 

Mass.  85,  329 

Water  Valley,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Seaman,  53 

Miss.  655,  160,  217 

Waterville  v.  Kennebec  Co.,  59  Me.  80, 

1151, 1178 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccclvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp.  M3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Water  Works  v.  Schottler,  110  TJ.  S.  347,    1089 
Waterworks  Co.  v.  Burkhart,  41  Ind.  364, 

1333, 1334, 1338, 1370, 1386, 1388 
Watier  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Minn. 

91,  1826 

Watkin  v.  West  Phila.  R.  Co.,  1  Pa.  Dist. 

R.  463,  1620 

Watkins  v.  Atlantic  Ave.  R.  Co.,  20  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  237,  1798 

Watkins  v.  Hill,  8  Pick.  (Mass.)  522,  706 

Watkins  v.  Paine,  57  Ga.  50,  2215 

Watkins  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

D.  C.  1,  284,  2493 

Watkins  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  52  Am.  & 

Eng.  R.  R.  Gas.  159,  284 

Watkins  v.  Rymill,  L.  R.  10  Q.  B.  D.  178, 

2539,2543 
Watkins  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Mo. 

App.  245,  2235 

Watkinson  v.  Wrexam,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Nev. 

&  Mac.  5,  2670 

Watson  v.  Acquackanonck  Water  Co.,  36 

N.  J.  L.  195,  1357, 1383 

Watson  v.  Ambergate  R.  Co.,  15  Jurist  448, 

2232 
Watson  v.  Ambergate  R.  Co.,  3  H.  &  C.  771, 

2226 
Watson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Minn. 

321,  1317, 1319,  1324, 1325, 1328 

Watson  v.  Eales,  23  Beav.  294,  220 

Watson  v.  Harlem,  etc.,  Co.,  52  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  348,  454 

Watson  v.  Hoosac  Tunnel  Line,  13  Mo. 

App.  263,  2215 

Watson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Heisk. 

255,  2262, 2273 

Watson  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Wis. 

332,  1434, 1515, 1516, 1555 

Watson  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 

Minn.  321,  1317 

Watson  v.  Mound  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

S.  W.  R.  573,  1778 

Watson  v.  New  York  Central  R.  Co.,  47 

N.  Y.  157,  1371, 1488 

Watson  v.  New  York  Central  R.  Co.,  6 

Abb.  (N.  Y.)  Pr.  N.  S.  91, 
Watson  v.  North  British,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Scotch.  Sess.  Cas.  (4th  series)  637,  2174 

Watson  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  U.  C. 

Q.  B.  98,  2560 

Watson  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Pa. 

St.  469,  1435, 1456, 1520 

Watson  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Minn. 

46,  2179 

Watson  v.  Sutherland,  5  Wall.  74,  617 

Watson  v.  Tarpley,  18  How.  (if!  S.)  137,     2638 
Watson  v.  Tripp,  11  R.  I.  98,  1642 


Watson  v.  Wellington,  1  Rus.  &  Myl.  602,    659 
Watt  v.  Nevada,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Nev.)  44 

Pac.  R.  423,  1895, 1901, 1929 

Watt  v.  Porter,  2  Mason  (U.  S.  C.  C. )  77,     2362 
Watts  v.  Boston  &  L.  R.  Co.,  106  Mass. 

481,  2189, 2207 

Watts  v.  Boston  TowboatCo.,  161  Mass. 

378,  2114 

Watts  v.  Camors,  115  U.  S.  353,  2312 

Watts  v.  Derry,  22  N.  H.  498,  1520 

Watts  v.  Hart,  7  Wash.  178,  1998,  2040 

Watts  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  W.  Va. 

196,  1301, 1302, 1565, 1566, 1568 

Watts  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Ga. 

277,  1959 

Waukon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dwyer,  49  Iowa 

121,  201, 210 

Wausau,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Plumer,  35  Wis.  274,    246 
Waverly  Water  Works,  Matter  of,  85 

N.  Y.  478,  1503 

Way  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa 

463,  2475 

Way  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa  48, 

2499,  2705 

Wayauwega  v.  Ayling,  99  U.  S.  112,  1220 

Wayland  v.  Mosely,  5  Ala.  430,   2199,  2203,  2209 
Wayne  County  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  15 

Pa.  St.  351,  1068 

Wayne  County,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Supervisors, 

97  Mich.  630,  1259 

Wayne  Pike  Co.  v.  Hammons,  129  Ind. 

368,  330,  380,  399,  733,  748,  757 

Wayne  Pike  Co.  v.  State,  134  Ind.  672,   731, 802 
Wayne,  etc.,  Inst.  v.  Smith,  36  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  576,  158 

Wead  v.  St.  Johnsbury.etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Vt. 

52,  1676 

Wear  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  I1L 

594,  208 

Weare  v.  Fitchburg,  110  Mass.  334,  1788 

Weatherford,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Granger, 

86  Tex.  350,  21,  487,  488 

Weatherford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  88 

Tex.  191,  2519,  2521 

Weathersfield  v.  Humphy,  20  Conn.  218,     1377 
Weaver  v.  Barden,  49  N.  Y.  286,  114 

Weaver  v.  Gregg,  6  Ohio  St.  547,  1491 

Weaver  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  Boom  Co.,  28 

Minn.  534,  1404 

Weaver  v.  Templin,  113  Ind.  298,  1480 

Webb  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Md. 

583,  159 

Webb  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Md. 

92,  171,179 

Webb  v.  Commissioners,  L.  R.  5  Q.  B.  642, 

628,  631, 1238, 1240 
Webb  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Utah  17,    2151 


cccclviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  l-Ua,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-27Sfi.] 


Webb  v.  Direct  L.  &P.  R.  Co.,  9  Hare  129, 

488,  563,  1298 
Webb  v.  Direct  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

DeG.,  M.  &  G.  521,  1298 

Webb  v.  Earle,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  556,  122,  418 

Webb  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 

Tenn.  119,  2148 

Webb  v.  Lafayette  County,  67  Mo.  353,       1180 
Webb  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  4  Mylne  & 

Craig  116,  475, 1385, 1391 

Webb  v.  Portland,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Sumner 

(U.  S.)  189,  908 

Webb  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Me.  117, 

615, 1743,  2450 

Webb  v.  Railway  Co.,  88  Tenn.  119,  2148 

Webb  v.  Ridgely,  38  Md.  364,  249,  250,  912 

Webb  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  420, 

1889, 1901,  1909,  1940 

Webb  v.  Town  of  Burlington,  28  Vt.  188,      425 
Webb  v.  Tulchire,  3  Ired.  (N.  Car.)  Law 

485,  522 

Webb  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Fed.  R. 

793,  669 

Webber  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  2  Mete.  (Mass.) 

147,  1443, 1515,  1518, 1522 

Webber  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  3  H.  & 

C.  771,  410 

Webber  v.  Humphreys,  5  Dill.  (TJ.  S.  C.  C.) 

223,  932 

Webber  v.  Merrill,  34  N.  H.  202,  1529 

Webber  v.  Piper,  109  N.  Y.  496,  2084 

Webber  v.  Virginia,  103  U.  S.  344, 

2643,  2650,  2654 
Weber  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Kan. 

389,  1780, 1786 

Weber  v.  Baessler,  3  Colo.  App.  459,  2395 

Weber  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100 

Mo.  194,  2723 

Weber  v.  Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  J.  L. 

409,  ..  1914 

Weber  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Ef.  Co.,  58  N.  Y. 

451,  1747, 1748, 1750, 1752, 1784 

Weber  v.  Travelers'  Ins.  Co.,  45  Fed.  R. 

657,  934 

Weber  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn.)  65 

N.  W.  R.  93,  1935 

Weber  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

60  N.  W.  R.  637,  2613 

Weblin  v.  Ballard,  L.  R.  17  Q.  B.  D.  122, 

2113,  2124 

Webster's  Argument,  9  Wheat.  9,  2656 

Webster  v.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  161 

Mass.  298,  2458,  2459 

Webster  v.  Holland,  58  Me.  168,  1492 

Webster  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116 

Mo.  114,  1552, 1556 


Webster  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  N.  Y. 

112,  2r.fl(i 

Webster  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  15  Jur. 

(Eng.)  1503, 

Webster  v.  Turner,  12  Hun  (N.  Y.)  264,        861 
Webster  v.  Upton,  91  U.  S.  65,  145,  256 

Wechselberg  v.  Flour  City  Nat.  Bank,  64 

Fed.  R.  90,  28,  271 

Wedgwood  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Wis. 

478,  2012 

Weed  v.  Barney,  45  N.  Y.  344,      2213,  2276,  2358 
Weed  v.  Panama  R.  Co.,  17  N.  Y.  362, 

2270,  2578 
Weed  v.  Panama  R.  Co.,  5  Duer  (N.  Y.) 

193,  282 

Weed  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  Railroad,  19  Wend. 

534,  2167,  2227,  2230,  2607,  2630,  2698,  2699 

Weed  v.  Smull,  3  Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  273,  788 

Weeden  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Ohio 

563,  192 

Weed  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Boutelle,  56 

Vt.  570,  88T 

Weeks  v.  Billings,  55  N.  H.  371,  932 

Weeks  v.  Bridgman,  41  Minn.  352,  112S 

Weeks  v.  Milwaukee,  10  Wis.  242,  1102 

Weeks  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Railroad  Co., 

40  La.  Ann.  800,  1768, 1769,  255O 

Weeks  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  N.  Y. 

50,  2320, 2621 

Weeks  v.  Silver,  etc.,  Co.,  23  J.  &  S.  (N.  Y. 

Super.  Ct.)  1,  212,  215 

Weems  v.  Georgia,  M.  &  G.  R.  Co.,  84  Ga. 

356,  190 

Weems  v.  Georgia  Midland  &  G.  R.  Co., 

88  Ga.  303,  191. 196- 

Weems  v.  Mathieson,  4  Macqu.  H.  L.  C. 

215,  2125 

Weetjen  v.  St.  Paul  &  P.  R.  R.  Co.,  4  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  529,  653,  654 

Wegener  v.  Smith,  15  Com.  B.  285,  2421 

Wehle  v.  Conner,  83  N.  Y.  231,  892 

Wehmann  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58 

Minn.  22,  2242,  2244,  2248,  2326, 232T 

Wehrman  v.  Reakirt,  1  Cin.  Super.  Ct. 

230,  257 

Weideman  v.  Tacoma,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Wash. 

517,  308 

Weidenfeld  v.  Sugar  Run  R.  Co.,  48  Fed. 

R.  615,  7,  912, 1265,  1271,  1367 

Weidinfelder  v.  Alleghany,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

47  Fed.  R.  11,  23» 

Weider  v.  Maddox,  66  Tex.  372,  84£ 

Weight  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  30  La. 

Ann.  1186,  870 

Weightman  v.  Clark,  103  U.  S.  256,     1153, 117S 
Weihl  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Ga.  297,          783 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccclix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[Vol.  i, pp.  1-U&,  Vol.  ii, pp.  U3-1262,  vol.  in, pp.  nes-zm,  VOL  iv,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Weil  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119  N.  Y. 

147,  1648, 1982 

Weil  v.  Express  Co.,  7  Phila.  (Pa.)  88,  2208 
Weiller  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  134  Pa. 

St.  310,  2338 

Weimer  v.  Dunbury,  30  Mich.  201,  1091, 1524 
Weinberg  v.  Albemarle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  N. 

Car.  31,  2235 

Weir  v.  Barnes,  38  Neb.  875,  1598 

Weir  v.  Express  Co.,  5  Phila.  (Pa.)  355,  2341 
Weir  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Mo. 

558,  1847 

Weir  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Minn.  155, 

50,  539,  1333,  1342,  1353,  1462,  1478, 1481 
Weis  v.  City  of  Madison,  75  Ind.  241,  1405 

Weis  v.  Goetter,  72  Ala.  259,  777 

Weisbrod  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Wis. 

602,  1651 

Weismer  v.  Douglas,  64  N.  Y.  91,  1140, 1217 
Weiss  v.  Mauch  Chunk  Co.,  58  Pa.  St.  295,  224 
Weiss  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  79  Pa.  St. 

387,  2717 

Weissner  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Minn. 

468,  1983 

Welch  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Conn. 

333,  2339 

Welch  v.  Cook,  97  TJ.  S.  541,  1087 

Welch  v.  Hicks,  6  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  504,  2427 

Welch  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Weekly 

R.  166,  2620 

Welch  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Me.  552,  2061 
Welch  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis. 

108,  1428, 1430, 1431, 1434 

Welch  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  N.  Y. 

Supp.  342,  2000,  2043 

Welch  v.  Old  Dominion  Min.  &  R.  Co., 

(Sup.  Ct.)  31  N.  Y.  S.  R.  916,  56 

Welch  v.  Post,  99  111.  471,  1153,  1162,  1175. 1200 
Welch  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  16  Abb.  Pr. 

R.  (N.  S.)  352,  2535,  2536 

Welch  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Sheld. 

(N.Y.)  457,  2538 

Welch  v.  Sage,  47  N.  Y.  143,  626 

Welch  v.  St.  Qenevieve,  1  Dill.  130,  1262 

Welfare  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  4  Q. 

B.  693,  2598 

Wellcome  v.  Leeds,  51  Me.  313, 

460,  1638, 1642, 1674 

Welles  v.  Cowles,  4  Conn.  182,  1509 

Welles  v.  Northern  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  150 

Pa.  St.  620,  1808 

Wellington  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107 

Mass.  582,  2430 

Wellman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mich. 

592,  978, 2486 

Wellman  v.  Howland,  etc.,  Works,  19 

Fed.  R.  51,  262 


Wells  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Miss.  24,      309 
Wells  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Wis.  23, 

2260,  2386,  2387 

Wells  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Wis.  342,     411 
Wells  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Iowa 

520,  2003, 2004 

Wells  v.  Coe,  9  Colo.  159,  2078 

Wells  v.  Commissioners,  77  Md.  125,  1259 

Wells  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Ga.  548,  888 

Wells  v.  Hyattsville,  77  Md.  125,  1064 

Wells  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Cliff.  228, 

2272,  2385 

Wells  v.  Martin,  32  Mich.  478,  1582 

Wells  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  Co.,  151  Mass. 

46,  1027 

Wells  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y. 

181,  2514, 2601 

Wells  v.  Northern  R.  Co.,  14  Out.  R.  595, 

1720, 1730, 1731 
Wells  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Fed.  R. 

51,  2375 

Wells  v.  Rah  way,  etc.,  Co.,  19  N.  J.  Eq. 

402,  359, 364 

Wells  v.  Rhodes,  114  Ind.  467,  1535 

Wells  v.  Robb,  43  Kan.  201,  270 

Wells  v.  Rodgers,  50  Mich.  294,  211 

WeUs  v.  Rodgers,  60  Mich.  525,        238, 359,  453 
WeUs  v.  Somerset,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Me.  345, 

1272, 1371, 1382 
WeUs  v.  Southern,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  1  Fed.  R. 

270,  709,  858, 1600 

Wells  v.  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  2  N.  Y.  (2  Corns.) 

204,  2174 

WeUs  v.  Supervisors,  102  U.  S.  625, 

1153, 1167, 1215,  1216,  1228,  1232,  1242 
WeUs  v.  Thomas,  27  Mo.  17, 

2245,  2250,  2253,  2443 

WeUs  v.  Thomas,  72  Am.  Dec.  228,  2193 

WeUs  v.  Washington  Market  Co.,  19  Wash. 

Law  R.  52,  1992 

WeUs  v.  Weston,  22  Mo.  384,  1177 

Wells  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Jones 

(L.)  47,  2183,  2191,  2274,  2356 

WeUs  County  Road,  Matter  of,  7  Ohio  St. 

16,  1472 

WeUs,  Fargo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fuller,  4  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  213,  2237,  2302 

WeUs,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Northern  Pacific 

R.  Co.,  23  Fed.  R.  469,  1300,  2169 

WeUs,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Co.,  8 

Sawyer  600,  2170 

WeUs,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  18  Fed.  R.  517,  1300 

WeUsborough  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

76  N.  Y.  182,  1229 


cccclx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  i-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-S161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-S725.] 


Wellsborough,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Griffin,  57  Pa. 

St.  417,  105,  703,  717 

Welsch  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Mo. 

451,  1753 

Welsh  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  19  Mo. 

App.  127,  1458, 1538 

Welsh  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Iowa 

632,  1869, 1877 

Welsh  v.  First  Division,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

25  Minn.  314,  634,  684,  705 

Welsh  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Ohio 

St.  65,  2296,  2339,  2399,  2407,  2408 

Welton  v.  State,  91  U.  S.  275, 

1076, 1083, 1084,  2637,  2656 
Welty  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105 

Ind.  55,  1788, 1865, 1867 

Wendell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91 

N.  Y.  420,  1778, 1779, 1780, 1785 

Wendt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  (S.  Dak.)  57 

N.  W.  R.  226,  308 

Wennell  v.  Adney,  3  B.  &  P.  252,  319 

Wentworth  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143 

Mass.  248,  2479 

Wentworth  v.  Outwaite,  10  M.  &  W.  436,  2395 
Wentz  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

241,  2492, 2499 
Werle  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  98  N.  Y.  650,  2556 
Wernwag  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

117  Pa.  St.  46,  2309,  2359,  2364 

Wert  v.  Crawfordsville,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Ind. 

242,  196 
Wertheimer  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  17 

Blatchf.  421,  2267,  2270,  2347 

Wertheimer  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  1 

Fed.  R.  232,  2324 

Wescott  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153 

Mass.  460,  2071 

Wesley  City  Coal  Co.  v.  Healer,  84  111. 

126,  1025, 1789 

West,  Exparte,  56  Law  Times  R.  (N.  S.) 

622,  200 

West  v.  Aurora  City,  6  Wall.  (U.  S.)  139,  931 
West  v.  Bullskin,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Ind.  138,  26 
West  v.  Chasten,  12  Fla.  315,  783 

West  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Iowa  654, 

1901, 1922, 1925 

West  v.  Crawford,  80  Cal.  19,  164,  201 

West  v.  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  N.  J.  L.  91, 

1787 

West  v.  Klotz,  37  Ohio  St.  420,  1609 

West  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1  C.  P. 

588,  2670 

West  v.  McGurn,  43  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  198,  1555 
West  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Wis. 

318,  1421 

West  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  111.  545, 

1587,  1589,  1590, 1591,  1592 


West  v.  Weaver,  3  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  589,  760 
West  v.  West,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Miss.  536, 

1500,1502 
Westaway  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

Minn.  28,  1733, 1743 

West  Boston  Bridge  Co.v.  County  Comrs., 

10  Pick.  (Mass.)  270,  1372 

West  Branch  Boom  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 

Joint  Lumber  &  Land  Co.,  22  W.  N.  C. 

303,  57 

West  Branch,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Mulliner, 

68  Pa.  St.  357,  1400 

Westbrook's  Appeal,  57  Conn.  95, 

1622, 1660, 1671 

Westbrook  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Miss. 

560,  1982 

West  Chester,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson, 

77  Pa.  St.  321,  119, 125,  427,  432 

West  Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McElwee,  67 

Pa.  St.  311,  1768,1796 

West  Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miles,  55  Pa. 

St.  209,  285,  2644 

West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  47  111. 

App.  610,  1798,  2569 

Westcott  v.  Fargo,  61  N.  Y.  542,  2343 

Westcott  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  Co.,  23  Mich. 

145,  214 

West  End,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Atlanta,  etc., 

Co.,  49  Ga.  151,  494, 1620 

West  of  England  Bank,  In  re,  L.  R.  14 

Ch.  Div.  317,  347 

Westerfleld,  Ex  parte,  55  Cal.  550,  1094 

Westerfield  v.  Levis,  43  La.  Ann.  63,  1973, 1983 
Western  v.  Macdermott,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  72,  493 
Western,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bayne,  11  Hun  166,  395 
Western  Nat.  Bank  v.  Armstrong,  152 

U.  S.  346,  325,  484 

Western  N.  Y.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Clinton,  66 

N.  Y.  326,  328 

Western  Pav.  &  Supply  Co.  v.  Citizens' 

St.  R.  Co.,  128  Ind.  525,  99, 1618, 1641 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St. 

155,  1681 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  104  Pa.  St. 

399,  78,  87, 1287, 1368 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  96  Ala.  272,  897,  901 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Avery,  64  N.  C.491,  214 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Babcock,  6  Met. 

(Mass.)  347,  1298 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bishop,  50  Ga.  465, 

2514,  2601 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camp,  53  Ga.  599, 


2277 


Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carter,  59  Md.  306, 


1870 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccclxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 

[Vol.  I, pp.  i-us,  Vol.  II, pp.  i.!3-it6-2.  Vol.  TIT, pp.  izes-awit.  Vol.  TV,  pp.  s 

Western,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Dickson,  30  Wis. 


389,  1471 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Drew,  3  Woods 

(U.  S.)  691,  705 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Exposition,  etc., 

Mills,  81  Ga.  522,       2176,  2241,  2246,  2312,  2329 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Franklin  Bank,  60 

Md.  36,  117 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fulton,  64  111.  271, 

1042 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harwell,  97  Ala. 

341,  2245,  2326,  2338,  2341,  2346,  2403,  2405 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hill,  56  Pa.  St. 

460,  1443 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Huss,  70  Ala.  565, 

1862 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnston,  59  Pa. 

St.  290,  657,  701,  705,  898,  1328, 1537, 1538 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  65  Ga.  631, 

1856 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  1  Head  158, 

2695 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  King,  70  Ga.  261,    1760 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lazarus,  88  Ala. 

453,  1853,  1854,  1855,  2120 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lynch,  (Md.)  34 

Atl.  Rep.  40,  2519,  2520  j 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Main,  64  Ga.  649,    1857  j 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCauley,  68  Ga. 

818,  1882 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McElwee,  6  Heisk. 

208,  2226,  2227 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meigs,  74  Ga.  857, 

1741,  2127 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  19  Mich. 

305,  2577 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nolan,  48  N.  Y. 

513,  240 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Orendorff,  37  Md. 

328,  1569 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Owings,  15  Md. 

199,  1545,  1546 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patterson,  37  Md. 

125,  1657 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reed,  35  Cal.  621, 

1524, 1525,  1526, 1532 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roberson,  61  Fed. 

R.  592,  33,42,44,470 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rollins,  82  N.  C. 

523,  89, 868 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sistrunk,  85  Ala. 

352,  1850 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  75  111.  496, 

1570, 1578 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Strong,  52  Ga.  461, 

2148 


Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stocksdale,  (Md.) 

34  Atl.  R.  880,  2487,  2490,  2496 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tevis,  41  Cal.  489, 

1277,  1490 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thornton,  60  Ga. 

300,  892,2388 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner,  72  Ga. 

292,  1989,  2465,  2578,  2581 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. Wagner,  65  111.  197, 

2220 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  81  Ga.  397, 

1746, 1978 

Western  Saving  Fund  Society  v.  Phila- 
delphia, 31  Pa.  St.  175,  1168 
Western  Stone  Co.  v.  Whalen,  151  111.  472,    300 
Western  Trans.  Co.  v.  Barber,  56  N.  Y.  544, 

2386,2444 

Western  Trans.  Co.  v.  Hoyt,  69  N.  Y.  230,  2420 
Western  Trans.  Co.  v.  Newhall,  24  111.  466, 

2241,  2263,  2320,  2321,  2334,  2346 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Alabama  State 

Board,  132  U.  S.  472,  1097 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  American,  etc., 

Co.,  65  Ga.  160,  500,  532, 1381,  2664 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Am.  Tel.  Co.,  19 
'  Am.  L.  Reg.  (N.  S.)  173,  532 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  American  U. 

Tel.  Co.,  9  Biss.  (U.  S.)  72,  532 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 

Tel.  Co.,  5  Nev.  102,  532 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 

Tel.  Co.,  7  Biss.  (U.  S.)  367,  529, 1370 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Attorney-Gen- 
eral, 125  U.  S.  530,     1074, 1077, 1078, 1096, 1097 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 

Tel.  Co.,  22  Fed.  R.  133,  532 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 

Tel.  Co.,  23  Fed.  R.  12,  532 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Burlington, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Fed.  R.  1,  705 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Burlington, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  McCrary  (U.  S.)  130, 

529,  532,  653.  654 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  86  111.  246,  529 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  City  Council  of 

Charleston,  56  Fed.  R.  419,  1097 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Davenport,  97 

U.  S.  369,  117 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Dickinson,  40 

Ind.  444,  935,  936 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  50 

Ind.  181,  1022 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Harding,  103 

Ind.  505,  2453 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  James,  162  U.  S. 

650,  2650,  2652.  2656 


cccclxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2715.] 


Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Lark  (Ga.)  23     • 

S.E.  R.118,  2652 

"Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Levi,  47  Ind. 

552,  934 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  McGill,  57  Fed. 

K.  699,  2135,  2142 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  McMullen, 

(N.  J.)  33  Atl.  E.  384,  2022 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Meyer,  61  Ala. 

154,  2364, 2383 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Massachusetts, 

125  U.  S.  530,  9%,  1077 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  38 

Fed.  E.  552,  478 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Neel,  86  Tex. 

368,  2453 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pendleton,  122 

U.  S.  347,  951,  966,  967,  2637,  2652,  2653 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Poe,  64  Fed. 

E.  9,  1059 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Poe,  61  Fed. 

E.  449,  907, 1059 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Eich,  19  Kan. 

517,  63,  540, 1408 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Scircle,'103 

Ind.  227,  1026 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  St.  Joseph, 

etc.,  E.  Co.,  1  McCrary  (U.  S.)  565,  532 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Taggart,  141 

Ind.  281,  1074,  2643 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Taggart,  163 

U.  S.  2643, 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Tyler,  90  Va. 

297,  2653 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Union  Pacific 

E.  Co.,  3  Fed.  E.  721,  271 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Union  Pacific 

E.  Co.,  3  Fed.  E.  423,  1300 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Williams,  86 

Va.  696,  1628 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  108 

Ind.  308,  1022 

West  Jersey,  etc..  E.  Co.  v.  Camden,  etc., 

By.  Co.,  52  N.  J.  31,  s.  c.  29  Atl.  E.  423, 

12,906 

West  Jersey,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Camden,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  52  N.  J.  Eq.  452,  75,  906,  1619,  1625 
West  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ewan,  55  N.  J. 

L.  574,  1781 

Westmoreland  v.  Foster,  60  Ala.  448,  2445 
West  Nashville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nashville 

Sav.  Bank,  86  Tenn.  252,  115 

Weston  v.  Bear  Eiver,  etc.,  Co.,  5  CaL 

186,  146 

Weston  v.  City  of  Charleston,  2  Pet. 

(U.  S.)  449,  931,  2643 


Weston  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  E.  R.  Co.,  90 

Ga.  289,  191, 192, 193 

Weston  v.  Dane,  51  Me.  461,  1010 

Weston  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  73  N.  Y. 

595,  2479 

Weston  v.  Watts,  45  Hun  (N.  Y.)  219,          824 
West  Philadelphia,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  City  of 

Philadelphia,  10  Phila.  (Pa.)  70,  1624 

West  Biding,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  W'akefield 

Local  Board,  33  L.  J.  M.  C.  174,  1589 

West  Eiver  Bridge  Co.  v.  Dix,  6  How. 

(U.S.)  507,  1333,1340,1358,1372,1379 

West  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Shawnee, 

etc.,  Bank,  95  U.  S.  557,  486 

West  Virginia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ohio  Eiver, 

etc.,  Co.,  22  W.  Va.  600,  500,  1316.  2664 

West  Virginia  Transp.  Co.  v.  Sweetzer,  25 

W.  Va.  434,  2424,  2431 

West  Virginia  Trans.  Co.  v.  Volcanic  Oil, 

etc.,  Co.,  5  W.  Va.  382,  1496 

West  Wisconsin  E.  Co.  v.  Board,  etc., 

Trempealeau  County,  35  Wis.  257, 

89, 1089, 1097 
Wetherbee  v.  Baker,  35  N.  J.  Eq.  501, 

165,  257,  262 

Wetherbee  v.  Fitch,  117  111.  67,  393 

Wetmore  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  1  Mc- 
Crary (U,  S.)  466,  668,  714,  724 
Wetmore  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  B.  B.  Co.,  3  Fed. 

B.  177,  711 

Wetzel  v.  Power,  5  Mont.  214,  2695 

Wetzell  v  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co,.  12  Mo. 

App.  599,  2291 

Wetzler  v.  Collins,  70  Mo.  290,  2203 

Weyand  v,  Atchison,  etc.,  Railroad,  75 

Iowa  573,  2215,  2221,  2371 

Weyer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Wis. 

180,  1435 

Weyer  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Wis. 

329,  1556 

Weyer  v.  Second  Nat.  Bank,  57  Ind.  198,      139 
Weyl  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Minn.  350, 

1624, 1772, 1775 
Weyl  v.  Sonoma  V.  R.  Co.,  69  Cal.  202, 

1542,  1634, 1651 

Weyland  v.  Elkins,  Holt  N.  P.  227,  2243 

Weyland  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa 

573,  2360 

Weymouth  v.  Washington,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  1 

McArthur  (D.C.)19,  880 

Whaalan  v.  Mad  Biver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Ohio  St.  249,  2035 

Whalen  v.  Chicago,  etc  ,  E.  Co.,  75  Wis. 

654,  1968, 2112 

Whalen  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  58  Hun 

431,  1782 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccclxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-S16H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.} 


\Vhaley,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Green,  L.  R.  5  Q.  B. 

Div.  109,  18 

Whalley  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  L.  R. 

13  Q.  B.  Div.  131,  1405 

AVharton  v.  Winch,  140  N.  Y.  287,         1584, 1585 
What  Cheer,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson,  56  Fed. 

R.  810,  2084,  2086 

Whatman  v.  Pearson,  L.  R.  3  Com.  p.  422,   303 
Wheat  v.  City  Council  of  Alexandria,  88 

Va.  742,  1612 

Wheatcroft's  Case,  29  L.  T.  R.  324,  174 

Wheatland  v.  Taylor,  29  Hun  (N.  Y.)  70,    1218 
Wheatley  v.  Westminster,  etc.,  Coal  Co., 

L.  R.  9  Eq.  538,  924 

Wheaton  v.  Peters,  8  Pet.  521,  2637 

Wheelan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Iowa 

167,  2705 

Wheeler,  In  re,  2  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S   (N.  Y.) 

361,  126,  292,  344,  350 

Wheeler  v.  City  of  Chicago,  68  Fed.  R. 

526,  1120, 1124 

Wheeler  v.  Emerson,  45  N  H  526,  890 

Wlieeler  v.  Kirtland,  27  N,  J   Eq.  534,         1490 
Wheeler  v.  Merriman,  30  Minn.  372,  1097 

Wheeler  v.  Millar,  90  N.  Y.  353,  157,  268 

Wheeler  v.  New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

115  U.  S.  29,  2210,  2325,  2326 

"Wheeler  v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.,  39 

Fed.  R.  347,  419 

Wheeler  v.  Perry,  18  N.  H.  307,  422 

Wheeler  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  143  111.  197, 

240,  565,  757,  864 
Wheeler  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 

Barb.  227,  1455 

Wheeler  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

31  Cal.  46,  64,  412,  511,  2281 

Wheeler,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Boyse,  36  Kan.  350,     1992 
Wheeling,  etc.,  Co.-  v.  Gilmore,  8  Ohio 

Cir.  C.  658,  2103 

Wheeler,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Howard,  28  Fed.  R. 

741,  667 

Wheeling  v.  Mayor,  1  Hughes  (U.  S.)  90,     913 
Wheeling,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camden,  etc., 

Co.,  35  W.  Va.  205,  1271, 1274,  1501 

Wheeling,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warrell,  122  Pa. 

St.  613,  1458 

Wheeling,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheeling,  etc., 

Co.,  34  W.  Va.  155,  1374 

Wheelock  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  Mass. 

203,  1772, 1783 

Wheelock  v.  Moulton,  15  Vt.  519,  336 

Wheelock  v.  Young,  4  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  647,   1388 
Wheelright  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135 

Mas^>225,  1766 

Wheelwright  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  56 

Fed.  R.  164,  669 


Whelan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Fed. 

R.  15,  1754, 1782, 1784, 1791 

Whelan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Fed. 

R.  849,  929,  940,  941 

Whelan  v.  Young,  21  D.  C.  51,  1601 

Whelpley  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  6  Blatchf.(U.  S.) 

271,  739,  750,  754 

Whisler  v.  Drain  Comrs.,  40  Mich.  591,       1494 
Whitacre  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Minn. 

311,  1457 

Whitaker  v.  Brooks,  90  Ky.  68,  1061 

Whitaker  v.  Grummond,  68  Mich.  249,         255 
Whitback  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  36 

Barb.  644,  1929 

Whitbeck  v.  Schuyler,  44  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

469,  2187 

Whitcher  v.  Benton,  48  N.  H.  157,  1492 

Whitcomb's  Case,  120  Mass.  118,  980 

White,  Ex  parte,  2  S.  Car.  469,  725 

White  v.  Ashton,  51  N.  Y.  280,  2210,  2238 

White  v.  Board,  129  Ind.  396,  1168 

White  v.  Boston,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  144  Mass. 

404,  2599 

White  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Rich. 

(S.  Car.)  Law  47,  1441 

White  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  122  Ind. 

317,  560, 1037,  1409, 1453,  1455,  1629 

White  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  S.  Dak. 

326.  1889, 1895, 1929 

White  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Ky. 

478,  2406 

White  v.  City  of  Saginaw,  67  Mich.  33,       1104 
White  v.  Concord  R.  Co.,  30  N.  H.  188, 

1872,  2069 
White  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  Ind. 

480,  409 

White  v.  Fitchburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Cush. 

(Mass.)  440,  1513 

White  v.  Fitchburgh  R.  Co.,  136  Mass.  321, 

2470 

White  v.  Goodrich,  etc.,  Co.,  46  Wis.  493,   2201 
White  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Mich.)  65  N.  W.  R.  2573, 
White  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  C. 

B.  (N.  S.)7,  2174,2315 

White  v.  Hinton,  3  Wyo.  753,  1544 

White  v.  Howard,  46  N.  Y.  144,  543 

White  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Miss. 

12,  2070 

White  v.  Manhattan,  etc.;  R.  Co.,  139  N.  Y. 

19,  1617 

White  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.,  154  m. 

620,  1431 

White  v.  Miller,  52  Minn.  367,  667 

White  v.  Milwaukee  City  R.  Co.,  61  Wis. 

536,  2713 


cccclxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U8    Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  ISM-SIGH,,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  2165-2725.] 


White  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co    19  Mo. 

App.  400,  2232 

White  v  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  31  Kan. 

280,  1903 
White  v.  Mitchell,  38  Mich.  390,                   2395 
White  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  518.  705, 1333,  1536,  1537 

White  v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113 

N.  Car.  610.  901, 1633 

White  v.  People,  94  IU,  604,  1331 

White  v.  San  Rafael,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Gal. 

417.  1580 

White  v.  Sharp,  27  Hun  97,  2057 

White  v.  South  Shore  R.  Co.,  6  Cush. 

(Mass.)  412,  1372 

White  v.  State,  69  Ind.  273,  290 

White  v.  State,  86  Ala.  69,  1053 

White  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  559.  142,  162,  1152 

White  v.  Tidewater,  etc.,  Co.,  50  N.  J.  Eq. 

1,  914 

White  v.  Toncray,  9  Leigh  347,  2282 

White  v.  University  Land  Co.,  49  Mo. 

App.  450,  865 

White  v.  Van  Kirk,  25  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  16, 

2203,2209 

White  v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Hun  333,    1840 
White  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  21 

How.  (U.  S  )  575,  626,  627,  675 

White  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa 

281,  1541, 1549 
White  v.  West  End,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mass.) 

42  N.  E.  R.  298,  2180 

White  v.  Westport,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Pick.  215,     393 
White  v.  Winnisimmit  Co.,  7  Cush. (Mass.) 

155,  2405 

White  v.  Wittemnan,  etc..  Co.,  131  N.  Y. 

631,  2057 

White's  Bank  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  12 

Ohio  St.  601,  150 

White's  Bank  v.  Turner,  7  Wall.  646,  2637 

Whitecraf  t  v.  Vanderver,  12  IU.  235,  1022 

White's  Creek,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davidson 

County,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  396,  962 

Whiteford  Township  v.  Probate  Judge,  53 

Mich.  130,  1476,  1477 

Whitehead  v.  Anderson,  9  Mees.  &  W.  518, 

2395 
Whitehead  v.  Arkansas  Cent.  R.  Co.,  28 

Ark.  460,  1466, 1561 

Whitehead  v.  Plummer,  76  Iowa  181,          1124  I 
Whitehead  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99 

Mo.  263,  2464,  2465,  2552,  2554,  2703 

Whitehead  v.  Vineyard,  50  Mo.  30,       660, 1139 
Whitehead  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

N.  Car.  255,  1021,  2213 


Whitehead  v.  Wooten,  43  Miss.  523, 

743,  745,  747,  760,  773,  774,  777, 119 
Whitehill  v.  Jacobs,  75  Wis.  474,  133 

Whitehouse  v.  Androscoggin  R.  Co.,  52 

Me.  208,  1456, 1567 

Whitehouse  v.  Halstead,  90  111.  95,  2370 

Whitehurst  v.  Whitehurst,  83  Va.  153,          298 
White  Lake,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Russell,  22  Neb. 

126,  1596 

Whitely  v  Platt  County,  73  Mo.  30,  1494 

Whiteman  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Allen 

133,  124T 

Whiteman  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Harr.  (Del.)  514, 

299, 1338, 1354,  1424, 1465. 1466 
White  Mountains  R.  Co.  v.  Eastman,  34 

N.  H.  124,  164, 170, 191,  198,  215,  254,  57S 

White  Mountains  R.  Co.  v.  White  Moun- 
tains R.  Co.,  50  N.  H.  50,        702,  712,  713,  860 
White  River  T.  Co.  v.  Vermont  C.  R.  Co., 

21  Vt.  590, '  48,  49,  61, 1267, 1380,  1381 

Whiteside  v.  Prendergast,  2  Barb.  Ch. 

(N.  R.)  472,  830 

Whitesides  v.  Russell,  8  Watts  &  S.  44,      2381 
Whitesides  v.  Thurlkill,  12  Smed.  &  M. 

(Miss.)  599,  2300 

Whitesides  v.  United  States,  93  U.  S.  247, 

1133 
White  Water  C.  Co.  v.  VaUette,  21  How. 

(U.  S.)  414,  65,  476,  564,  643,  658,  659 

White  Water,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bridgett,  94 

Ind.  216,  1842, 1874 

White  Water,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Butler,  112 

Ind.  598,  2544 

White  Water,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McClnre,  29 

Ind.  536,  1425, 1436 

White  Water,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quick,  31 

Ind,  127,  183* 

White  Water,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quick,  30 

Ind.  384,  1832: 

Whitfield,  Ex  parte,  2  Atk.  315,  760 

Whitfield  v.  Zellnor,  24  Miss.  663,  1584 

Wliitford  v.  Panama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  N.  Y. 

465,  2107, 212» 

Whitford  v.  Southbridge,  119  Mass.  564.     2718- 
Whiting  v.  Mayor,  etc.,  Boston,  106  Mass. 

a50,  1071 

Whiting  v.  Potter,  2  Fed.  B.  517,         1246, 1247 
Whiting  v.  Sheboygan,  etc.,  Co.,  25  Wis. 

167,  4,  976, 1140, 1169 

Whiting  v.  Town  of  Porter,  18  Blatchf. 

165,  1246 

Whiting  v.  U.  S.  Bank,  13  Peters  (U.  S.) 


Whiting  v.  Wellington,  10  Fed.  R.  810, 
Whitlock  v.  Hay,  58  N.  Y.  484, 


364 
416 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccclxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  1166-2725.] 


"Whitman  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Allen 

(Mass.)  133,  1486, 1489 

Whitman  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Allen 

(Mass.)  313,  1421 

Whitman  v.  Cox,  26  Me  335,  336 

Whitman  v.  Wisconsin,  etc..  Ry.  Co.,  58 

Wis.  408,  2014 

Whitman,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v-  Strand,  8  Wash. 

647,  2195 

Whitmore  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150 

Mass.  477,  2031 

"Whitmore  v.  Steamboat  Caroline,  20  Mo. 

513,  2609 

Whipple  v.  Thayer,  16  Pick.  (Mass.)  25,  772 
Whipple  v.  West  Phila.  R.  Co.,  11  Phila. 

345,  2564 

Whitney  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Me. 

362,  I860, 1861 

Whitney  v.  Belden,  4  Paige Ch.  (N.  Y.)  140,  783 
Whitney  v.  City  of  Madison,  23  Ind.  331,  1058 
Whitney  v.  Fairbanks,  54  Fed.  R.  985,  239 
Whitney  v.  Gauche,  11  La.  Ann.  432,  2205 
Whitney  v.  Hanover  Nat.  Bank,  71  Miss. 

1009,  774 

Whitney  v.  Hyman,  101  TJ.  S.  392,  271 

Whitney  v  Maine  Central  R.  Co.,  69  Me. 

208,  1985 

Whitney  v.  Milwaukee,  57  Wis.  639,  1451 

Whitney  v.  New  Haven,  32  Conn.  624, 

1297, 1298 
Whitney  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  143  Mass. 

243,  2535, 2539 

Whitney  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  26 

Am.  L.  Reg.  359,  2526 

Whitney  v.  Rogers,  2  Disney  (Ohio)  421,  2426 
Whitney  v.  South  Paris  Mfg.  Co.,  39  Me. 

316,  295 

Whitney  v.  Taylor,  158  U.  S.  85,  1131 

Whitney  v.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  65  N.  Y.  576,  355 
Whitney  v.  Wyman,  101  U.  S.  392,  21,  29,  273 
Whitney  Arms  Co.  v.  Barlow,  63  N.  Y.  62, 

324,  502,  504,  505,  517,  600,  642,  643 
Whitney  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  38  S.  Car.  365,  2351,  2357 

Whitsett  v.  Union,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Colo. 

243,  1631 

Whitson  v  City  of  Franklin,  34  Ind.  392, 

971, 1044, 1624,  2710 

Whittaker  v.  City  of  Helena,  14  Mont.  124,  1799 
Whittaker  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126 

N.  Y.  544,  2052 

Whittaker  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L. 

L.  5  C.  P.  464,  2549 

Whittenton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Memphis,  etc., 

Packet  Co.,  21  Fed.  R.  896,  2697 

CORP. — xxx 


Whittenton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  19  Fed.  R.  273,  949 

Whittier  v.  Hollister,  64  Cal.  283,  1601 

Whittier  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Me. 

26,  1676 

Whittlesey  v.  Delaney,  73  N.  Y.  571,  732 

Whittlesey  v.  Frantz,  74  N.  Y.  456,  158 

Whittlesey  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R  Co.,  23 

Conn.  421,  1491, 1548, 1551 

Whitwam  v.  Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58 

Wis  408,  2008,2043,2065 

WhitweUv  Warner,  20  Vt.  425,  641 

Whitworth  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Mich. 

98,  307 

Whitworth  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  N.  Y. 

413,  2242,  2245,  2248,  2267,  2347 

Whitworth  v.  Pelton,  81  Mich.  98,  889 

Whyte  v.  City  of  Kansas,  22  Mo.  App.  409,  1505 
Wibert  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

Barb.  36,  2302 

Wibert  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y. 

245,  2282, 2304 

Wichita  Savings  Bank  v.  Atchison,  etc., 

R-  Co.,  20  Kan.  519,  415,  2199,  2204,  2220 

Wichita,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fechheimer,  36 

Kan.  45,  1538,  1539 

Wichita,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gibbs,  47  Kan. 

274,  1861 

Wichita,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koch,  47  Kan.  753, 

2341,2342 

Wick  China  Co.  v.  Brown,  164  Pa.  St.  449,   410 
Wickersham  v.  Chicago  Zinc  Co.,  18  Kan. 

481,  367 

Wickersham  v.  Crittenden,  93  Cal.  17,  361,  375 
Wickersham  v.  Orr,  9  Iowa  253,  1327 

Wickes  v.  Adirondack  Co.,  2  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

112,  628 

Wickham  v.  New  Brunswick  &  C.  Ry. 

Co.,  L.  R.  1  P.  C.  64,  649 

Wiegard  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  75  Fed.  R.  370,  2629 
Wiggin  v  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  Mass. 

201,  2363 

Wiggin  v.  Freewill  Baptist  Church,  8 

Mete.  (Mass.)  301,  237 

Wiggins  v.  King,  36  N.  Y.  Supp.  768,  2573 

Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  73  Mo.  389,  1315,  2664 

Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  East  St.  Louis,  107 

U.  S.  365,  1074,  1076 

Wiggins  Perry  Co    v.  East  St.  Louis 

Union  Ry.  Co.,  107  111.  450,  8 

Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  Hellig,  43  111.  App. 

238,  2060 

Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94 

111.  83,  561 


cccclxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  arc  to  Pages.} 


[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US- 1262,  Vol 

Wight  v.  Shelby  R.  Co.,  16  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 

4,  159,  172, 173, 192,  195,  207 

Wight  v.  Springfield,  etc.,  Co.,  117  Mass. 

226,  338 

Wightman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73 

Wis.  169,  2495 

Wigmore  v.  Jay,  5  Exch.  354,  2030 

Wilby  v.  West  Cornwall  R.  Co.,  2  Hurl.  & 

N.  703,  413,  2226 

Wilcox  v.  Bickel,  11  Neb.  154,  877,  911 

Wilcox  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Minn. 

269,  296,  2233,  2361 

Wilcox  v.  Parmelee,  3  Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  610, 

2229,2237 

WUcox  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  N.  Y.  358, 

1772, 1775,  2718 

Wilcox  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex. 

Civ.  App. )  33  S.  W.  R.  379,  2463 

Wilcox  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Minn. 

439,  1420,  1506,  1507 

Wild  v.  Deig,  43  Ind.  455,  1303 

Wild  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Ore.  159,  2706 
Wild  v.  Waygood,  L.  R.  (1892)  1  Q.  B.  783, 

2109 

Wilde  v.  Jenkins,  4  Paige  (N.  Y.)  481,  859 
Wilde  v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163  Mass.  533, 

2558 

Wilde  v.  Merchants'  Dispatch,  etc.,  Co., 

47  Iowa  272,  2210 

Wilde  v.  Merchants'  D.  Co.,  47  Iowa  247, 

2178,  2210,  2325 
Wilder  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  70  Mich. 

382,  872,  954,  973, 1813, 1885 

Wilder  v.  Hubbell,  43  Mich.  487,  1558 

Wilder  v.  Maine  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  65  Me. 

332,    69,  561,  958,  967, 1316, 1810, 1812, 1822, 1866 
Wilder  v.  Rural,  etc.,  Co.,  (N.  J.)  32  Atl. 

R.  676,  479 

Wilder  v.  Shea,  13  Bush  (Ky.)  128,  891 

Wilder  v.  St.  Johnsbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Vt. 

636,  2293 

Wilds  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  29  N.  Y. 

315,  2144, 2477 

Wiles  v.  Trustees  of  Phillip!  Church,  63 

Ind.  206,         .  873 

Wiley  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  29,  1759 

Wilkerson  v.  Rahrer,  140  U.  S.  545,  966 

Wilkes  v.  Ferris,  5  Johns.  (N.Y.)  335,  646,  2328 
Wilkes  v.  Georgia  Pac.  R.  Co.,  79  Ala.  180,  507 
Wilkes-Barre,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Wilkes-Barre, 

148  Pa.  St.  601,  111 

Wilkie  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Hun 

(N.Y.)  242,  239 

Wilkin  v.  First  Division,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

Minn,  271,  1478, 1502 


ITT.  pp.  1263-2161,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 

Wilkin  v.  First  Div.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

28  Kan.  403,  1332 

Wilkins  v.  Detroit,  46  Mich.  120,  1105 

Wilkins  v.  State,  113  Ind.  514,  979 

Wilkins  v.  Thorne,  60  Md.  253,  863 

Wilkinson  v.  Bauerle,  41  N.  J.  Eq.  635, 

381,  726,  853 

Wilkinson  v.  Cheatham,  43  Ga.  258,  1259 

Wilkinson  v.  City  of  Peru,  61  Ind.  1, 

1210,  1230, 1240 
Wilkinson  v.  Culver,  23  Blatchf.  (U.  S.) 

416,  797 

Wilkinson  v.  Culver,  25  Fed.  R.  639,  799 

Wilkinson  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 

Fed.  R.  353,  33,  34 

Wilkinson  v.  Dobbie,  12  Blatchf.  (U.  S.) 

298,  738 

Wilkinson  v.  Mayo,  3  Hen.  &  Mun.  (Va.) 

565,  1529 

Wilkinson  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  5 

Mont.  538,  1126 

Wilkinson  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 

Fla.  83,  2707 

Wilkinson  v.  Rutherford,  49  N.  J.  L.  241,    794 
Wilkinson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  102  Mo. 

130,  1493 

Willamette,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bank,  119  U.  S. 

191,  106,  638,  639,  869 

Willamette,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Riley,  1  Ore.  183, 

1603 
Willamette,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stannus,  4  Ore. 

261,  174 

Willamette  Iron  Works  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc., 

Co.,  26  Ore.  224,  1629,  1639, 1650 

Willard  v.  Fralick,  31  Mich.  431,  990 

Willard  v.  Presbury,  14  Wall.  676,  1100 

Wilier  v.  Bergenthal,  50  Wis.  474,  1606 

Willets  v.  Watts,  L.  R.  (1892)  2  Q.  B.  92,    2105 
WiUey  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  1  McN.  & 

G.  58,  1488 

Willcocks,  Exparte,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  402, 

227,  278,  334,  361 

Williams,  Ex  parte,  18  S.  Car.  299,  748 

Williams  v.  Androscoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Me.  201,  894 

Williams  v.  Bank,  7  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  541, 

271,  873 

Williams  v.  Boice,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  364,  436 

Williams  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Me. 

543,  1539, 1540 

Williams  v.  Central  Railway  Co.,  43  Iowa 

396,  2042 

Williams  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  il2  Mo. 

463,  1572, 1573, 1574, 1575, 1603 

Williams  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  111. 

491,  1758, 198ft 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccclxvii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-H161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Williams  v.  Citizens'  R.  Co.,  130  Ind.  71, 

1620,1644 
Williams  v.  City  Electric  St.  Ey.  Co.,  41 

Fed.  R.  556,  9, 13, 1636 

Williams  v.  Clark,  140  Mass.  238, 
Williams  v.  Creswell,  51  Miss.  817, 


1722, 1731 
33 
Williams  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116 

N.  Y.  628,  2003 

Williams  v.  Detroit,  2  Mich.  560,  1335 

Williams  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

90  Ga.  519,  883,  885 

Williams  v.  Evans,  87  Ala.  725,  167 

Williams  v.  Flood,  63  Mich.  487,  1327 

Williams  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  do.,  82 

Tex.  553,  177 

Williams  v.  Fullerton,  20  Vt.  346,  427 

Williams  v.  German  Mut.  F.  Ins.  Co.,  68 

111.  387,  993 

Williams  v.  Grant,  1  Conn.  487, 

2266,  2268,  2280,  2303,  2307 
Williams  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  10 

Exch.  15,  276 

Williams  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

52  L.  T.  R.  250,  2401 

Williams  v.  Guile,  117  N.  Y.  343,  2720 

Williams  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 

Conn.  397,  1369, 1494, 1495 

Williams  v.  Hitzie,  83  Ind.  303,  1544 

Williams  v.  Hodges,  113  N.  Car.  36,  2395 

Williams  v.  Holland,  22  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 

137,  2361 

Williams  v.  Jenkins,  11  Ga.  595,  777 

Williams  v.  Johnson,  30  Md.  500,  1169 

Williams  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96 

Mo.  275,  1967, 1976 

Williams  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Cent.  L. 

J.  400,  2621 

Williams  v.  Kerr,  113  N.  Car.  306,  680 

Williams  v.  Lowe,  4  Neb.  382,  148 

Williams  v.  Mayor,  2  Gibbs  (Mich.)  560,    1070 
Williams  v.  Mayor,  2  Mich.  560,  1331 

Williams  v.  Meyer,  41  Hun  (N.  Y.)  545,        202 
Williams  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Mich. 

259,  1803, 1863 

Williams  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Dill. 

(U.  S.)  267,  33,  34 

Williams  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  Mo. 

475,  2036 

Williams  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Miss.)  19 

So.  R.  90,  2573 

Williams  v.  Monroe,  125  Mo.  574,  1485 

Williams  v.  Morgan,  111  U.  S.  684,         690,  705 
Williams  v.  Morgan,  15  Q.  B.  782,  562 

Williams  v.  Natural  Bridge,  etc.,  Co.,  21 

Mo.  580,  1406 

Williams  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 

Miss.  689,  1456, 1507 


Williams  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  39  Conn. 

509,  564 

Williams  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.,  16  N.  Y.  97, 

478, 1423, 1546, 1634, 1650 
Williams  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Dak. 

168,  1806, 1862 

Williams  v.  Nottowa,  104  TJ.  S.  209,  933,  947 
Williams  v.  Page,  24  Beav.  654,  20,  373,  374 
Williams  v.  Parker,  136  Mass.  204,  124 

Williams  v.  People,  132  111.  574, 

1146, 1182, 1183, 1223, 1231 

Williams  v.  Peytavin,  4  Mart,  (La.)  304,  2190 
Williams  v.  Piggott,  5  Eng.  Rail,  and 

Canal  C.  544,  19 

Williams  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  40 

La.  Ann.  87,  1990, 2580,  2587 

Williams  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  40  La.  Ann. 

417,  2529,  2530,  2541,  2587 
Williams  v.  Rees,  9  Biss.  405,  1060 
Williams  v.  Roberts,  88  111.  11, 

1172, 1173, 1182,  1197, 1203, 1217, 1218, 1237, 1242 
Williams  v.  Robinson,  16  Conn.  517,  756 

Williams  v.  Savage,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Md.  Ch. 

418,  127, 141 
Williams  v.  School  District,  33  Vt.  271,      1340 
Williams  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  N. 

Car.  558,  940,  944 

Williams  v.  St.  George's  Harbor  Co.,  2 

DeG.  &  J.  547,  1298 

Williams  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123 

Mo.  573,  2143 

Williams  v.  Taunton,  125  Mass.  34,  2714 

Williams  v.  Taylor,  120  N.  Y.  244,  133,  202 
Williams  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Tex. 

205,  1983 

Williams  v.  Town  of  Duanesburgh,  66 

N.  Y.  129,  1173, 1231 

Williams  v.  Town  of  Roberts,  88  111.  11,  1150 
Williams  v.  Townsend,  31  N.  Y.  411,  664 

Williams  v.  Traphagen,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  57,  796 
Williams  v.  Vanderbilt,  28  N.  Y.  217,  2493 
Williams  v.  Walton,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Houst. 

322,  2021, 2071 

Williams  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Wis. 

71,  8, 1303 

Williams  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  93 

N.  Y.  162,  111,  127, 128,  430,  440 

Williams  v.  Williams,  24  La.  Ann.  55,  932 
Williams  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

N.  Car.  42,  2204 

Williamson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

Iowa  126,  495,  527,  531, 1280, 1309 

Williamson  v.  County  of  Cass,  84  111.  361,  1554 
Williamson  v.  Keokuk,  44  Iowa  88, 

1174,  1217  1231 
Williamson  v.  Kokomo,  etc,,  Assn.,  89  Ind. 

389,  273, 681 


cccclxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-216/,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Williamson  v.  New  Albanj',  etc.,  E  Co.,  1 

Biss.  (U.  S.)  198,  684,  743,  746,  781 

Williamson  v.  New  Jersey  Southern  R. 

Co.,  29  N.  J.  Eq.  311,  47,  536,  645,  696 

Williamson  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

26  N.  J.  Eq.  398,  448,  651 

W'illiamsou  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

28  N.  J.  Eq.  277,  652,  653,  654 

Williamson  v.  Newport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

W.  Va.  657,  2004 

Williamson  v.  Smoot,  7  Mart.  (La.)  O.  S. 

31,  335 

Williamson  v.  State,  16  Ala.  431,  1028 

Williamson  v.  Wadsworth,  49  Barb.  294,      267 
Williamson  v.  Washington,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Co.,  33  Gratt.  ( Va.)  624,  707,  818 

Williamson  v.  Wilson,  1  Bland  418, 

733,  781, 829 
Williamson,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Battle,  66  N.  C. 

540,  1327, 1329 

Williamsport,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Philadel- 
phia, etc.,  R.  Co.,  141  Pa.  St.  407, 

1265,  1276, 1277 
Willing  v.  Baltimore  R.  Co.,  5  Whart. 

(Pa.)  460,  1524 

Willink  v.  Morris  Canal  &  Banking 

Co.,  3  Green  (N.  J.)  Ch.  377,  650,  653 

Willis  v.  Chapman,  (Vt.)  35  Atl.  459,  30 

Willis  v.  City  of  Winona,  (Minn.)  60 

N.  W.  R.  814,  1640 

Willis  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  62  Me.  488,  2317 
Willis  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  34  N.  Y. 

670,  2556 

Willis  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  61  Tex. 

432,  2107, 2132 

Willis  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  11  Ore. 

257,  2076 

Willis  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Mich. 

160,  311,  413,  1996 

Willison  v.  Douglas,  66  Md.  99,  1607 

Williston  v.  Mich.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

13  Allen  400,  35, 119,  431,  432,  437 

Willits  v.  Waite,  25  N.  Y .  577,  772, 798 

Willmott  v.  Corrigan,  etc.,  Co.,  106  Mo. 

535,  2557 

Willmott  v.  Corrigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Mo.) 

16  S.  W.  R.  500,  2558 

Willock  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  166  Pa. 

St.  184,  2262,  2316,  2333 

Willoughby  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  50  N.  J. 

Eq.  656,  478 

Willoughby  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Iowa  432,  1736,  1748,  1766 

Willoughby  v.  Horridge,  12  Com.  B.  742,    2402 
Wills  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Fed. 

R.  532,  946 

Wills  v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  Mass.  351,  255S 


Willson  v.  Black-bird,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Pet.  245, 

952,  2647 

Willson  v.  Gifford,  42  Mich.  454,  1557 

Willson  v.  Willes  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  33  Ga. 

466,  71 

Willyard  v.  Hamilton,  7  Ohio  St.  Ill,         1337 
Wilmer  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Woods 

(U.S.)  409,      38,39,666,687,698,744,754,763 
764,  765,  768,  782 
Wilmes  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

Minn.  242,  1431,  1435 

Wilmington  v.  Yopp,  21  N.  Car.  76,  1102 

Wilmington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Adams  Express 

Co.,  SHoust.  (Del.)  329,  2187,  2189 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alsbrook,  110 

N.  Car.  137,  1066 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alsbrook,  146 

U.  S.  279,  97,  702,  1066, 1067 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  etc., 

72  N.  Car.  10,  100 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commission- 
ers, 116  N.  Car.  563,  1163, 1181 
Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Condon,  8  Gill 

&  J.  (Md.)  443,  1529, 1553 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dominguez, 

50  Cal.  505,  1531 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  High,  89  Pa. 

St.  282,  1559 

Wilmington,  etc.,  H.  Co.  v.  Ling,  18 

S.  Car.  116,  328,  329 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reid,  13  Wall. 

(U.  S.)  264,  640, 1061, 1068,  1090 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robeson,  5 

Ired.  (N.  Car.)  391,  175 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  99 

N.  Car.  131,  1530 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stauffer,  60 

Pa.  St.  374,  1431, 1442, 1443 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  5 

Jones  (N.  Car.)  304,  156 

Wilsey  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Ky. 

511,  2491,  2506,  2723 

Wilson  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  27  Mo.  App. 

360,  2365, 2383 

Wilson  v.  Allen,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  542,  784 

Wilson  v.  Anderton,  1  B.  &  Ad.  450,  2387 

Wilson  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  S.  Car. 

587,  1932 

Wilson  v.  Atlanta  &  C.  R.  Co.,  82  Ga.  386, 

2183,  2184,  2185,  2273 
Wilson  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  2  Fed. 

R.  459,  147 

Wilson  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Mo. 

App.  682,  2536,  2538,  2621 

Wilson  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Del. 

Ch.  524,  1335,  1336,  1463 

Wilson  v.  Barney,  5  Hun  (N.  Y.)  257,  830 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccclxix 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-442,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol 

Wilson  v.  Bauman,  80  111.  493,  2360 

Wilson  v.  Beckwith,  117  Mo.  61,  1139 

Wilson  v.  Board,  68  Ind.  507,  1194 

Wilson  v.  Boyce,  2  Dill.  539,  660 

Wilson  v.  Boyce,  92  U.  S.  320,  647, 660, 1139 
Wilson  v.  California,  etc.,  Co.,  95  Mich. 

117,  776 

Wilson  v.  California,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  94  Cal. 

166,  2275,  2278,  2350 

Wilson  v.  Caneadea,  15  Hun  (N.  Y.)  218,  1203 
Wilson  v.  Central  Bridge  Co.,  9  B.  I.  590,  862 
Wilson  v.  Chalf ant,  15  Ohio  248,  1327 

Wilson  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Bailroad,  21 

Gratt.654,   2243, 2322, 2623, 2625, 2626, 2627, 2632 
Wilson  v.  Cunningham,  3  Cal.  241,  2 

Wilson  v.  Denver,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  7  Colo.  101,  2706 
Wilson  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  67  Iowa 

509,  1441 

Wilson  v.  Dickson,  2  Barn.  &  Aid.  2,  2445 

Wilson  v.  European,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  67  Me. 

358,  1483,  1487, 1543 

Wilson  v.  Freeman,  3  Camp.  527,  2338 

Wilson  v.  Furness  E.  Co.,  L.  E.  9  Eq.  Cas. 

28,  64 

Wilson  v.  Gaines,  103  U.  S.  417,  645,  646,  702 
Wilson  v.  Genesee  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  14  N.  Y. 

418,  297 

Wilson  v.  Grand  Trunk  E.  Co.,  56  Me.  60, 

2420,  2612,  2619,  2624 

Wilson  v.  Groelle,  83  WTis.  530,  2723 

Wilson  v.  Hamilton,  4  Ohio  St.  722,  2403,  2408 
Wilson  v.  Hamilton  Co.,  68  Ind.  508,  1208 

Wilson  v.  Hardesty,  1  Md.  Ch.  66,  1172 

Wilson  v.  Hathaway,  42  Iowa  173,  1478, 1479 
Wilson  v.  Joseph,  107  Ind.  490,  895 

Wilson  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  60 

Mo.  184,  2401 

Wilson  v.  Kiesel,  9  Utah  397,  263 

Wilson  v.  Kings  County  Elev.  E.  Co.,  24 

N.  Y.  S.  E.  81,  298 

Wilson  v.  Kymer,  1  M.  &  S.  157,  2421 

Wilson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  85  Ala. 

269,  2110, 2116 

Wilson  v.  McNamee,  102  U.  S.  572,  967,  2653 
Wilson  v.  Merry,  L.  E.  1  H.  Sc.  App.  326, 

2030,  2078,  2080,  2110 
Wilson  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  120 

N.  Y.  145,  395 

Wilson  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  94  Mich. 

20,  2037, 2072 

Wilson  v.  Mills  Valley  E.  Co.,  33  Ga.  466,  208 
Wilson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  18  E.  I. 

491,  .  1752 

Wilson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  18  B.  I. 

598,  1768 

Wilson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  27  Hun 

(N.  Y.)149,  2408 


,  III,  pp.  126S-S16lt,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 

Wilson  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Cal.  69, 

1854,  1855,  1870, 1871 
Wilson  v.  Northern,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  26  Minn. 

278,  2593 

Wilson  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  64  111.  542,  83 
Wilson  v.  Oswego  Twp.,  151  U.  S.  56,  933,  939 
Wilson  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Coal  Co.,  43 

Pa.  St.  424,  258 

Wilson  v.  Eockford,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  59  111. 

273,  1436 

Wilson  v.  Salamanca,  99  U.  S.  499, 

1224,  1239, 1241, 1254 

Wilson  v.  Seligman,  144  U.  S.  41,  35 

Wilson  v.  Shipman,  34  Neb.  573,  1544 

Wilson  v.  Spencer,  1  Eandolph  (Va.)  76, 

521,  522 
Wilson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  108  Mo. 

588,  145, 146 

Wilson  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  E.  Co.,  29  Mo. 

App.  301,  247 

Wilson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  120  Mo.  45, 

260,  261,  268 
Wilson  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Bailway  Co.,  41 

Minn.  56,  1325 

WUson  v.  Stockholders,  43  Pa.  St.  424,  266 
Wilson  v.  Tesson,  12  Ind.  285,  93,  868 

Wilson  v.  Union  Sav.  Assn.,  42  Fed.  E. 

421,  1202 

WUson  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  23  Mo. 

App.  50,  2417 

Wilson  v.  Ward,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Fed.  E.  674,  1139 
Wilson  v.  Watertown,  3  Hun  (N.  Y.)  508,  1642 
Wilson  v.  Weber,  96  111.  454,  1058 

Wilson  v.  Welch,  157  Mass.  77,  732 

Wilson  v.  Welch,  12  Ore.  353,  1403 

Wilson  v.  Western  U.  Tel.  Co.,  34  Fed.  B. 

561,  946 

Wilson  v.  Willimatic  Linen  Co.,  50  Conn. 

433,  2083 

Wilson  v.  Wills  Valley  E.  E.  Co.,  33  Ga. 

466,  71,  207 

Wilson  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Rich.  L.  (S.  Car.)  52,  1827, 1871 

Wilson  v.  Wilson.  26  Pa.  St.  393,  2695 

Wilson  v.  Winona,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  37  Minn. 

326,  2006 

Wilson  v.  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  11  Gill  &  J. 

(Md.)  58,  1572,  1576,  1577 

Wilson  v.  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  18  Eng.  L.  & 

Eq.  557,  2186 

Wilson,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  E. 

Co.,  71  Mo.  203,  2279,  2361 

Wiltbank's  Appeal,  64  Pa.  St.  256,  425,  440 

Wilton  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  10  C.  B..N.  S. 

453,  2632 

Wiltz  v.  Peters,  4  La.  Ann.  339,  341 


cccclxx 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
{  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  IM-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216L,  Vol.  IV.  pp. 


Winch  v.  Birkenhead,  etc.,  By.  Co.,  5 

DeGex  &  S.  562,  643 

Winchell  v.  National,  etc.,  Co.,  64  Vt.  15,  299 
Winchester  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Md.  231,  320, 321,  366 

Winchester  v.  Hinsdale,  12  Conn.  88,  1533 

Winchester,  etc.,  Co.  y.  Clarke  County  Ct., 

3  Met.  (Ky.)  140,  1204 

Winchester,  etc.,  B.Co.  v.Colfelt,  27  Gratt. 

(Va.)  777,  796 

Winchester,  etc.,  Tump.  Co.  v.  Vimont,  5 

B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  1,  525 

Wincock  v.  Turpin,  96  111.  135,  263 

Wind  v.  Her,  (Iowa)  61  N.  W.  R.  1001,  2196 
Winder,  Ex  parte,  L.  B.  6  Ch.  Div.  696,  1490 
Windham,  etc.,  Inst.  v.  Sprague,  43  Vt. 

502,  266 

Windsor  v.  McVeigh,  93  U.  S.  274,  1476 

Windsor  v-  President,  etc.,  of  Delaware, 

etc.,  Co.,  36  N.  Y.  S.  863,  1671, 1674 

Windsor  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Tandy,  66 

Vt.  248,  163,  213 

Winebiddle  v.  Pennsylvania  B."  Co.,  2 

Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  32,  1503 

Wines  v.  Bio  Grande,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  9  Utah 

228,  1903 

Winfield  v.  Henning,  21  N.  J.  Eq.  188,  493 

Wing  v.  Carr,  86  111.  347,  1603 

Wing  v.  New  York,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  1  Hilt. 

(N.  Y.)235,  2268,2290,2292 

Wingard  v.  Banning,  39  Cal.  543,  2446 

Wingert  v.  Carpenter,  101  Mich.  395,  ^  2143 
Winget  v.  Quincy  Building  Assn.,  128  111. 

67,  551, 877 

Wink  v.  Weiler,  41  111.  App.  336,  2058 

Winkfield  v.  Packingham,  2  C.  &  P.  598,  2186 
Winklemans  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  B.  Co., 

62  Iowa  11,  1358, 1518, 1519, 1520 

Winn  v.  Macon,  21  Ga.  275,  1139 

Winnebago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wisconsin,  etc., 

Co.,  81  Wis.  389,  1482 

Winnegar  v.  Central,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  85  Ky. 

547,  1992,2454  2480,2584 

Winnisimmet  Co.  v.  Grueby,  111  Mass.  543, 

1516 

Winona  v.  Burke,  23  Minn.  254,  2710 

Winona,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Blake,  94  U.  S. 

180,  956 

Winona,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Barney,  113  U.  S. 

618,  1118, 1123 

Winona,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B. 

Co.,  50  Minn.  300,  1689 

Winona,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  City  of  Water- 
town,  4  S.  Dak.  323,  907,  1379, 1664 
Winona,  etc.,  B.  Co  v.  City  of  Water- 
town,  1  S.  Dak.  46,  1100, 1101 


Winona,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Waldron,  11  Minn. 
515, 
967,  1335,  1417, 1424,  1431,  1436,  1438,  1440,  1522 

Winsford,  etc.,  Board  v.  Cheshire,  etc., 
L.  B.  24  Q.  B.  D.  456,  988 

Winslow  v.  Cooper,  104  111.  235,  1325 

Winslow  v.  Fletcher,  53  Conn  390,  891 

Winslow  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  4 
Minn.  313,  1452 

Winslow  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Vt. 
700,  2278,  2359,  2364,  2383 

Winsor,  Ex  parte,  3  Story  C.  C.  411,      204,  355 

Winsor  v.  Bailey,  55  N.  H.  218,  242 

Winsor  Coal  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  52 
Fed.  B.  716,  994, 1011,  2432 

Winstanley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  72 
Wis.  375,  1745, 1767,  1777, 1778 

Winston  v.  Brooks,  4  L.  B.  A.  507,          164, 165 

Winston  v.  Dorsett,  etc.,  Co.,  27  111.  App. 
546,  260 

Winston  v.  Dorsett,  etc.,  Co.,  129  111.  64, 

154, 155 

Winston  v.  Tennessee,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  1  Bax- 
ter (Tenn.)  60,  1201, 1208, 1215, 1230 

Winston  v.  Westfeldt,  22  Ala.  760,  1221 

Winter  v.  Central  Iowa  B.  Co.,  80  Iowa 
443,  2703 ,2712 

Winter  v.  Muscogee  B.  B.,  11  Ga.  438, 

70,  210,  476 

Winterport  G.  &  B.  Co.  v.  Schooner  Jas- 
per, 1  Holmes  (C.  C.)  99,  2207 

Winters  v.  Armstrong,  37  Fed.  B.  508,  126 

Winters  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  39  Mo. 
468,  2563 

Winters  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  99 
Mo.  509,  1982 

Winthrop  Iron  Co.  v.  Meeker,  109  U.  S. 
180,  737 

Wischam  v.  Rickards,  136  Pa.  St.  106,        2060 

Wisconsin  v.  Duluth,  96  U.  S.  379,  2656 

Wisconsin  v.  Pelican  Insurance  Co.,  127 
U.  S.  265,  930 

Wisconsin,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Cornell  Univer- 
sity, 49  Wis.  162,  1556 

Wisconsin,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Cornell  Univer- 
sity, 52  Wis.  537,  1389,  1554 

Wisconsin,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Price  Co.,  133 
U.  S.  496,  1123, 1127, 1128 

Wisconsin,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Price  County, 
41  Am.  &  Eng.  B.  Cas.  669,  1123 

Wisconsin,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v,  Ross,  142  111.  1,    614 

Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor  Co.,  52 
Wis.  37,  1056, 1064 

Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wisconsin  Riv. 
L.  Co.,  71  Wis.  94,  658 

Wise  v.  Ackerman,  76  Md.  375,  2056 

Wise  v.  Bigger,  79  Va.  269,  926 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccclxxi 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  Il,p^'.  U3-126S,  Vol.  TIT,  pp.  126S-2161,,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Wise  v.  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Ky.  L. 

R.  110,  1991 

Wise  v.  Joplin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Mo.  178,  1936 
Wise  v.  South  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

(Ky.)  34  S.  W.  R.  894,  2580,2583 

Wist  v.  Grand  Lodge,  22  Ore.  271,  278 

Wiswall  v.  Sampson,  14  How.  (TJ.  S.)  52, 

763,  764,  784,  799,  803 

Wiswell  v.  Doyle,  160  Mass.  42,  1982 

Witbeck  v.  Holland,  45  N.  Y.  13,  2190,  2351 
Witbeck  v.  Holland,  45  N.  Y.  262,  2308 

Witbeck  v.  Schuyler,  31  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 

97,  2619 

Witham  v.  Osburn,  4  Ore.  318,  1337 

Witherell  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 

Minn.  410,  1804, 1852 

Withers  v.  North,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  L.  J. 

Exch.  417,  2468,  2469 

Witherspoon  v.  Texas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  48  Tex. 

309,  718 

Witt  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Minn.  404, 

1506,1507 
Witter  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  20 

Ark.  463,  70,  71,  344, 348,  350 

Witters  v.  Sowles,  32  Fed.  R.  767,  161 

Witters  v.  Sowles,  38  Fed.  R.  700,  136 

Witting  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Mo. 

631,  2317,  2346,  2347 

Witting  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Mo. 

App.  103,  2346 

Wiwiroski  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124 

N.  Y.  420,  2718 

Woburn,  Inhabitants  of,  v.  Boston,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  109  Mass.  283,  1643 

Wolcott  v.  Des  Moines  Company,  5  Wall. 

681,  1127 

Wolf  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  43  Mo.  421, 

2267,  2268,  2307 
Wolf  v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa 

380,  1571 

Wolf  v.  Hough,  22  Kan.  659,  2441,  2443 

Wolf  v.  Summers,  2  Camp.  631,  2634 

Wolfe  v.  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  B. 

Monr.  404,  1459 

Wolfe  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Mo.  473,  2387 
Wolfe  v.  Underwood,  97  Ala.  375,  85 

Wolff  v.  Archibald,  14  Fed.  R.  369,  948 

Wolff  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  68  Qa.  653, 

2493,  2626,  2628 

Wolff  v.  McGavock,  29  Wis.  290,  1570 

Wolff  v.  New  Orleans,  103  TJ.  S.  358,  1170 

Wolford  v.  Oakley,  1  Sheldon  (N.  Y.)  261,  1472 
Wolsey  v.  Chapman.  101  TJ.  S.  755,  1118 

Wolsey  v.  Railroad  Co.,  33  Ohio  St.  227,  288 
Wolski  v.  Knapp,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Wis.  178,  2021 
Wonder  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Md. 

411,  2088 


Wood's  Case,  L.  R.  15  Eq.  236,  171 

Wood  v.  Beach,  156  TJ.  S.  548,  1131 

Wood  v.  Boney,  (N.  J.)  21  Atl.  R.  574,          359 
Wood  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  38  N.  Y. 

Supp.  10V7,  2558 

Wood  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  U.  S. 

329,  1122, 1123 

Wood  v  Charing  Cross,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33 

Beav.  (Eng.)  290,  1537 

Wood  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Iowa 

196,  293,  409,  410,  411,  2187,  2233 

Wood  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Fed.  R. 

52,  1571, 1573, 1574, 1576, 1577 

Wood  v.  Commissioners,  122  Mass.  394, 

1449, 1492 
Wood  v.  Consolidated  Electric  L.  Co.,  36 

Fed.  R.  538,  666 

Wood  v.  Coosa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Ga.  273, 

160,163 
Wood  v.  Corry,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Fed.  R.  146, 

130,  238,  242,  511 

Wood  v.  Crocker,  18  Wis.  345,      2277,  2355, 2372 
Wood  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Mich. 

402,  1649,  1990 

Wood  v.  Devin,  13  IU.  746,  2608 

Woodv.  Dummer,  3  Mason  (U.  S.)  308, 

164,  262,  751,  869 

Wood  v.  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  N,  Y.  196,       2694 
Wood  v.  Goodwin,  49  Me.  260,  39 

Wood  v.  Guarantee,  etc.,  Co.,  128  TJ.  S. 

416,  636, 836 

Wood  v.  Heiges,  (Md.)  34  Atl.  R.  872,          2707 
Wood  v.  Hubbard,  62  Fed.  R.  753,  2420 

Wood  v.  Lary,  47  Hun  (N.  Y.)  550,  439 

Wood  v.  Louisiana,  5  Dill.  122,  1251, 1252 

Wood  v.  Michigan  Air  Line  Co.,  90  Mich. 

334,  1324, 1325,  1328 

Wood  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis. 

541,  2241, 2277 

Wood  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Fed.  R.  901, 

781,830 

Wood  v.  Ontario,  etc.,  Co.,  24  U.  C.  C.  P. 

334,  290,306 

Wood  v.  Perry,  1  Wright  (Ohio)  240,          2203 
Wood  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  Ala. 

660,  2591 

Wood  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Mo. 

109,  1884 

Wood  v.  Stourbridge  R.  Co.,  16  C.  B.  N.  S. 

222,  1443, 1676 

Woodv.  Truckee,  etc.,  Co.,  24  Gal.  474, 

105,696 

Wood  v.  Westborough,  140  Mass.  403,         1452 
Wood  v.  Whelen,  93  IU.  153, 

20,  65,  347,  640,  641,  647,  654 
Wood  v.  Wiley,  etc.,  Co.,  56  Conn.  87,  26 


cccclxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  II,  pp. 


,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-216U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Woodford  v.  Bedford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Phila. 

(Pa.)  94,  637 

Woodard  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Ohio  St.  121,  2142 

Woodard  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 

N.  Y.  369,  1764 

Woodburn  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

Fed.  R.  731,  2316 

Woodbury  v.  Frink,  14  111.  279,  2381 

Woodbury,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Loudenslager, 

(N.  J.)  35  Atl.  R.  436,  15 

Wooden  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126  N.  Y. 

10,  2132,  2134 

Wooden  v.  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  147  N.  Y. 

508,  2011, 2079 

Wooden  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  N.  Y. 

Supp.  768,  2038 

Woodfall's  Case,  3  DeG.  &  Sm.  63,  166 

Woodfin  v.  Asheville,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  6 

Jones  Las.  (N.  Car.)  558,  276 

Woodfolk  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Swan.  (Tenn.)  422, 

1418,  1426, 1436,  1437,  1550 

Woodhouse  v.  Burlington,  47  Vt.  300,  1331 
Wood  Hydraulic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  King,  45  Qa. 

34,  344,  359,  362 

Woodland  v.  Union  Pacific,  (Utah)  26 

Pac.  R.  298,  1882 

Woodley  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  2 

Exch.  Div.  384,  2048 

Woodman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

Wis.  400,  2126 

Woodman  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  149 

Mass.  335,  1589 

Woodruff  v.  Bowen,  136  Ind.  431,  1948, 1952 
Woodruff  v.  Catlin,  54  Conn.  277,  974, 1670 
Woodruff  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  30 

Fed.  R.  91,  234,  912 

Woodruff  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  25  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

246,  100 

Woodruff  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  93  N.  Y.  609, 

522,  525,  568,  572,  600,  818,  822 
Woodruff  v.  McDonald,  33  Ark.  97,  157 

Woodruff  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 

Conn.  63,  942,  974,  983,  1331 

Woodruff  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  47  Fed. 

R.  689,  1967, 1976 

Woodruff  v.  Noyes,  15  Conn.  335,  2390 

Woodruff  v.  Okolona,  57  Miss.  806,  1217,  1235 
Woodruff  v.  Parham,  8  Wall.  123, 

1076,  1079,  1083,  2637,  2643 

Woodruff  v.  Perry,  103  Cal.  611,  1069 

Woodruff  v.  Robb,  19  Ohio  212,  659 

Woodruff  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 

N.  Y.  39,  1570,  1578 

Woodruff,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Diehl,  84  Ind.  474, 

2535,  2536,  2533,  2543 


Woodruff,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  114  Ind.  155,     996 
Woods  v.  Armstrong,  54  Ala.  150,  521,  522 

,  Woods  v.  Brown,  93  Ind.  164,  1544 

Woods  v.  Lawrence  County,  1  Black 

(U.  S.)  386,  634.  1163, 1240, 1251 

Woods  v.  Lindvall,  48  Fed.  R.  62,  2091 

Woods  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  5  Ry. 

&  Corp.  L.  J.  372,  230 

Woods  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Am. 

&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  525,  677 

Woods  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Pa. 

St.  101,  680,  687 

Woods  v.  Wicks,  7  Lea  (Tenn.)  40,  270 

Woodson  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

Minn.  60,  1888,  1936 

Woodson  v.  Murdock,  22  Wall.  351,  660 

Woodstock  Iron  Co.  v.  Richmond,  etc., 

Extension  Co.,  129  U.  S.  643, 

184,  376,  525,  530,  1279,  1568,  2640,  2663 
Woodstock  R.  Co.  v.  Tupper,  12  New 

Brunswick  457,  1484 

Woodward  v.  Brooks,  128  111.  222,  772 

Woodward  v.  Calhoun  County,  (U.  S.  D. 

C.  N.  D.  Miss.)  2  Cent  L.  Jour.  3%,        1155 
Woodward  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

Wis.  400,  2142 

Woodward  v.  Commonwealth,  (Ey.)  35 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  498,  32 

Woodward  v.  Illinois  Central  Railroad,  1 

Biss.  403,  2228,  2421 

Woodward  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Ohio  St.  121,  2134 

Woodward  v.  Seely,  11  111.  157,  1224 

Woodward  v.  Webb,  65  Pa.  St.  254,  1460 

Woodworth  v.  Blair,  112  U.  S.  8,  677,  679 

Wood  worth  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

Fed.  R.  282,  2028 

Woolery  v.  Qrayson,  110  Ind.  149,  687 

Woolery  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  Ind. 

381,  1788,  2466,  2552,  2593 

Woolf  v.  Chisholm,  30  Fed.  R.  881,  944 

Woollaston's  Case,  4  DeG.  &  J.  437,  221 

Woolley  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Ky. 

223,  1181 

Woolsey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Neb. 

798,  2461,  2554,  2561 

Woolson  v.  Northern,  etc.,  Co.,  19  N.  H. 

267,  1803, 1863 

Wool  wine  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

W.  Va.  329,  1948, 1952 

Woonsocket  Union  R.  Co.  v.  Sherman,  8 

R.  I.  564,  175,  183, 184 

Wooster  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Iowa 

593,  1866 

Wooster  v.  Sugar  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Wis.  311,  1429, 1443, 1452, 1487 

Wooster  v.  Tarr,  8  Allen  (Mass.)  270,          2423 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccclxxiii 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-US,  Vol.  IT,  pp.  643-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-S16H,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  S165-2725.] 


Wooters  v.  International  R.  Co.,  54  Tex. 

294,  188 

Worcester  v.  Essex  Bridge  Co.,  7  Gray 

(Mass.)  457,  275 

Worcester  v.  Great  Falls,  etc.,  Co.,  41  Me. 

159,  1434 

Worcester  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  109 

Mass.  103,  71 

Worcester  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Mete.  (Mass.)  564,  2165 

Worcester  Agricultural  Society  v.  Wor- 
cester, 116  Mass.  189,  1105 
Worcester  v.  Forty-second  St.  R.  Co.,  50 

N.  Y.  203,  1563,  1641 

Worcester  Gas  Light,  etc.,  Co.  v.  County 

Comrs.,  138  Mass.  289,  1384 

Worcester  &  Nashua  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hinds, 

8  Gush.  (Mass.)  110,  28 

Worcester  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad 

Corns.,  118  Mass.  561,    59, 1377, 1393, 1395, 1558 
Word  v.  Word,  90  Ala.  81,  774 

Worden  v.  Humeston,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  72 

Iowa  201,  2131,  2135 

Workingmen's  Bank  v.  Converse,  29  La. 

Ann.  369,  .          551 

Workingmen's,  etc.,  Council  v.  United 

States,  57  Fed.  R.  85,  909 

Works  v.  Junction  R.  Co.,  5  McLean 

(U.  S.  C.  C.)  425,  1271, 1282, 1283, 1285 

Wormell  v.  Maine,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Me.  397, 

2001,  2065,  2073 
Wormsdorf  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75 

Mich.  472,  2707 

Worth  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  Co.,  89  N.  Car. 

291,  1060 

Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  4  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  351,  2589 

Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dennis,  (Tex.)  33 

S.  W.  R.  884,  1780 

Worthen  v.  Griffith,  59  Ark.  562,  165,  850 

Worthington  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 

Vt.  107,  2547,  2556 

Wortman  v.  Kleinschmidt,  12  Mont.  316,     973 
Wortsman  v.  Wade,  77  Ga.  651,  933 

Wray  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  111.  424,    1322 
Wray  v.  Evans,  80  Pa.  St.  102,  1588 

Wray  v.  Jamison,  10  Humph.  (Tenn.)  185, 

794 
Wren  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  L.  T.  R. 

(N.  S.)  5,  2304,  2355 

Wren  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.Co.,  (Ky.)  20 

S.  W.  R.  215,  1969 

Wren  v.  Walsh,  57  Wis.  98,  1545 

Wright  v.  Bishop,  88  111.  302,  1229 

Wright  v.  Boston,  9  Gush.  233,  1102 

Wright  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  Mass. 

440,  1959 


Wright  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142  Mass. 

296,  1675,  1742, 1952, 1958,  1976, 1979 

Wright  v.  Boughton,  22  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  561, 

2231 
Wright  v.  Bundy,  11  Ind.  398, 

363,  640,  659,  912 

Wright  v.  Caldwell,  3  Mich.  51,  2190,  2619,  2631 
Wright  v.  California  Cent.  R.  Co.,  78  Cal. 

360,  2575 

Wright  v.  Carter,  3  Dutcher  (N.  J.)  76,  63 
Wright  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Cal.  532,  231 
Wright  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Colo. 

App.  102,  2585 

Wright  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Neb. 

175,  888, 894 

Wright  v.  Defrees,  8  Ind.  298,  983 

Wright  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Mich. 

123,  1786, 1981 

Wright  v.  Dunham,  13  Mich.  414,  993 

Wright  v.  Fire  Insurance  Co.,  12  Mont. 

474,  873 

Wright  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Irish  L.  R.  257,  1788 

Wright  v.  Hughes,  119  Ind.  324,  509 

Wright  v.  Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  117  U.  S. 

72,  1570 

Wright  v.  Lee,  2  S.  Dak.  596,  236,  853 

Wright  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1  Q. 

B.  Div.  252,  2061 

Wright  v.  Maiden,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Allen  (Mass.) 

283,  1981 

Wright  v.  McCormack,  17  Ohio  St.  86,  262,  269 
Wright  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  42  L.  J.  Ex.  89,  2571 
Wright  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Wis. 

46,  701, 702 

Wright  v.  Nagle,  101  U.  S.  791,  48 

Wright  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  80,  32 

Wright  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  25  N.  Y. 

562,  301,  2025,  2027 

Wright  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Phila. 

(Pa.)  19,  2236,  2364 

Wright  v.  Oroville,  etc.,  Co.,  40  Cal.  20, 

344,481 

Wright  v.  Pipe  Line  Co.,  101  Pa.  St.  204,  503 
Wright  v.  Rawson,  52  Iowa  329,  305, 1948,  2057 
Wright  v.  Rose  berry,  121  U.  S.  488,  1123 

Wright  v.  Sill,  2  Black  (U.  S.)  544,  1063 

Wright  v.  Snell,  5  Barn.  &  Aid.  350,  2389 

Wright  v.  Tuckett,  1  Johns.  &  H.  (Eng. 

Ch.)  266,  418,  419 

Wright  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  12 

Cush.  68,  124 

Wright  v.  Wilson,  95  Ind.  408,  1500 

Wright  v.  Wisconsin  Central  R.  Co.,  29 

Wis.  341,  1507,  1557 

Wright  v.  Woods,  96  Ky.  56,  2137 


cccclxxiv 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 


(  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U3,  Vol.  II,  pp.  U3-1262,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1263-1166,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2765-2725.] 


Wullenwaber  v.  Dunigan,  33  Neb.  477,  1195 
Wullenwaber  v.  Dunigan,  30  Neb.  877,  177 
Wulzen  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  101  Cal. 

15,  1476 

Wunsch  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  62  Fed. 

R.  878,  2611 

Wyandotte  v.  Corrigan,  35  Kan.  21,  387 

Wyandotte,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Waldo,  70  Mo. 

629,  1424, 1426, 1431, 1435 

Wyatt  v.  Citizens'  R.  Co.,  55  Mo.  485,  1981 
Wyatt  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  10  111.  App. 

289,  785 

Wyatt  v.  St.  Helen's  &  B.  G.  Ry.  Co.,  2 

Q.  B.  364,  637 

Wyckoff  v.  Queens  County  Ferry  Co.,  52 

N.  Y.  32,  2621 

Wycombe,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Donnington 

Hospital,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  268,  563 

Wyde  v.  Northern  R.  Co.,  53  N.  Y.  156,  2243 
Wyld  v.  Pickford,  8  M.  &  W.  443, 

2282,  2294,  2693,  2698 
Wylde  v.  Northern  B.  Co.,  53  N.  Y.  156, 

2564,  2570 

Wylie  v.  Elwood,  134  111.  281,  903 

Wylie  v.  Missouri  Pac.  By.  Co.,  41  Fed. 

B.  623,  630 

Wyllie  v.  Palmer,  137  N.  Y.  248,  305,  2083 

Wyly  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Fed. 

B.  487,  948 

Wyman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  4  Mo. 

App.  35,  2239,  2243,  2246 

Wyman  v.  Lancaster,  32  Fed.  R.  720,  2443 
Wyman  v.  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Met. 

(Mass.)  316,  1513,  1516 

Wyman  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  34  Minn. 

210,  2491,  2504,  2575,  2577, 

Wyman  v.  Penobscott,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Me. 

162,  1820, 1861 

Wymore  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mo. 

247,  1838 

Wymore  v.  Mahaska  County,  78  Iowa  396, 

1982 

Wynee  v.  Conklin,  86  Ga.  40,  2024 

Wynehamer  v.  People,  13  N.  Y.  378, 

965,  975, 1398,  2103 
Wyoming,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Price,  81  Pa.  St. 

156,  1388 

Wyscaver  v.  Atkinson,  37  Ohio  St  80,         1143 


Yahn  v.  City  of  Ottumwa,  60  Iowa  429,  1799 
Yale  Gas  Stove  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  64  Conn. 

101,  25  L.  R.  A.  90,  15,  16,  18 

Yancy  v.  Yancy,  5  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  £53,  1335 
Yankton  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Freemont,  etc., 

B.  Co.,  (S.  Dak.)  64  N.  W.  B.  514,  1909 


Yarde  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  57  Fed. 

B.  913,  931 

Yarish  v.  Cedar  Bapids,  I.  F.  &  W.  By. 

Co.,  72  Iowa  556,  1195 

Yarmouth  v.  France,  L.  R.  19  Q.  B.  647,  2113 
Yarnall  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Mo. 

575,  1787 

Yates  v.  McCullough,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Md. 

370,  2076 

Yates  v.  Milwaukee,  10  Wall.  497,  962, 1403 
Yates  v.  Town  of  West  Grafton,  34  W.  Va. 

783,  1611 

Yates  v.  Van  DeBogert,  56  N.  Y.  526,  563 

Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brumfield,  64  Miss. 

637,  1852 

Yeager  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa) 

61  N.  W.  R.  215,  2022,  2024 

Yeager  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App. 

B.  434,  1847 

Yeager  v.  Wallace,  44  Pa.  St.  294,  787, 793,  794 
Yeamans  v.  County  Comrs.,  16  Gray 

(Mass.)  36,  1534 

Yeates  v.  Groves,  1  Yes.  Jr.  280,  659 

Yeatman  v.  Day,  76  Ky.  186,  1197 

Yeaton  v.  Boston,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  135  Mass. 

418,  2000,  2032 

Yeats  v.  Ballentine,  56  Mo.  530,  1574 

Yellow  Jacket  Min.  Co.  v.  Stevenson,  5 

Nev.  224,  354,  358 

Yellow  Biver  Improvement  Co.  v.  Wood 

County,  81  Wis.  564,  697 

Yelton  v.  Addison,  101  Ind.  58,  1552 

Yelton  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  134  Ind. 

414,  2147 

Yeomans  v.  Contra  Costa,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Cal. 

71,  2456,  2596,  2602 

Yetts  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  3  DeG.  & 

Sm.  293,  205 

Yick  Wo  v.  Hopkins,  118  U.  S.  356,  1094,  2650 
Yingst  v.  Lebanon,  etc.,  St.  B.  Co.,  167 

Pa.  St.  438,  1985 

Yoakum  v.  Dryden,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  26 

S.  W.  B.  312,  2193 

Yoakum  v.  Selph,  83  Tex.  607,  813 

Yool  v.  Great  Western  B.  Co.,  20  L.  T.  B. 

(N.  S.)  74,  436 

York  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  117  Mo. 

405,  2072 

York  v.  Canada,  etc.,  B.  Co.,  22  Can.  Sup. 

Ct.  167,  2459 

York  Co.  v.  Central  B.  Co.,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

107,  2188,  2201,  2256,  2263,  2295,  2327,  2332,  2333 
York  Co.  v.  Fewell,  21  S.  Car.  106,  1553 

York  Park,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Barnes,  39  Neb. 

834,  189, 198 

York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crisp,  14  C.  B.  527,  2543 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cccclxxv 


[References  are  to  Pages.} 
[Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  US-1262,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1263-2166,  Vol.  IV   pp.  2165-27X5.] 


York,  etc.,E.  Co.  v.  Hudson,  16  Beav.  485, 

373,  378 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Regina,  1  El.  &  B.  858, 

958, 1009, 1562 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ritchie,  40  Me.  425, 

218,  319,  320 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winans,  17  How. 

(U.  S.)  30,  104,  579 

Yorkshire  Ry.  Wagon  Co.  v.  Maclure,  21 

Ch.  Div.  309,  660 

York  Tramways  Co.  v.  Willows,  L.  R.  8 

Q.  B.  D.  685,  210 

Yorton  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Wis. 

234,  284,  288,  2487,  2490,  2492,  2505 

Yorton  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Wis. 

367,  2488 

Yost's  Report,  17  Pa  St.  524,  1341 

Yost  v.  Conroy,  92  Ind.  464,  1520, 1521 

Youmans  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67 

Fed.  R.  282,  35 

Young  v.  Buckingham,  5  Ohio  85,  1468 

Young  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  1  Mani- 
toba 205,  2187 
Young  v.  Clarendon  Township,  132  U.  S. 

340,  1148,  1153, 1167, 1175,  1216, 1228 

Young  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich. 

430,  1767 

Young  v.  Drake,  8  Hun  (N.  Y.)  61,  242 

Young  v.  East  Alabama  R.  Co.,  80  Ala. 

100,  2360 

Young  v.  Erie  Iron  Co.,  65  Mich.  Ill, 

115, 133, 166,  252 

Young  v.  Goss,  42  Kan.  502,  1131 

Young  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mo. 

336,  1760, 1838 

Young  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Mo. 

428,  1816 

Young  v.  Harrison,  17  Ga.  30,  1433 

Young  v.  Harrison,  6  Ga.  130,  1536,  1545 

Young  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  Railroad  Co., 

33  App.  509,  1011,  2432 

Young  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Mo. 

App.  530,  1884 

Young  v.  Laconia,  59  N.  H.  534,  1493 

Young  v.  McKenzie,  3  Ga.  31,  1371 

Young  v.  McLean,  63  N.  Car.  576,  665 

Young  v.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Woods  (U.  S.)  606,  676,  763,  828 

Young  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  156  Mass. 

178,  1778 

Young  v.  Parker,  132  U.  S.  267, 

938,  939,  940,  946 
Young  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  115  Pa.  St. 

112,  2493 

Young  v.  Rollins,  85  N.  Car.  485,     773,  777,  781 
Young  v.  Rondout,  etc.,  Co.,  15  N.Y.  Supp. 

443,  911 


Young  v.  Ross,  31  N.  H.  201,  888- 

Young  v.  South  Tredegar,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Am. 

St.  R.  752,  32 

Young  v.  South  Tredegar,  etc.,  Co.,  85 

Tenn.  189,  37, 146 

Young  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Iowa 

172,  1859 

Young  v.  Toledo  &  S.  H.  R.  Co.,  76  Mich. 

485,  141, 695 

Young  v.  Vough,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  325, 

148,  149,  150 
Young  v.  Webster  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75 

Iowa  140,  80, 178, 1164, 1177, 1182 

Youngblood  v.  Improvement  Co.,  83  Ga. 

797,  72 

Youngblood  v.  Sexton,  32  Mich.  406,  1071 

Younglove  v.  Kelly,  etc.,  Co.,  49  Ohio  St. 

663,  25& 

Youngman  v.  Elmira,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65 

Pa.  St.  278,  46,  100, 105,  646,  679 

Younkin  v.  Collier,  47  Fed.  R.  571,  891 

Ysleta  v.  Canda,  67  Fed.  R.  6,  93T 


Zabriskie  v.  Hackensack,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

18  N.  J.  Eq.  178,  67,  70,  89,  454,  580,  911 

Zabriskie  v.  Railroad  Co.,  23  How.  (U.  S.) 

381,  142, 162,  357,  475,  510,  620,  628,  631 

Zack  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  25  Pa.  St. 

394,  1476 

Zagelmeyer  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

Mich.  214,  2506 

Zaleski  v.  Clark,  44  Conn.  218,  1574 

Zanesville  v.  Farman,  (Ohio)  42  N.  E.  R. 

703,  1641 

Zanesville  v.  Richards,  5  Ohio  St.  589,  1101 
Zanesville  v.  Zanesville,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Ohio 

St.  1,  4,  956 

Zebley  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Co.,  63  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  541,  724 

Zeigler  v.  Gaddis,  44  N.  J.  L.  363,  1176 

Zeigler  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  5  S.  Car. 

221,  1761 

Zeigler  v.  South  &  North  R.  Co.,  58  Ala. 

594,  955,  963,  974, 1813, 1892 

Zellerbach  v.  Allenberg,  99  Cal.  57,  429 

Zemp  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Rich. 

L.  84,  2596 

Zihlman  v.  Cumberland,  etc.,  Co.,  74  Md. 

303,  365 

Zimmer  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Hun 

637,  1585 

Zimmer  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

Ont.  App.  693,  2143 

Zimmer  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  N.  Y. 

S.  R.  63,  2319 


cccclxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  Pages.] 
[  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-U2,  Vol.  II,  pp.  W-126Z,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  126S-S16U,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  2165-2725.] 


Zimmer  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

137  N.  Y.  460,  2201,  2324,  2331,  2337 

Zimmer  v.  Schleehauf ,  115  Mass.  52,  266 

Zimmer  v.  State,  30  Ark.  677,  291,  455,  458 

Zimmerman  v.  Canfleld,  42  Ohio  St.  463, 

1476, 1479, 1481, 1524 

Zimmerman  v.  Franke,  34  Kan.  650,  895 

Zimmerman  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 

Mo.  476,  1644, 1758, 1786 

Zinn  v.  Mendel,  9  W.  Va.  580,  240 

Zinn  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co.,  49  N.  Y. 

442,  2370 

Zintek  v.  Stimson,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Wash.  178,  2081 


Zion  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  67  Fed.  R. 

500,  2490 

Zirkel  v.  Joliet,  etc.,  Co.,  79  111.  334,  253,  254 
Zoebisch  v.  Tarbell,  10  Allen  (Mass.)  368,  1950 
Zottman  v.  San  Francisco,  20  Cal.  96,  1104 
Zouch  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  W. 

Va.  524,  2317,  2318,  2320,  2327,  2338 

Zuccani  v.  Nacupia,  etc.,  Co.,  61  L.  T.  R. 

176,  724 

Zulueta's  Claim,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  444,  140 

Zunz  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B. 

539,  2632 


THE  CORPORATION. 


CHAPTER  I. 


DEFINITIONS. 


§1. 


Railroad  companies  —  Definition 
and  characteristics. 

2.  Dual  nature  of  railroad  corpora- 

tions. 

3.  "Railroad"  or  "railway." 

4.  What  are  railroads. 


§5.  "Railroad  track"  —  "Right  of 
way"  —  "Road-bed"  and 
"roadway." 

6.  Street  railways. 

7.  Elevated  railroads. 

8.  Electric  railroads. 

9.  Cable  railroads. 

§  1.   Railroad  companies  —  Definition  and  characteristics.  — 

Railroad  companies  are  companies  or  associations  organized 
for  the  purpose  of  constructing,  maintaining  and  operating 
railroads.1  An  individual  or  a  partnership  may  own  and  op- 


1  Contractors  engaged  in  construct- 
ing a  railroad  are  not,  however,  with- 
in the  meaning  of  a  statute  requiring 
"railroad  companies"  to  sound  a  whis- 
tle. Griggs  v.  Houston,  104  U.  S.  553. 
But  a  company  running  gravel  trains 
in  the  construction  of  a  railroad  is 
"operating  a  railroad"  within  the 
meaning  of  the  Iowa  code,  §  1307.  Mc- 
Knight  v.  Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 
Iowa  406.  And  the  interest  coupons 
of  a  corporation  authorized  to  condemn 
land  and  to  construct  and  operate  a 
railroad  in  addition  to  carrying  on 
a  mining  and  manufacturing  business 
were  held  taxable  under  an  act  of 
congress  providing  for  the  taxation 
of  the  interest  coupons  of  railroads. 
Kentucky  Improvement  Co.  v.  Slack, 
100  U.  S.  648.  See,  also,  Randolph  Co. 
v.  Post,  93  U.  S.  502;  International 
Coal  Co.  v.  Cape  Breton  County,  22 
Canada  S.  C.  R.  305;  State,  Duluth, 


etc.,  Co.  v.  Eleventh  Judicial  Court, 
54  Minn.  34, 55  N.  W.  R.  816.  So,  a  trust 
company  operating  a  railroad  for  the 
benefit  of  the  bondholders  may  be 
held  liable  for  killing  stock  under  a 
statute  applying  in  terms  to  "railroad 
corporations."  Union  Trust  Co.  v. 
Kendall,  20  Kan.  515.  But  the  fact 
that  the  charter  of  a  lumber  company 
authorized  it  to  build  a  railroad  as  an 
incident  to  its  business  was  held,  in 
another  case,  not  to  make  it  a  railroad 
company  within  a  statute  making  rail- 
road companies  liable  for  injuries  to 
employes.  Ellington  v.  Beaver  Dam 
LumberCo.,93Ga.53,s.c.l9S.E.R.21. 
It  has  also  been  held  that  a  "union  de- 
pot and  railroad  company"  is  not  an 
ordinary  railroad  company  and  that 
it  need  not  be  incorporated  under  the 
statute  providing  for  the  incorporation 
of  railroad  companies,  but  might  be 
incorporated  under  the  general  law 


(1) 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§1 


orate  a  railroad,1  except,  perhaps,  where  the  statute  requires 
that  all  railroads  shall  be  owned  or  operated  by  corporations.8 
And  it  seems  that  an  individual,  as  well  as  a  corporation,  may, 
with  legislative  authority,  exercise  the  right  of  eminent 
domain.8  If  he  does  undertake  to  maintain  and  operate  a  rail- 
road without  legislative  authority  it  will  be  at  the  risk  of  being 
held  liable  for  maintaining  a  nuisance  or  for  injuries  caused  by 
the  operation  of  the  road,4  and  he  will,  at  least  in  the  absence  of 
legislative  authority,  have  none  of  the  special  powers  and  im- 
munities granted  only  to  corporations.  Although,  as  we  have 
seen,  an  individual  may  construct  and  operate  a  railroad,  yet, 
with  few  exceptions,  railroad  companies  are  corporations  cre- 


providing  for  the  incorporation  of  ordi- 
nary private  corporations.  People  v. 
Cheeseman,  7  Colo.  376,  s.  c.  16  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  R.  Cases  400.  But  see  Union 
Depot  Co.  v.  Morton,  83  Mich.  265. 

1  Stewart's  Appeal,  56  Pa.  St.  413 ; 
Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  Edgerton,  30 
Yt.  182;  Henderson  v.  Ogden  City  Ry. 
Co.,  7  Utah  199,  26  Pac.  R.  286,  s.  c.  46 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cases  95 ;  David  v. 
Kingscote,  6  M.  &  W.  174 ;  In  re  Kerr, 
42  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  119.     See,  also,  Budd 
v.  Multnomah,  etc.,  Co.,  15  Ore.  404; 
People  v.   Brooklyn,   Flatbush,   etc., 
Co.,  89  N.  Y.  75;  Southern  Pac.  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Orton,  32  Fed.  R.  457.     If  he 
holds  himself  out  to  the  public  as  a 
common  carrier  he  will  be  subject,  it 
seems,  to  the  law  governing  qommon 
carriers.     Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  Ed- 
gerton, supra. 

2  In  the  case  of  the  Commonwealth 
v.  Vrooman,  (Pa.)  25  L.  R.  A.  250,  it 
was  held  that  the  legislature  might 
rightfully  require  all  persons  desiring 
to  conduct  the  business  of  insurance 
"to  obtain  a  charter  of  incorporation." 
If  the  doctrine  of  the  case  cited  be 
sound,  which  we  confess  we  doubt, 
then  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
legislature  may  require  that  the  busi- 
ness of  owning  and  operating  rail- 


roads be  conducted  by  corporations. 
The  business  of  operating  a  railroad 
is  unquestionably  "  affected  with  a 
public  interest,"  and  there  is  reason 
for  the  conclusion  that  where  an  asso- 
ciation undertakes  to  conduct  such 
business  the  legislature  may  require 
it  to  be  incorporated.  But  the  mere 
fact  that  the  right  to  construct  and 
operate  railroads  and  to  condemn  and 
obtain  the  right  of  way  therefor  is 
given  by  statute  to  railroad  corpora- 
tions does  not  prevent  an  individual 
from  constructing  and  operating  a 
railroad  on  his  own  land  or  the  land 
of  another  from  whom  he  has  pur- 
chased the  right  of  way.  Moran  r. 
Ross,  79  Cal.  159,  s.  c.  21  Pac.  R.  547, 
39  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  1. 

3  Moran  v.  Ross,  79  Cal.  159,  39  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  1, 21  Pac.  R.  547;  Coe 
v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  10  Ohio  St. 
372,  s.  c.  75  Am.  Dec.  518,  529;  Brown 
v.  Beatty,  34  Miss.  227.     But  an  indi- 
vidual may  not  take  by  transfer  from 
a  railroad  corporation  the  charter  right 
to  build  a  railroad  and  to  invade  the 
premises  of  others.   Stewart's  Appeal, 
56  Pa.  St.  413.     See,  also,  Finney  v. 
Somerville,  80  Pa.  St.  59. 

4  Regina  v.  Train,  3  F.  &  F.  22 ;  Wil- 
son v.  Cunningham,  3  Cal.  241. 


§  2  DEFINITIONS.  3 

ated  either  by  special  charter  or  organized  under  general 
laws.  They  are  given  certain  prerogative  franchises  and 
privileges  for  public  purposes,  in  return  for  which  the  state 
retains  a  right  of  supervision  and  control  in  excess  of  that  ex- 
ercised over  purely  private  corporations.  In  the  very  grant  of 
the  franchise  there  is,  in  effect,  an  implied  condition  that  it 
shall  be  held  as  a  public  or  quasi  public  trust.1  Although  the 
stockholders  may  derive  a  private  benefit  and  gain  therefrom, 
yet  railroads  are  for  the  use  of  the  public,  and  municipal  aid 
may  be  authorized  and  granted  to  such  corporations  for  the 
purpose  of  constructing  their  roads  as  in  the  case  of  any  other 
public  work.2  This  outline  will  serve  to  show  in  a  general 
way  the  peculiar  nature  of  railroad  corporations,  but  their 
legal  status  will  be  more  fully  considered  in  a  subsequent 
chapter. 

§  2.  Dual  nature  of  railroad  corporations. — A  railroad  com- 
pany or  corporation  is  usually  regarded  as  a  private  corpora- 
tion, and  justly  so,  as  contrasted  with  a  strictly  public  corpo- 
ration such  as  a  city,  county,  township  or  the  like  govern- 
mental subdivision,  but  it  is  not  a  private  corporation  in  the 
strict  sense  that  an  ordinary  business  corporation  is,  for  it  is 
charged  with  duties  of  a  public  nature  that  distinguish  it  from 
a  purely  and  strictly  private  corporation.  In  many  respects  a 
railroad  corporation  is  a  private  corporation  in  all  that  the 

1  Messenger  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  147,  s.  c.  59  Am.  Dec.  759,  and  note ; 

Co.,  36  N.  J.  L.  407,  s.  c.  13  Am.  Rep.  Walker  v.  Cincinnati,  21  Ohio  St.  14, 

457,  463,  affirmed  in  37  N.  J.  L.  531,  s.  s.  c.  8  Am.  R.  24 ;  Gelpcke  v.  Dubuque, 

c.  18  Am.  R.  754,  759.  See,  also,  Na-  1  Wall.  (U.  S.)  175;  Pine  Grove  Tp. 

tional  Docks  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Co.,  v.  Talcott,  19  Wall.  (U.  S.)  666;  La- 

32  N.  J.  Eq.  755.  fayette,  Muncie  and  Bloomington  R. 

*  Northern  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  t?.  Roberts,  R.  Co.  v.  Geiger,  34  Ind.  185 ;  Brocaw 

42  Fed.  R.  734,  s.  c.  31  Am.  &  Eng.  v.  Board,  73  Ind.  543;  Pittsburgh,  C., 

Corp.  Cases  642,  and  authorities  there  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Harden,  (Ind.) 

cited;  Bank  of  Rome  v.  Village  of  37  N.  E.  R.  324,  15  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency. 

Rome,  18  N.  Y.  38 ;  People  v.  Mitch-  of  Law  1242,  2  Beach  Pub.  Corp.,  §  896. 

ell,  35  N.  Y.  551 ;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  But  see  People  v.  Salem,  20  Mich.  452, 

Co.  v.  Smith,  62  111.  268;  Davidson  v.  s.  c.  4  Am.  R.  400;  Ellis  v.  Northern 

County  Commissioners,  18  Minn.  482 ;  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,77  Wis.  114,  s.  c.  31  Am. 

Leavenworth  County  v.  Miller,  7  Kan.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cases  661 ;  Morrill  v. 

479;  Sharpless  v.  Mayer,  21  Pa.  St.  Smith  Co.,  (Tex.)  36  S.  W.  R.  56. 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§2 


term  implies,  but  in  other  respects  it  differs  from  a  corporation 
upon  which  no  public  duties  are  imposed.  The  property  of  a 
railroad  company  used  for  the  transportation  of  passengers 
and  articles  of  commerce  is  devoted  to  a  public  use.  The  doc- 
trine of  Chief  Justice  Hale  that,  "when  private  property  is  af- 
fected with  a  public  interest  it  ceases  to  be  juris  privati  only, " 
applies  to  a  railroad  corporation.1  It  is  not  to  be  understood, 
however,  from  the  fact  that  the  property  of  a  railroad  company 
is  devoted  to  a  public  use  or  "affected  with  a  public  interest," 
that  it  can  be  treated  as  a  public  corporation  ;  on  the  contrary, 
a  railroad  corporation  is  classed  as  a  private  corporation  and 
its  strictly  private  rights  are  as  much  beyond  legislative  con- 
trol as  are  the  rights  of  a  purely  private  corporation.2  While  a 
railroad  corporation  may  for  most  purposes  be  regarded  as  a 
private  corporation  there  is,  nevertheless,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
side  to  it,  as  one  may  say,  that  is  public.  As  will  hereafter 


1  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S. 
155 ;  Georgia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  128 
TJ.  S.  174;  Peik  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co., 
94  U.  S.  164 ;  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U. 
8.  113,  126;  Railroad  Commission 
Cases,  116  TJ.  S.  307;  Newburyport, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Eastern  R.  R.  Co.,  23 
Pick.  (Mass.)  326;  Holladay  v.  Pat- 
terson, 5  Or.  177;  Whiting  v.  Sheboy- 
gan,  etc.,  Co.,  25  AVis.  167;  State  v. 
Mclver,  2  So.  Car.  25 ;  Mayor  v.  Bal- 
timore, etc.,  Co.,  21  Md.  50;  McCoy 
v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Fed.  R.  3, 
s.  c.  6  Am.  and  Eng.  Ry.  Cases,  621 ; 
State  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  25  Vt.  433;  • 
Olcott  v.  Supervisors,  16  Wall,  678. 
The  principle  stated  in  the  text  ap- 
plies, as  is  well  known,  to  many  other 
kinds  of  corporations.  Hockett  v. 
State,  105  Ind.  250,  s.  c.  55  Am.R.  201 ; 
City  of  Rushville  v.  Rushville,  etc., 
Co.,  132  Ind.  575,  584 ;  State  v.  Iron- 
ton,  etc.,  Co.,  37  Ohio  St.  45;  City  of 
Zanesviller.  Zanesville.Gas.  Light  Co. 
47  Ohio  St.  1,  s.  c.  23  N.  E.  R.  55.  The 
later  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court 


of  the  United  States  modify  the  doc- 
trine asserted  in  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94 
U.  S.  113,  but  we  do  not  understand 
that  they  deny  the  rule  that  railroads 
are  affected  with  a  public  interest  and 
are  subject  to  legislative  regulation 
and  control.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  v. 
Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418;  Brass  v. 
North  Dakota,  153  U.  S.  391 ;  Reagan 
v.  Farmers,  etc.  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362; 
Covington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  154 
U.  S.  204. 

2  Pierce  v.  Commonwealth,  104  Pa. 
St.  150;  Thorpe  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  27  Vt.  140,  s.  c.  62  Am.  Dec. 
625 ;  Ohio,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ridge,  5 
Blackf.  (Ind.)  78;  Sweatt  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co,,  3  Cliff.  (TJ.  S.)  339; 
Sloan  v.  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  61  Mo.  24; 
Tinsman  v.  Belvidere,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
26  N.  J.  L.  148.  And  the  fact  that  the 
state  owns  some  of  the  shares  of  a 
particular  corporation  does  not  make 
it  a  public  corporation.  Marshall  v. 
Western  R.  R.  Co.,  92  N.  Car.  322; 
Moore  v.  Schoppert,  22  W.  Va.  282. 


DEFINITIONS. 


appear  the  element  of  public  interest  which  enters  into  all 
railroad  corporations  distinguishes  them  from  purely  private 
corporations  to  such  an  extent  as  to  lead  to  important  results. 

§  3.  "Railroad"  or  "railway." — The  words  "railroad "and 
"railway"  are  practically  synonymous,  and  are  ordinarily  to 
be  treated  as  without  distinction  of  meaning.1  Thus,  in  one 
of  the  cases  cited,  it  is  said:  "  'Railroad'  and  'railway'  are 
used  interchangeably.  They  are  as  nearly  synonymous  as  any 
two  words  in  the  language.  Though  the  latter  name  was,  in 
strict  accuracy,  the  corporate  name  of  the  company  intended, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  other  name  is  used  as  designat- 
ing the  same  company."1  So,  in  many  other  cases,  a  variance 
caused  by  using  the  term  "railroad"  instead  of  "railway"  in 
stating  the  corporate  name  in  a  pleading  or  writ  has  been  held 
immaterial  or  curable  by  amendment.8  * 

§  4.  What  are  railroads. — A  railroad  has  been  defined  as 
"a  road  graded  and  having  rails  of  iron  or  other  material  for 
the  wheels  of  carriages  to  run  upon."4  This  definition  is  no 
longer  accurate  as  it  was  when  the  patrons  of  the  railroad  com- 
pany furnished  the  vehicles.5  It  is  impossible  to  formulate  a 


1  Gyger  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
136  Pa.  St.  96,  46  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
229,  n  ;  Hestonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City 
of  Philadelphia,  89  Pa.  St.  210;  Bor- 
ough of  Millvale  v.  Evergreen  R.  Co., 
131  Pa.  St.  1,  46  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
219;  State  t>.  Brin,  30  Minn.  522;  Mo- 
bile, etc.,  R.  Co.  fl.Yeates,  67.  Ala.  164; 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Propst,  83  Ala. 
518.    Contra:  Munkersa.  Kansas  City, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo.  334,  in  which  it  is 
held  that  a  "railroad"  is  the  graded 
right  of  way  and  the  "railway"  con- 
sists of  the  rails  and  ties  laid  thereon. 

2  State  v.  Brin,  30  Minn.  522.     In 
this  case  the  variance  was  in  an  in- 
dictment. 

8  Where  a  petition  is  filed  against 
the  "C.  Railroad  Co."  and  the  sum- 
mons or  citation  is  issued  against  the 
"C.  Railway  Co.,"  the  variance  is  im- 


material. Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Donahoe,  56  Tex.  162;  Central,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  et  al.,  68  Tex.  49,  28 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  50.  See,  also, 
Alabama  &  V.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bolding, 
69  Miss.  255,  s.  c.  13  So.  R.  844.  The 
use  of  the  word  "railroad"  instead  of 
"railway"  in  a  writ  may  be  cured  by 
amendment  after  default.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  89  Ind.  88,  13 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  181.  A  declara- 
tion may  be  similarly  amended  after 
the  trial.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Mahoney,  89  Tenn.  311,  15  S.  W.  R. 
652. 

4  Pierce  on  Railroads,  p.  2;  Trunick 
v.  Smith,  63  Pa.  St.  18;  Com.  v.  Fitch- 
burg  R.  Co.,  12  Gray  (Mass.)  180. 

5  For  other  definitions  see  Seymour 
v.  Canandaigua,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  284;  Sharpless  v.  Mayor,  etc., 


6  THE    CORPORATION.  §  4 

definition  giving  the  term  "railroad."  an  inflexible  meaning. 
The  truth  is,  it  has  110  one  settled  and  invariable  meaning,  and 
what  it  includes  in  any  particular  case  depends  on  the  connec- 
tion in  which  it  is  used.1  In  one  case  it  is  held  to  mean  the 
road-bed,  tracks,  and  necessary  appurtenances.2  Again,  it  is 
said  to  include  the  main  line  over  which  cars  are  run,  together 
with  all  switches,  sidings,  and  branch  roads;8  but  not  to  in- 
clude depot  buildings,  offices  and  warehouses.4  Where  the 
reference  is  to  a  permanent  structure  designated  as  a  public 
highway,  the  word  includes  the  graded  and  railed  way  ready 
for  the  train  of  locomotive  and  cars,  which,  together  with  other 
personal  property,  are  not  included.6  While  railroads  are  often 
called  highways,  they  are  not  included  in  the  phrase  "public 
roads,  streets  and  highways,"  in  a  statute  designating  the 
places  where  telegraph  companies  are  authorized  to  erect  their 
lines.6  In  a  statute  providing  for  the  assessment  of  the  "en- 
tire railway,"  it  is  defined  as  including  "all  property,  real  and 
personal,  exclusively  used  in  the  operation  of  such  railway."1 
A  line  for  the  private  use  of  the  controlling  stockholder  in 
conveying  materials  to  his  mill,  though  built  by  a  company 
organized  under  the  general  law  providing  for  the  formation 

21  Pa.  St.  147,  59  Am.  Dec.  759;  Tracy  »  Black  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  N.  Y.  433;  58  Pa.  St.  249;  St.  John  v.  Erie  R.  Co., 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kaste,  11  22  Wall.  (TJ.  S.)  136;  Cleveland,  etc., 

111.  App.  536;  Hall  v.  Brown,  54  N.  H.  R.  Co.  v.  Speer,  56  Pa.  St.  325;   Lake 

495 ;  1  Redfield  on  Railways,  6th  Ed.,  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  12  Ct.  of 

1 ;  19  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law,  777.  Claims  35,  93  U.  S.  442.  But  see  Rich- 

For  a  discussion  of  the  history  of  rail-  ter  v.  Penn  Co.,  104  Pa.  St.  511 ;  Terre 

ways  see  10  Ency.  Americana,  478.  Haute  R.  Co.  v.  Peoria  Co.,  61  111. 

1  Neither  the  kind  of  motive  power  App.  405. 

used  nor  its  location  necessarily  de-  *  South  Wales  R.Co.a.  Local  Board  of 

termines  the  character  of  the  road.  Health,  4  E.  &  B.  189,  82  E.  C.  L.  188. 

Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  Twenty-third  5  Lake  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  U.  S., 

St.  R.  Co.,  54  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  168.  12  Ct.  of  Claims  35,  93  U.  S.  442. 

See,  also,  Newell  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  6New  York  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

R.  R.  Co.,  35  Minn.  112,  s.  c.  59  Am.  Central  Union  Tel.  Co.,  21  Hun  (N. 

R.  303;   Carli  v.  Stillwater,  etc.,  Ry.  Y.)  261,  s.  c.  1  Am.  Electrical  Cases 

Co.,  28  Minn.  373,  s.  c.  41  Am.  R.  290 ;  315. 

Booth  on  Street  Railways,  §  1.  7  R.  S.  Arizona,  1887,  §2649.     At- 

2  State  v.  Hudson  Terminal  R.  Co.,  lantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yavapai  County, 
46  N.  J.  L.  289.  (Ariz.)  21  Pac.  R.  768. 


§  5  DEFINITIONS.  7 

and  regulation  of  public  railroad  companies,  has  been  held  not 
to  be  such  a  railroad  as  may  exercise  the  right  of  eminent  do- 
main;1 for  one  of  the  essential  characteristics  of  a  railroad 
authorized  to  exercise  that  right  is  said  to  be  its  readiness  to 
render,  without  discrimination,  the  services  which  all  citizens 
alike,  may  claim.2  But,  as  will  hereafter  be  seen,  roads  and 
side  tracks  to  mills,  manufacturing  establishments  and  the 
like  may  constitute  a  public  as  well  as  a  private  use  for  which 
the  exercise  of  the  power  of  eminent  domain  may  be  in- 
voked.8 The  word  "railroad"  is  sometimes  applied  to  the 
corporation  owning  the  road  and  running  trains  thereon  for 
the  carriage  of  freight  and  passengers.4  Ordinarily,  however, 
the  corporation  is  designated  as  a  "railroad  company"5  or 
"railroad  corporation;  "6  and  the  fact  that  it  is  authorized  to 
do  other  kinds  of  business  besides  that  of  transporting  freight 
and  passengers  is  held  not  to  render  these  terms  inapplicable;7 
nor  does  their  applicability  necessarily  depend  on  the  posses- 
sion of  rolling  stock  or  on  the  control  of  the  road's  operation, 
for  a  railroad  company  or  corporation  can  exist  without  either.8 

§5.   "Railroad   track "— " Right   of  way  "— " Road-bed  " 

and  "roadway." — The  term  "railroad  track"  is  used  to  desig- 
nate the  right  of  way  with  its  grades  and  superstructure  of 

1  Weidenfeld  v.  Sugar  Run  R.  Co.,  5Griggs't?.  Houston,  104  TJ.  S.  553; 

48  Fed.  Rep.  615.     See,  also,  Ee  Split  Great    Western    R.    Co.   v.    Central 

Rock  Cable  Co.,  128  N.  Y.  408 ;  Pitts-  Wales  R.  Co.,  52  L.  J.  Q.  B.  211,  L.  R. 

burg,  W.   &  K.    R.   R.   Co.   v.  Ben-  10  Q.  B.  Div.  231. 

wood    Iron  Works,   31  W.   Va.  710.  6  Union    Trust   Co.  v.  Kendall,  20 

But  see  Ex  parte  Bacot,  36  S.  Car.  125,  Kan.  515. 

s.  c.  50  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  597.  7  Randolph  Co.  v.  Post,  93  U.  S.  502 ; 

8  Colorado,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Union,  Kentucky  Imp.  Co.  v.  Slack,  100  U.  S. 

etc.,  R:  Co.,  44  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  10  648.    The  right  to  construct  a  railroad 

and  note  on  page  25.  and  to  erect  a  ferry  may  be  granted 

8  Harvey  v.  Thomas,  10  Watts  (Pa.)  to  one  corporation,  but  "a  ferry  is  not 

63;  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.   R.  Co.  v.  a  railroad,  nor  a  railroad    a  ferry." 

Williams,  54  Pa.  St.  103 ;  Getz's  Ap-  Aikin  v.  Western  R.  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y. 

peal,  65  Pa.  St.  1,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  370,  376. 

Cas. 186;  Kettle  River  R.  R.v.  Eastern  8  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  t?.  St.  Louis, 

R.  R.,  41  Minn.  461;  South  Chicago  etc.,  R.  Co.,  118  U.  S/290,   24  Am.  & 

R.  R.  v.  Dix,  109  111.  237.  Eng.   R.  Cas.  58,   which  was  a  suit 

*Calhoun  v.  Paducah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  maintained  by  such  a  company. 
2  Flip.  (U. S.)  442, 9  Cent.  L.  Jour.  66. 


8 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§<> 


iron  rails.1  It  may  include  depot  buildings,  round-houses,  ma- 
chine shops,  coal  or  wood  sheds  and  water-tanks,  if  they  are 
on  the  right  of  way.2  The  latter  term  has  been  defined  as 
meaning  the  way  over  which  the  company  has  the  right  to 
pass  in  the  operation  of  its  trains;3  and  as  including  all  of  the 
strip  of  land  appropriated  by  the  company  for  its  use  and 
upon  which  its  road-bed  has  been  built.4  The  road-bed  is  the 
foundation  upon  which  the  superstructure  rests,  while  the 
term  "roadway"  is  said  to  include  all  the  ground  upon  which 
the  company  is  authorized  to  construct  and  lay  its  bed  and 
track.5 

§  6.  Street  Railways. — A  street  railway  has  been  defined  as 
"a  railway  laid  down  upon  roads  or  streets  for  the  purpose 
of  carrying  passengers."1  The  distinctive  feature  or  charac- 
teristic of  such  a  railway,  considered  in  relation  to  ordinary 
commercial  railroads,  is  that  it  is  intended  and  used  for  the 
transportation  of  passengers  and  not  of  freight.7  This,  and 

1  Delaware  &  H.  C.  Co.  v.  Village  of    32    Cal.   499.     Fences,   however,    are 

not  part  of  the  roadway  to  be  assessed 
as  such  for  purposes  of  taxation,  but 
are  to  be  assessed  as  improvements 
under  the  California  statute.  Santa 
Clara  County  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  R. 


Whitehall,  90  N.  Y.  21,  10  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  227. 

2Pfaff,  Auditor,  et  al.  v.  Terre 
Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  Ind.  144,  con- 
struing §6410  R.  S.  Ind.  1881.  See 
Acts  1891,  Ind.  119,  §  78. 

3Pfaff,  Auditor,  et  al.  v,  Terre 
Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  Ind.  144; 


Co.,  118  U.  S.  394,  s.  c.  6  Sup.  Ct.  R. 
1132,  1142. 
6  Elliott  on  Roads  and  Streets,  557, 


Williams  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50    quoted  in  Montgomery  v.  Santa  Ana, 


Wis.  71,  s.  c.  5  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas. 
290.  As  will  hereafter  be  shown,  how- 
ever, it  is  usually  an  easement  or  in- 
corporeal hereditament  rather  than 
an  estate  in  fee.  See  Cincinnati,  etc., 


etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  104  Cal.  186,  s.  c.  25  L. 
R.  A.  654 ;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Louisville  City  Ry.  Co.,  2  Duv.  (Ky.) 
175. 
7  Elliott  on  Roads  and  Streets,  557 ; 


Ry.  Co.  v.  Geisel,  119  Ind.  77,  78  and    Booth  on  Street  Railways,  §  1;  Carli 


authorities  cited ;  42  Cent.  L.  J.  156. 

4  Keener  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  Co.,  31 
Fed.  R.  126.  In  the  statute,  Gen.  Stat. 
Colo.,  §2847,  which  this  case  con- 
strues, the  "entire  rail  way"  is  defined 
as  including  the  right  of  way. 

6  San  Francisco  v .  Central  Pac.  R.R. 
Co.,  63  Cal.  467;  San  Francisco,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  State  Board,  60  Cal.  12, 
34;  Appeal  of  North  Beach,  etc.,  Co., 


v.  Stillwater  St.  Ry.  Co.,  28  Minn. 
373,  s.  c.  41  Am.  R.  290,  s.  c.  3  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  226.  See,  also,  Wig- 
gins Ferry  Co.  v.  East  St.  Louis  Union 
Ry.  Co.,  107  111.  450;  Atty.  General  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  112  111.  611; 
Potts  v.  Quaker  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 
12  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  593,  s.  c.  31  W.  N. 
Cas.  290;  Funk  r.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  (Minn.)  63  N.  W.  R.  1099,  1101. 


§  6  DEFINITIONS.  9 

the  character  of  the  use  of  the  street,  rather  than  the  motive 
power,  distinguish  it  from  the  ordinary  commercial  railroad;1 
and  such  a  railway,  laid  in  a  street  for  the  purpose  of  carrying 
passengers  and  facilitating  its  use  by  the  public,  is  a  street 
railway,  no  matter  what  motive  power  may  be  used  to  propel 
the  cars.2  But  street  railways  are  not  always  included  when 
the  term  "railroads"  is  used  in  a  statute.  The  exact  meaning 
of  that  term,  as  already  stated,  depends  upon  the  connection 
in  which  it  is  used.  Thus,  it  has  been  held  to  include  street 
railroads  operated  by  horse  power,  in  statutes  giving  certain 
powers  to  "railroads;"8  making  the  proprietors  of  any  "rail- 
road" liable  for  injuries  caused  by  the  negligence  of  its  serv- 
ants;* and  prohibiting  the  obstruction  of  "railroad  tracks."1 
So,  a  statute  authorizing  the  consolidation  of  "railroads"  has 
been  held  to  include  street  railways,6  and  an  act  taxing  the  prop- 
erty of  "any  railroad  company"  has  been  held  to  include  the 
property  of  a  street  railway.7  But  a  statute  prohibiting  the  loca- 
tion within  a  certain  territory  of  railroads  other  than  that  of  a 
designated  company,  is  held  not  to  authorize  an  injunction 
restraining  a  street  railway  company  from  building  its  road  across 

1  Williams  v.  City  Electric  St.  Ry.  railroad  companies  are  usually  com- 
Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  556,  s.  c.  43  Am.  &  prehensive  enough  to  authorize  the 
Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  215 ;  Newell  v.  Minne-  incorporation  of  street  railway  com- 
apolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Minn.  112,  s.c.  panics. 

59  Am.  R.  303.     See,  also,  annotation  4  Johnson  v.  Louisville  City.  R.  Co., 

in  2  Am.  Law  Reg.  &Rev.,N.  S.(Jan.,  10  Bush  (Ky.)  231.     But  see  Lax  v. 

1895)  43.  Forty-second  St.,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  46  N. 

2  Nichols  v.  Ann  Arbor,  etc.,  St.  Ry.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  448;  Funk  v.  St.  Paul, 
Co.,  87  Mich.  361 ;  Briggs  v.  Lewiston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Minn.)  63  N.W.  R.  1099. 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  79  Me.  363,  367,  s.  c.  32  s  prjce  v.  State,  74  Ga.  378. 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  167 ;  Clement  v.  «  Hestonville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Phil- 
City  of  Cincinnati,  16  Weekly  Law  adelphia,  89  Pa.  St.  210 ;  In  re  Wash- 
Bui.  355.  But  see  East  End  St.  R.  R.  ington  St.  Ry.  Co.,  115  N.  Y.  442,  s.  c. 
Co.  v.  Doyle,  88  Tenn.  747,  s.  c.  9  L.  R.  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  588.  But 
A.  100;  Stanleys.  City  of  Davenport,  54  see  Gyger  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Iowa 463,  s.  c.  37  Am.  R.  216.  And  an  Co.,  136  Pa.  St.  96;  Shipley  v.  Conti- 
underground  railway  may  be  a  street  nental,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  13  Phil.  (Pa.) 
railway.  In  re  New  York  District  Ry.  128. 

Co.,  107  N.  Y.  42,  s.  c.  14  N.  E.  R.  187,  »  Citizens'  Passenger  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

a.  c.  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  202.  Pittsburg,  104  Pa.  St.  522,  s.  c.  17  Am. 

3  Chicago  v.  Evans,  24  111.  52.    Stat-  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  438.     See  ante,  §  1, 
utes  authorizing  the  incorporation  of  note  1. 


10  THE    CORPORATION.  §  6 

such  territory.1  A  penalty  denounced  against  railroad  companies 
demanding  fares  in  excess  of  the  lawful  rate  has  been  held  not  to 
apply  to  street  railroads;2  nor,  according  to  one  decision,  does  a 
statute  authorizing  a  laborer's  lien  on  a  railroad  apply  to  a  street 
cable  railroad  .s  A '  'dummy  line, ' '  operated  over  the  county  roads 
between  two  cities  along  whose  streets  its  track  extends  to  termini 
in  their  centers,  is  a  "railroad"  within  the  meaning  of  a  statute 
requiring  all  trains  to  stop  within  one  hundred  feet  of  where 
two  railroads  cross  each  other;  the  court  holding,  however,  that 
it  is  "not  a  street  railway"  because  not  located  within  and  de- 
pendent on  any  municipality.4  Such  a  line,  engaged  in  the 
streets  of  a  city  exclusively  in  carrying  passengers  is  also  held 
to  be  a  "railroad"  within  a  statute  requiring  some  person  on 
the  locomotive  to  keep  a  lookout,  and  requiring  the  whistle  to 
be  sounded  to  prevent  accidents;5  but  not  a  "railroad"  within 
a  statute  prohibiting  the  occupation  of  streets  at  crossings.6 
As  street  railways  are  usually  constructed  011  streets  and  do 
not,  ordinarily,  constitute  an  additional  burden,  there  is  seldom 
any  necessity  for  the  exercise  of  power  of  eminent  domain  in 
order  to  obtain  a  right  of  way;  but,  like  commercial  railroads, 
they  are  of  a  quasi  public  nature  and  may  be  authorized  to 
condemn  property  for  a  right  of  way  as  for  a  public  use.7  But 
it  has  been  held  that  a  statute  authorizing  the  condemnation 
of  a  right  of  way  by  corporations  "organized  for  the  construc- 
tion of  any  railway"  did  not  apply  to  street  railways.8  Such 

1  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.   v.  Louis-        5  Katzenberger  v.   Lawo,  90  Term, 
ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Duv.  (Ky.)  175.        238,  16  S.  W.  R.  611,  construing  Tenn. 

2  Moneypenny  v.  Sixth  Avenue  R.    code,  §  1298. 

Co.,  4  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  357.  6  Howard  v.  Union  F.  R.  Co.,  156 

8  Front  St.  Cable  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  Mass.  159,  30  N.  E.  R.  479.  See,  also, 

2  Wash.  112, 25  Pac.  R.  1084.     Contra:  Byrne  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

St.  Louis  Bolt  and  Iron  Co.  v.  Dono-  61  Fed.  R.  605,  s.  c.  24  L.  R.  A.  693. 

hoe,  3  Mo.  App.  559.     In  the  former  7  In  re  Petition  of  Kerr,  42  Barb. 

case,  however,  the  statutory  lien  ex-  (N.  Y.)  119;  Union  Depot  R.  R.  Co. 

tended  to  the  land  and,  as  the  street  v.  Southern  R.  R.  Co.,  105  Mo.  562; 

railway  company  did  not  own  the  fee,  St.  Louis  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  R. 

this  was  the  principal  reason  for  hold-  Co.,  105  Mo.  577,  s.  c.  46  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

ing  the  statute  inapplicable.  R.  Cas.  1 ;  Moran  v.  Ross,  79  Cal.  159, 

4  Birmingham  M.  R.  Co.  v.  Jacobs,  s.  c.  21  Pac.  R.  547,  s.  c.  39  Am.  & 

92  Ala.  187,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  1. 

263,  9  So.  R.  320.  8  Thompson-Houston  Electric  Co.  ». 


§7 


DEFINITIONS. 


11 


companies  are  common  carriers  of  passengers,1  and,  while  not 
usually  common  carriers  of  freight,  may  become  liable  as  com- 
mon carriers  of  goods  by  assuming  to  act  as  such.2 

§  7.  Elevated  railroads.  —  Elevated  railroads  are  so  far 
"railroads"  that  they  may  be  organized  under  general  statutes 
authorizing  the  incorporation  of  railroad  companies.8  But  it 
has  been  held  that  a  company  incorporated  and  organized  as  a 
street  railway  company  has  no  authority  or  right  to  build 
and  operate  an  elevated  railroad.4  Such  roads  are  generally 
intended  and  used  merely  for  the  carriage  of  passengers  along 
the  streets,  and,  where  such  is  the  case,  it  seems  to  us  that, 
upon  principle,  they  should  be  regarded  as  street  railways 
rather  than  as  ordinary  commercial  railroads.5  But  whether 
a  street  railway  company  has  authority  to  construct  an  elevated 
road  or  not  must  depend  largely  upon  the  particular  charter  or 
law  under  which  it  is  organized,  and  the  construction  and  use 
of  the  road  may  be  such  as  to  constitute  an  additional  burden 


Simon,  20  Ore.  60,  s.  c.  25  Pac.  R. 
147,  s.  c.  47  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas. 
57.  While  such  statutes  should  be 
strictly  construed,  yet  the  soundness 
of  the  decision  in  the  case  just  cited 
seems  to  us  to  admit  of  some  doubt. 
See  Ogden  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ogden  City, 
7  Utah  207,  s.  c.  26  Pac.  R.  288. 

1  Thompson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v. 
Simon,  20  Ore.  60,  s.  c.  25  Pac.  R. 
147. 

2Levi  v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  11 
Allen  (Mass.)  300,  s.  c.  87  Am.  Dec. 
713. 

3  Lieberman  ».  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
141  111.  140,  51  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  581, 
30  N.  E.  R.  544.  See,  also,  Fulton  v. 
Short  Route  R.  Co.,  85  Ky.  640,  7  Am. 
St.  R.  619,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  256, 
4  S.  W.  R.  332,  where  it  is  held  that  a 
street  railroad  may  elevate  its  track 
if  the  character  of  the  country  requires 
it.  Compare  Potts  v.  Quaker  City  El. 
R.  Co.,  161  Pa.  St.  396,  s.  c.  29  Atl.  R. 
108.  And  in  Potts  v.  Quaker  City  El. 


R.  Co.,  12  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  Rep.  593,  it  was 
held  that  an  elevated  railroad  through 
the  streets  of  a  city  for  the  carriage  of 
passengers  exclusively  can  not  be 
organized  under  the  general  railroad 
law  of  Pennsylvania.  See,  also,  Scha- 
per  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  124 
N.  Y.  630;  In  re  People's  Rapid  Tran- 
sit Co.  v.  Dash,  125  N.  Y.  93,  s.  c.  46 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  114. 

4  Commonwealth    v .    Northeastern 
El.  Ry.  Co.,  161  Pa.  St.  409,  s.  c.  29 
Atl.  R.  112. 

5  See  Commonwealth  v.  Northeast- 
ern El.  Ry.  Co.,  (Pa.  Com.  PI.)  3  Pa. 
Dist.  R.  104 ;  Potts  v.  Quaker  City  El. 
Ry.  Co.,  (Pa.  Com.  PI.)  12  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
R.  593,  2  Pa.  Dist.  R.  200.     "There  is 
no  doubt  that  a  railway  under,  or  ele- 
vated above,  the  surface  of  a  street, 
is  still  a  street  railway  in  that  street." 
Per  Peckham,  J.,  In  re  People's  Rapid 
Transit  Co.  v.  Dash,  125  N.  Y.  93,  s.  c. 
10  L.  R.  A.  728,  729. 


12  THE    CORPORATION.  §  8 

and  entitle  the  abutting  owners  to  damages,  where  they  would 
not  be  entitled  to  compensation  if  it  were  an  ordinary  surface 
street  railroad.1  Thus,  it  has  been  held  that  an  elevated  rail- 
road supported  by  posts,  with  an  overhead  road-bed  enclosed 
at  the  sides,  is  a  "railway"  and  not  a  "street  railway"  within 
the  meaning  of  a  statute  allowing  the  municipal  authorities  to 
authorize  the  construction  of  either  in  a  street,  but  requiring 
compensation  to  the  abutters  where  a  "railway"  is  placed  in 
the  street.2 

§  8.  Electric  railroads. — Railroads  operated  by  electricity 
and  engaged  in  carrying  passengers  along  the  streets  of  a  city 
are  classed  with  street  railways  rather  than  with  ordinary  com- 
mercial railroads.3  Their  use  being  in  furtherance  of  travel 
upon  the  streets  maybe  said  to  be  within  the  original  purposes 
for  which  the  streets  were  dedicated  and  laid  out,  and  they  do 
not,  therefore,  when  properly  constructed,  constitute  a  new 
servitude  or  additional  burden  for  which  abutting  property-own- 
ers are  entitled  to  compensation.4  In  this  respect,  as  in  most 

1  Story  ».  New  York  El.  R.  R.  Co.,  90  Gas.  51;  Hudson   River  Tel.   Co.   v. 

N.  Y.  122;   American  Bank  Note  Co.  Watervliet,  etc.,  Co.,  135  N.  Y.  393, 

v.  N.  Y.  El.  R.  R.  Co.,  129  N.  Y.  252;  s.  c.  32  N.  E.  R.  148;  Paterson  Ry. 

Egerer  v.  N.  Y.  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  Co.  v.  Grundy,  51  N.  J.  Eq.  213,  s.  c. 

130  N. Y.  108, 14 L.R.  A. 381,  and  note;  26  Atl.   Rep.   788;    Halsey  v.   Rapid 

Abendroth  v.  Manhattan  Ry.  Co.,  122  Transit  Ry.  Co.,  47  N.  J.  Eq.  380,  s.  c. 

N.  Y.  1,  s.  c.  19  Am.  St.  R.  461 ;  N.  Y.  20  Atl.  Rep.  859. 

El.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Fifth  Nat.  Bank,  135  4  Dubois  Traction  Co.  v.  Buffalo,  C. 

U.  S.  432,  440,  s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  743 ;  &  P.  Ry.  Co.,  149  Pa.  St.  1,  s.  c.   24 

Lahr  v.  Metropolitan  El.  R.  R.  Co.,  Atl.  Rep.  179,  11  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  Jour. 

104  N.  Y.  268;   Kane  v.  N.  Y.  El.  R.  6;  Lockhart  v.  Craig  St.  Ry.  Co.,  139 

R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  164,  s.  c.  46  Am.  &  Pa.  St.  419,  s.  c.  21  Atl.  Rep.  26;  Tag- 

Eng.  R.  R.  Gas.  137.    Compare  Fulton  gart  v.  Newport  St.  Ry.  Co.,  16  R.  I. 

v.  Short  Route,  etc.,  Co.,  85  Ky.  640;  668,  s.  c.  19  Atl.  Rep.  326;  West  Jer- 

Garrett  v.  Lake  Roland  El.  R.  R.  Co.,  sey  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Camden,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

(Md.)  24  L.  R.  A.  396.  (N.  J.)29  Atl.  R.  423 ;  Paterson  Ry.  Co. 

"Freiday  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  Co.,  v.  Grundy, (N.J.)  26  Atl.  Rep.  788;  De- 

(lowa)  26  L.  R.  A.  246.     See,  also,  In  troit  St.  Ry.   Co.   v.   Mills,  85  Mich. 

re  People's  Rapid  Transit  Co.  v.  Dash,  634,  s.  c.  48  N.  W.  R.  1007;  Koch  v. 

125  N.  Y.  93,  s.  c.  10  L.  R.  A.  728.  North  Avenue  Ry.  Co.,  75  Md.  22,  s.  c. 

3  See  Thompson  -  Houston  Electric  23  Atl.  Rep.  463;  Green  v.  City  Sub- 
Co,  v.  Simon,  20  Ore.  60,  s.  c.  25  Pac.  urban  Ry.  Co.,  (Md.)  28  Atl.  Rep.  626; 
Rep.  147,  s.  c.  47  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Chicago  &  C.T.  Ry.Co.  c.Whiting,  etc., 


§  9  DEFINITIONS.  13 

respects,  they  are  governed  by  the  same  rules  that  apply  to 
ordinary  street  railways  operated  by  animal  power,  and  not  by 
the  rules  applicable  to  commercial  railroads.  But  the  more 
dangerous  nature  of  the  motive  power  may  require,  both  as  to 
passengers  and  to  other  travelers,  or  the  public  generally,  a  de- 
gree of  care  not  required  in  the  case  of  horse  railways,  that  is 
to  say,  the  care  should  be  in  proportion  to  the  danger.  A  forci- 
ble illustration  of  the  rule  that  electric  railways  for  carrying 
passengers  along  the  streets  are  to  be  regarded  as  street  rail- 
ways rather  than  as  commercial  railroads  is  found  in  a  recent 
case1  in  which  it  is  held  that  an  electric,  rail  way  company  has 
the  right  to  run  its  cars  across  a  public  toll  bridge,  upon  the 
payment  of  adequate  toll,  where  the  statute  gives  it  the  right 
to  use  "any  street  or  highway.'.'  The  court  regarded  it  as  a 
use  which  was  consistent  with  the  purpose  for  which  the  bridge 
was  erected,  being  in  furtherance  of  public  travel  and  accom- 
modation, and  held  that  it  did  not  constitute  a  taking  of  prop- 
erty under  the  power  of  eminent  domain.2 

§9.  Cable  railroads. — Railroads  operated  by  the  cable  sys- 
tem are  also  classed  with  street  railways.  They  do  not,  there- 
fore, constitute  an  additional  burden  any  more  than  ordinary 
horse  railways.3  In  one  case  however,  it  was  held  that  a  cable 
road  is,  "as  to  one  part  of  the  street,  surface,  and  as  to  an- 
other part,  subterranean,"  and  that  a  company  organized 
merely  as  a  surface  railway  company  had  no  right  to  excavate 
the  streets  and  construct  a  subterranean  cable  system;4  but  the 

Co.,  (Ind.)  38  N.  E.  R.  604;  Cincinnati  Co.   v.  South    Covington,    etc.,    Co., 

Inclined  Plane  Ry.  Co.  v.  City,  etc.,  93  Ky.  136,  s.  c.  15  L.  R.  A.  828. 

Co.,  48  Ohio  St.  390,  s.  c.  27  N.  E.  Rep.  *  Rafierty  ^.Central  Traction  Co.,  147 

890,   10  Ry.  &  Corp.  Law  Jour.  82;  Pa.  St.  579,  s.c.  23  Atl.R.884;Lorier. 

Williams  v.  City  Electric  St.  Ry.  Co.,  North  Chicago  Ry.  Co.,  32  Fed.  R.  270 ; 

41  Fed.  R.  556 ;  Cumberland  T.  &.  T.  Harrison  v.  Mt.  Auburn  Cable  Ry.  Co., 

Co.t?.UnitedElectricRy.Co.,93Tenn.  (Ohio)17  W.  L.  Bull.  265;  Clement?-. 

492,  s.  c.  29S.W.  R.  104;  Limburger  v.  Cincinnati, (Ohio)  116  W.  L.  Bull.  355; 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  St.  Ry.  Co.,  (Tex.)  Booth  on  Street  Railways,  §  84.  Com- 

30  S.  W.  R.  533.  pare  Tuebner  v.  California  St.  Ry.  Co., 

1  Pittsburgh  &  W.  E.  Passenger  R.  66  Cal.  171. 

R.  Co.  •».  Point  Bridge  Co.,  165  Pa.  *  People,  ex  rel.  Third  Avenue  R.  R. 

St.  37,  s.  c.  26  L.  R.  A.  323.  Co.,  v.  Newton,  112  N.  Y.  396,  s.  c.  19 

'See,  also,  Covington  &  C.  Bridge  N.  E.  R.  831. 


14  THE    CORPORATION.  §  9 

same  court,  in  a  later  case,  held  that  such  a  company  could  be 
authorized  by  the  legislature  to  use  the  cable  system  without 
the  consent  of  the  local  authorities,  notwithstanding  a  pro- 
vision of  the  constitution  prohibiting  the  passage  of  any  law 
authorizing  the  construction  or  operation  of  a  street  railroad 
without  first  obtaining  the  consent  of  the  local  authorities.1 
Although  cable  roads  in  city  streets  engaged  only  in  carrying 
passengers,  are  usually  regarded  as  street  railways,  yet  a  com- 
pany which  carries  freight  as  well  as  passengers,  whose  road 
is  but  three  miles  in  length,  over  two  miles  of  which  cars  are 
drawn  by  locomotives,  is  a  "railroad  company,"  taxable  as  an 
ordinary  railway,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  one  mile  of  the 
line,  up  a  steep  ascent,  is  operated  by  cable.2 

1  Matter  of  Petition  of  Third  Ave-  franchise  or  authorize  the  "construc- 

nue  R.  R.  Co.,  121  N.  Y.  536.    The  tion  or  operation  of  a  street  railroad," 

court  said  that,  as  the  railroad  had  but  merely  regulated  the  use  of  an  ex- 

already  been  organized,  constructed  isting  franchise, 
and  operated  as  a  horse  street  rail-        2  State,  Duluth  Belt  Line  R.  R.  Co. 

way,  the    act   of  the    legislature  in  v.    Eleventh    Judicial    District    Ct., 

question  did  not  attempt  to  grant  a  54  Minn.  341,  s.  c.  55  N.  W.  R.  816. 


CHAPTER  II. 


PROMOTION    AND    FORMATION    OF   THE    CORPORATION. 


§  10.   Promoters — Who  are. 

11.  Fiduciary  relation  of  promoters 

— Duties  and  liabilities. 

12.  Promoter  may  sell   property  to 

the  corporation. 

13.  Personal  liability  of  promoters 

— When  partners. 

14.  Contracts  of  promoters — When 

binding  on  corporation. 


§  15.   Legislative  authority  essential 
to  creation  of  corporation. 

16.  Creation  by  special  charter. 

17.  Acceptance  of  charter. 

18.  Incorporation  under  general 

laws. 

19.  Perfecting  the  organization. 

20.  Defective  organization— Waiver 

— Collateral  attack. 


§  10.  Promoters  —  Who  are.  —  The  steps  preliminary  to  the 
organization  of  a  railroad  corporation  are  generally  taken  by 
persons  known  ac  "promoters,"  who  bring  together  the  per- 
sons interested  in  the  enterprise,  aid  in  procuring  subscrip- 
tions, and  make  the  necessary  arrangements  looking  toward 
the  purchase  of  property  or  the  entering  into  contracts  by  the 
new  company.1  By  merely  subscribing  the  articles,  or  taking 
stock  in  a  company  not  yet  incorporated,  a  person  does  not  as- 
sume the  character  of  a  promoter.2  But  circumstances  which 
show  that  one  is  assuming  to  act  in  the  interest  of  a  project, 
and  is  seeking  to  influence  others  to  give  it  pecuniary  assist- 
ance, will  afford  evidence  that  he  has  undertaken  the  respon- 
sibility of  a  promoter  toward  persons  who  deal  with  him  as 
such.8 


on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  525;  Ward  v.  Brigham,  127  Mass.  24. 
§  651  ;  Beach  on  Law  of  Railways,  §  1  ;  See,  also,  Taylor  on  Private  Corpora- 
Twycross  v.  Grant,  L.  R.  2  C.  P.  Div.  tions,  §  73.  But  see  Lake  v.  Argyle, 
469,  503  ;  Yale  Gas  Stove  Co.  v.  Wil-  6  Q.  B.  477. 

cox,  quoted  in  note  to  §  11,  infra.  3  Sidney,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bird,  L.  R.  31 

2  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tiernan,     Ch.  Div.  328;  Lake  v.  Argyle,  6  Q.  B. 

37  Kan.  606,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.    477;  Woodbury,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Loudeh- 

slager,  (N.  J.)  35  Atl.  R.  436. 
(15) 


16 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§11 


§  11.  Fiduciary  relation  of  promoters — Duties  and  liabili- 
ties.— A  promoter  occupies  a  fiduciary  relation  toward  the 
company,  and  is  subject,  in  general,  to  the  disabilities  attached 
to  trustees.1  He  is  forbidden  to  make  any  secret  profits  at  the 


1  Emma  Silver  M.  Co.  v.  Grant,  L.  R. 
11  Ch.  Div.  918 ;  Taylor  on  Private  Cor- 
porations, §  82.  In  the  case  of  Yale 
Gas  Stove  Co.  -a.  Wilcox,  64  Conn. 
101,  25  L.  R.  A.  90,  the  court  said : 
"Who  and  what  are  'promoters'  so- 
called,  of  corporations,  and  what 
their  relations  to  the  corporations 
which  they  help  to  form,  has  been 
more  frequently  judicially  considered 
and  determined  by  the  English  courts 
than  by  those  of  this  country.  *  *  * 
A  'promoter'  has  been  defined  to  be  a 
person  who  organizes  a  corporation. 
It  is  said  to  be,  not  a  legal,  but  a  busi- 
ness term,  'usefully  summing  up  in  a 
single  word,  a  number  of  business 
operations  familiar  to  the  commercial 
world,  by  which  a  company  is  gener- 
ally brought  into  existence.'  Bowen, 
J.,  in  Printing  Co.  v.  Green,  28  Week- 
ly Rep.  (Q.  B.  Div.,  1880)  351,  352. 
That  such  persons  occupy  a  fiduciary 
relation  toward  the  company  or  cor- 
poration whose  organization  they  seek 
to  promote  is  well  settled  by  the  de- 
cisions of  both  countries.  Lord  Cot- 
ton prefers  to  call  them  'trustees.' 
Bagnall  v.  Carlton.  6  Ch.  Div.  371,  385. 
Sir  George  Jessel,  M.  R.,  in  Phos- 
phate Co.  v.  Erlanger,  L.  R.  5  Ch. 
Div.  73,  said :  'Promoters  stand  in  a 
fiduciary  relation  to  that  company 
which  is  their  creature.'  In  Erlanger 
v.  Phosphate  Co.,  3  App.  Gas.  1218, 
the  Lord  Chancellor  said  of  promot- 
ers: 'They  stand,  in  my  opinion, 
undoubtedly  in  a  fiduciary  position. 
They  have  in  their  hands  the  creation 
and  molding  of  the  company.  They 
have  the  power  of  defining  how,  and 
when,  and  in  what  shape,  and  under 


what  supervision,  it  shall  start  into 
existence  and  begin  to  act  as  a  trading 
corporation.  If  they  are  doing  all 
this  in  order  that  the  company  may, 
as  soon  as  it  starts  into  life,  become, 
through  its  managing  directors,  the 
purchasers  of  the  property  of  them- 
selves (the  promoters)  it  is,  in  my 
opinion,  incumbent  upon  the  promot- 
ers to  take  care  that  in  forming  the 
company  they  provide  it  with  an 
executive ;  that  is  to  say,  with  a  board 
of  directors,  who  shall  both  be  aware 
that  the  property  which  they  are 
asked  to  buy  is  the  property  of  the 
promoters,  and  who  shall  be  compe- 
tent and  impartial  judges  as  to 
whether  the  purchase  ought  or  ought 
not  to  be  made.  I  do  not  say  that  the 
owner  of  property  may  not  promote 
and  form  a  joint  stock  company  and 
then  sell  his  property  to  it ;  but  I  do 
say  that  if  he  does  he  is  bound  to  take 
care  that  he  sell  it  to  the  company 
through  the  medium  of  a  board  of 
directors  who  can  and  do  exercise  an 
independent  and  intelligent  judgment 
on  the  transaction,  and  who  are  not 
left  under  the  belief  that  the  property 
belongs,  not  to  the  promoter,  but  to 
some  other  person.'  Lord  O'Hagan, 
referring  to  the  same  subject,  ex- 
pressed a  similar  opinion  in  even  nioiv 
emphatic  language,  declaring  that 
while  an  original  purchase  might  Il- 
legitimate, and  not  less  so  because  the 
object  of  the  purchaser  was  to  sell  it 
again,  and  to  sell  it  by  forming  a 
company  which  might  afford  them 
a  profit  on  the  transaction,  yet  'the 
privilege  given  them  for  promoting 
such  a  company  for  such  an  object  in- 


§  11      PROMOTION    AND    FORMATION    OF   THE    CORPORATION.  17 


expense  of  the  company,1  or  to  gain  any  advantage  over  other 
stockholders  arising  from  the  profits  of  the  company's  trans- 
actions.2 He  must  turn  over  to  the  company  any  commissions 
received  for  the  sale  of  property  to  the  company,*  and  it  has 


volved  obligations  of  a  very  serious 
kind.  It  required,  in  its  exercise,  the 
utmost  good  faith,  the  completest  truth- 
fulness, and  acareful  regard  to  the  pro- 
tection of  the  future  stockholders.'  The 
test,  therefore,  of  the  validity  of  such 
transactions  is  that  it  must,  in  all  its 
parts,  be  open  and  fair,  so  that  the 
promoters  shall  not,  in  fact,  sub- 
stantially, 'act  both  as  vendors  and 
vendees,  and  in  the  latter  capac- 
ity approve  a  transaction  suggested 
by  them  in  the  former.'  Foss  v. 
Harbottle,  2  Hare  461,  488;  McEl- 
henny's  Appeal,  61  Pa.  St.  188;  Si- 
mons r.  Mining  Co.,  61  Pa.  St.  202 ;  Oil 
Co.  v.  Densmore,  64  Pa.  St.  43 ;  Min- 
ing Co.  v.  Spooner,  74Wis.  307;  Land 
Co.  v.  Case,  104  Mo.  572;  In  re  British 
Seamless  Paper-box  Co.,  17  Ch.  Div. 
467;  Sewage  Co.  v.  Hartmont,  5  Ch. 
Div.  394.  In  Hichens  v.  Congreve,  1 
Russ.  &  M.  150  (on  appeal,  4  Russ. 
562),  three  promoters  induced  their 
company  to  buy  a  mine  for  £25,000, 
of  which  they  received  from  the  ven- 
dor and  divided  among  themselves, 
£15,000.  This  they  were  compelled 
to  account  for  to  the  company.  Simi- 
lar cases  are  Beck  v.  Kantorowicz,  3 
Kay  &  J.  230;  Printing  Co.  v.  Green, 
supra;  Mining  Co.  v.  Grant,  11  Ch. 
Div.  918;  Bagnall  v.  Carlton,  supra; 
Kent  v.  Brickmaking  Co.,  17  Law  T. 
(N.  S.)  77;  Water  Co.  v.  Flash,  97 
Cal.  610,  32  Pac.  R.  600.  *  *  *  A 
careful  examination  of  the  cases  will, 
we  think,  disclose  two  grounds  of  lia- 
bility of  the  defendants  to  corpora- 
tions for  undisclosed  profits  resulting 
from  transactions  with  such  corpora- 

CORP.  2 


tions;  First,  where  the  defendants 
are  corporate  fiduciaries.  The  char- 
acteristic of  this  relation  is  trust. 
Such  a  relation  undoubtedly  exists 
between  companies  and  their  officers, 
such  as  directors.  Mallory  v.  Mallory- 
Wheeler  Co.,  61  Conn.  135,  23  Atl.  R. 
707.  With  reference  to  promoters, 
since  a  man  can  not  receive  an  ap- 
pointment from  a  non-existent  com- 
pany, the  proof  may  be  less  obvious ; 
but  it  may,  nevertheless,  be  shown 
conclusively  by  a  variety  of  repre- 
sentations, admissions,  and  acts.  The 
second  ground  of  liability  is  fraud. 
The  law  does  not  prohibit  a  promoter 
from  dealing  with  his  company,  but  he 
must  make  full  disclosure  to  the  com- 
pany of  his  relations  to  the  property 
that  is  the  subject  of  his  deal.  Sup- 
pression, concealment,  or  misrepre- 
sentation of  material  facts  is  fraud, 
upon  proof  of  which  rescission  of 
contract,  or  repayment  of  the  secret 
profits,  will  be  compelled." 

1  Emma  Silver  M.  Co.  v.  Grant,  L.  R. 
11  Ch.  Div.  918;  Pittsburg  Mining  Co. 
v.  Spooner,  74  Wis.  307,  s.  c.  17  Am.  St. 
R.  149  and  note;  Lydney,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Bird,  L.  R.  33  Ch.  Div.  85,  s.  c.  55  L. 
T.   N.   S.  558;  Emery  v.  Parrott,  107 
Mass.  95;  Simons  v.  Vulcan  Oil,  etc., 
Co.,  61  Pa.  St.  202,  s.  c.  100  Am.  Dec. 
628. 

2  Getty  v.  Devlin,   54    N.  Y.   403; 
Chandler  v.  Bacon,  30  Fed.  R.  538, 
540;  Densmore  Oil  Co.  v.  Densmore, 
64  Pa.  St.  43 ;  Bagnall  v.  Carlton,  L.  R. 
6  Ch.  Div.  371;  Emery  v.  Parrott,  107 
Mass.  95. 

8  Emma  Silver  M.  v.  Grant,  L.  R.  11 


18 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  12 


been  held  that  the  company  may  sue  the  seller  to  recover  such 
a  commission  if  it  is  not  yet  paid,1  or  it  may,  in  a  proper  case, 
upon  discovery  oi  the  unfair  character  of  the  transaction,  re- 
scind the  contract  of  sale  and  sue  the  promoters  to  recover  the 
moneys  paid  them  for  the  property.8 

§  12.   Promoter  may  sell  property  to  the  corporation. — A 

promoter  may,  however,  honestly  and  fairly  sell  to  the  com- 
pany property  which  he  owned  before  instituting  the  scheme 
for  incorporation.3  This  is  true  even  when  the  scheme  relates 
to  the  development  of  the  very  property  which  he  sells  to  the 
corporation.4  But  it  seems  that  the  corporation  may  rescind 
such  a  contract,  if  the  sale  be  made  for  an  exorbitant  price  and 
without  disclosing  the  real  ownership  of  the  property.5  And 
after  the  formation  of  the  company  is  begun  a  promoter  can 
not  purchase  property  and  sell  it  to  the  corporation  at  an  ad- 
vanced price  without  a  full  disclosure  of  the  facts.6 


Ch.  Div.  918 ;  Lydney,  etc., Co.  v.  Bird, 
L.  R.  33  Ch.  Div.  85,  55  L.  T.  N.  S. 
558;  Beck  v.  Kantorowicz,  3  Kay  & 
J.  230. 

1  Whaley,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Green,  L.  R. 
5  Q.  B.  Div.  109,  41  L.  T.  N.  S.  674. 

2  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Mining  Co.  v.  Jack- 
son et  al.,  5  Cent.  L.  J.  317 ;  Phos- 
phate Sewage  Co.  v.  Hartmont,  L.  R. 
5  Ch.  Div.  394,  s.  c.  37  L.  T.  N.  S.  9. 
"The  corporation  is  the  proper  plaint- 
iff in  a  suit  to  set  aside  the  promoter's 
acts."    Taylor   on    Private  Corpora- 
tions,  §  83,  citing  Ex-Mission  Land 
Co.  v.  Flash,  97  Cal.  610.     So,  in  a 
suit  to  recover  the  avails  of  a  secret 
agreement  between  him  and  one  from 
whom  the  corporation  purchases  prop- 
erty.    Yale  Gas  Stove  Co.  r.  Wilcox. 
(Conn.)  25  L.  R.  A.  90.     See,  also,  3 
Pom.  Eq.  Jur.,  §§  1094,  1096. 

3  Taylor  on  Priv.  Corp.,  §83;   Bur- 
bank  v.  Dennis,  101  Cal.  90,  s.  c.  35 
Pac.  R.  444;  Plaquemines,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Buck,  (N.  J.)  27  Atl.  R.  1094.    See, 
also,  note  to  Yale  Gas  Stove  Co.  v. 


Wilcox,  25  L.  R.  A.  90,  and  note  to 
Pittsburg  Miii.  Co.  v.  Spooner,  74  Wis. 
307,  s.  c.  17  Am.  St.  R.  149. 

4  Don-is  v.  French,  4  Hun(N.Y.)292; 
Cover's  Case,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  Div.182 ;  Sey- 
mour v.  Spring  Forest,  etc.,  Ass'n,  144 
N.  Y.  333,  s.  c.  26  L.  R.  A,  859;  Dens- 
more  Oil  Co.  v.  Densmore,  64  Pa.  St. 
43. 

5  In  re  Cape  Breton  Co.,  L.  R.  26 Ch. 
Div.  221,  L.  R.  29  Ch.  Div.  795;  Lind- 
say Petroleum,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kurd,  L. 
R.   5  P.   C.  221;  Taylor  on  Private 
Corporations,  §  83.   But  see  Densmore 
Oil  Co.  v.  Densmore,  64  Pa.  St.  43. 

6  South  Joplin  Land  Co.  v.  Case,  104 
Mo.  572;    Paducah  Land,  etc.  Co.  v. 
Mulholland,  15  Ky.  Law  R.  22;   Ex- 
Mission  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Flash,  97 
Cal.  610;    Plaquemines,   etc.,  Co.  v. 
Buck,  (N.  J.)  27  Atl.  R.  1094;  Pitts- 
burg  Min.  Co.  v.  Spooner,  74  Wis.  307, 
s.  c.  17  Am.  St.  R.  149.     Where  a  pro- 
moter fraudulently  represents  that  lif 
has  bought  property  for  a  proposed 
corporation  at  a  certain  price,  and  the 


§  13        PROMOTION    AND    FORMATION    OF    THE    CORPORATION 


19 


§  13.  Personal  liability  of  promoters — When  partners.— The 
promoters,  as  a  general  rule,  are  personally  liable  on  all  con- 
tracts entered  into  by  them  before  the  organization  is  complet- 
ed,1 except  where  they  have  expressly  stipulated  against  per- 
sonal liability,  or  except,  perhaps,  where  the  contract  is  made 
in  the  name  of  the  proposed  corporation  alone  and  the  credit 
is  knowingly  given  to  it  and  not  to  the  promoters.2  A  pro- 
moter can  not,  ordinarily,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  that  he 
has  received  authority  to  act  for  his  associates,  render  them 
responsible  for  his  acts,8  for  the  several  promoters  are  not  part- 
They  may,  however,  take  on  the  character  of  partners 


ners. 


by  holding  themselves  out  as  such,5  or  by  fraudulently  acting 
in  concert  for  their  own  common  personal  benefit.6     If  the 


corporation  pays  him  that  price,  it 
may,  after  discovery  of  the  fraud,  sue 
him  for  the  profit  thus  made.  Si- 
mons v.  Vulcan  Oil,  etc.,  Co.,  61  Pa. 
St.  202,  s.  c.  100  Am.  Dec.  628. 

1  Hurt  v.  Salisbury,  55  Mo.  310;Tay- 
lor  on  Priv.  Corp.,  §  76 ;  Kelner  v.  Bax- 
ter, L.  R.  2  C.  P.  174;   Scott  v.  Lord 
Ebury,  36  L.  J.  C.  P.  161.     See,  also, 
Manistee  Lumber  Co.  v.  Union  Nat. 
Bank,  143  111.  490;  Hersey  v.  Tally, 
(Colo.)  44  Pac.  R.  854. 

2  Rennie  v.  Clarke,  5  Ex.  292 ;   Hig- 
gins  v.  Hopkins,  3  Exch.  163 ;   Land- 
man  r.Entwistle,  7  Ex.  632.  See  note  to 
Pittsburg  Min.  Co.  v.  Spooner,  74  Wis. 
307,  17  Am.  St.  R.  149,  162,  and  post, 
§190.  They  can  not  be  held  liable  to  one 
who  knowingly  agrees  to  accept  and 
does  accept  the  notes  of  a  corporation 
then  contemplated  and  afterwards  or- 
ganized in  payment,  and  parol  evi- 
dence  is    admissible    to    show  such 
knowledge  and  agreement  where  the 
notes  were  signed  by  the  company 
with  the  names  and  titles  of  the  offi- 
cers, especially  to  contradict  the  con- 
tention of  the  plaintiff  that  the  notes 
of  the  company  were  accepted  through 
a  misunderstanding.     Case  Mfg.  Co. 


v.  Soxman,  138  U.  S.  431,  s.  c.  11  Sup. 
Ct.  R.  360. 

8  Patrick  v.  Reynolds,  1  Com.  B.  N. 
S.  727;  Williams  v.  Pigott,  5  Eng. 
Rail,  and  Canal  C.  544;  Johnson  v. 
Corser,  34  Minn.  355. 

4  Reynell  v.  Lewis,  15  Mees.  &  W. 
517 ;  Bailey  v.  Macaulay,  13  Q.  B.  815 ; 
IThomp.  Corp.,  §421.  See  Davidson  v. 
Hobson,  1  Mo.  App.  Reporter  28.  And 
they  can  not  be  held  liable  as  part- 
ners under  a  complaint  which  does 
not    proceed    upon  that    theory  but 
simply  seeks  to  hold  them  personally 
liable  in  the  event  that  it  is  ascertained 
that    the    subsequent    incorporation, 
which  was  contemplated  by  all  par- 
ties at  the  time  of  the  contract,  was 
defective,  and  to  hold  them  liable  as 
stockholders  if    it  should   be  deter- 
mined to  be  an  effective  incorpora- 
tion.     Shields  v.   Clifton,  etc.,  Co., 
94  Tenn.  123,  26  L.  R.  A.  509.     See, 
also,  Buffington   v.  Bardon,  80  Wis. 
635,  s.  c.  50  N.  W.  R.  776. 

5  Collingwood  v.  Berkeley,  15  C.  B. 
N.  S.  145 ;  Lake  v.  Duke  of  Argyll,  6 
Q.  B.  477. 

•  Chandler  v.  Bacon,  30  Fed.  R.  538 ; 
Colt  v.  Woollaston,  2  P.  Wms.  154. 


20 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§14 


scheme  prove  abortive,  and  the  proposed  corporation  is  never 
chartered,  the  expenses  incurred  in  the  attempted  organization 
must  usually  be  borne  by  the  promoters,1  and  the  subscribers, 
unless  estopped  by  acquiescence  or  some  act  of  their  own,  may 
recover  back  the  money  paid  for  shares  of  its  stock.2  The  pro- 
moters are  also  liable  to  one  whom  they  have  induced  to  sub- 
scribe by  fraudulent  representations.8 

§  14.  Contracts  of  promoters — When  binding  on  corpora- 
tion.— The  promoters  can  not  bind  the  corporation  by  their 
contracts  made  before  the  organization  of  the  company,4  except 
so  far  as  it  adopts  or  ratines  their  acts,  either  directly5  or,  in 


See,  also,  Hornblower  v.  Crandall,  7 
Mo.  App.  220,  affirmed  in  78  Mo.  581 ; 
New  Sombrero  Phosphate  Co.  v.  Er- 
langer,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  Div.  73,  36  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  222;  Getty  v.  Devlin,  54 
N.  Y.  403. 

1  Nockels  v.  Crosby,  3  Barn.  &  C. 
814,  822;  Johnson  v.  Corser,  34  Minn. 
355;   Sproat  v.  Porter,  9  Mass.   300. 
This  may,  however,  be  regulated  by 
contract  or  depend  upon  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  each  particular  case. 

2  Williams  v.  Page,  24  Beav.  654; 
Walstab  v.  Spottiswoode,  15  Mees.  & 
W.  501 ;   Ashpitel  v.  Sercombe,  5  Ex. 
147 ;   Nockels  v.  Crosby,  3  Barn.  &  C. 
814 ;   Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  «. 
Brodie,  9  Hare  823.     But  see  Moore  v. 
Garwood,  4  Ex.  681;   Taylor  on  Priv. 
Corp.,  §104. 

'Miller  v.  Barber,  66  N.  Y.  558; 
Paddock  v.  Fletcher,  42  Vt.  389 ;  Short 
v.  Stevenson,  63  Pa.  St.  95;  Teachout 
v.  Van  Hoesen,  76  Iowa  113,  s.  c.  1  L. 
R.  A.  664;  Cridland  v.  De  Mauley,  1 
De  Gex  &  S.  459,  12  Jur.  701 ;  Glasier 
v.  Rolls,  60  L.  T.  N.  S.  59,  s.  c.  L.  R. 
42  Ch.  D.  436.  See,  also,  Brewster  v. 
Hatch,  122  N.  Y.  349;  Capel  v.  Sim's, 
etc.,  Co.,  58  L.  T.  N.  S.  807,  57  L.  J. 
Ch.  713;  Gerhard  v.  Bates,  2  El.  &  Bl. 
476. 

4  Munson  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co., 


103  N.  Y.  58,  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
377 ;  Perry  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
44  Ark.  383,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  44  ; 
Rockford,  R.  I.  &  St.  L.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Sage,  65  111.  328;  Caledonian,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Helensburgh,  2  Macq.  391 ;  Carmody 
tJ.Powers,  60  Mich.  26,  26  N.W.  R.  801; 
New  York  and  Hud.  Riv.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Ketchum,  27  Conn.  170;  Hill  v.  Gould, 
(Mo.)  30  S.  W.  R.  181 ;  Abbott  v.  Hap- 
good,  150  Mass.  248,  s.  c.  15  Am.  St. 
R.  193.  A  promoter  can  not  bind  the 
corporation  by  contract  made  in  ob- 
taining a  subscription  before  the 
organization  of  the  corporation.  Joy 
v.  Manion,  28  Mo.  App.  55. 

5  Wood  v.  Whelen,  93  111.  153 ;  Payne 
v.  New  South  Wales,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Ex. 
283;  Hutchinson  v.  Surrey,  etc.,  Asso- 
ciation, 11  Com.  B.  689;  Low  v.  Con- 
necticut, etc.,  45  N.  H.  370,  46  N.  H. 
284;  Stanton  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  59  Conn.  272,  s.  c.  21  Am.  St.  R. 
110;  Pratt  v.  Oshkosh  Match  Co., 
89  Wis.  406,  62  N.  W.  R.  84 ;  Getting  r. 
Grant,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  65  Fed.  R.  545. 
It  has  been  held  that  the  president 
and  general  manager  may  adopt  and 
ratify  a  contract  made  by  himself  for 
the  corporation  before  it  was  legally 
created,  for  services  for  the  company 
which  he  would  have  authority  to  en- 
gage if  no  previous  contract  existed. 


§   15       PROMOTION    AND    FORMATION    OF   THE    CORPORATION.         21 


some  cases,  by  accepting  the  benefits  of  contracts  made  for  it.1 
The  corporation  can  only  take  advantage  of  an  executory  con- 
tract entered  into  by  the  promoters  by  fulfilling  all  the  engage- 
ments entered  into  by  them  on  its  behalf.2  It  can  not,  as  a  rule, 
accept  and  retain  the  benefit  without  assuming  the  burden.3 

§  15.  Legislative  authority  essential  to  creation  of  corpo- 
ration.— A  corporation  has  been  defined  as  a  body  consisting 
of  one*  or  more  persons,  established  by  law  for  certain  specific 
purposes,  with  the  capacity  of  succession  and  with  special 


Oakes  v.  Cattaraugus  Water  Co.,  143 
X.  Y.  430,  s.  c.  26  L.  R.  A.  544.  See, 
also,  Arapahoe  Investment  Co.  r. 
Platt,  (Colo.)  39  Pac.  R.  584. 

1  Stanton  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  59  Conn.  272,  s.  c.  21  Am.  St.  R. 
110;  Edwards  v.  Grand  Junction  R. 
Co.,  1  Mylne  &  C.  650;  Coyote  Gold, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Ruble,  8  Oregon  284;  Bells 
Gap  R.  Co.  v.  Christy,  79  Pa.  St.  59; 
Moore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Towers,  etc.,  Co.,  87 
Ala.  206,  s.  c.  13  Am.  St.  R.  23 ;  Schreyer 
v.  Turner,  etc.,  Co.,  (Oreg.)  43  Pac. 
R.  719;  Stanley  v.  Birkenhead  R. 
Co.,  9  Simons,  264.  See,  also,  Hall  v. 
Vermont  and  Mass.  R.  R.  Co.,  28  Vt. 
401  ;  Bommer  v.  American  Spiral,  etc., 
Co.,  81  N.  Y.  468;  Whitney  o.Wyman, 
101  IT.  S.  392 ;  Battelle  v.  North  western, 
etc.,  Co.,  37  Minn.  89;  Frankfort,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Churchill,  6  T.  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 
427,  s.  c.  17  Am.  Dec.  159;  Seymours. 
Spring  Forest,  etc.,  Ass'n,  144  N.  Y. 
333,  s.  c.  26  L.  R.  A.  859.  In  some 
cases,  however,  it  is  denied  that  a  cor- 
poration can  ratify  a  contract  so  as  to 
make  it  relate  back  to  its  inception 
before  the  corporation  came  into  ex- 
istence. Abbott  v.  Hapgood,  150  Mass. 
248,  s.  c.  15  Am.  St.  R.  193,  citing 
Kelner  v.  Baxter,  L.  R.  2  Com.  P.  174 ; 
Gunn  v.  London,  etc.,  Co.,  12  Com.  B. 
N.  S.  694;  Melhado  v.  Porto  Alegre, 
etc.,  Ry.,  L.  R.  9  Com.  P.  503;  In  re 
Empress,  etc.,  Co.,  16  Ch.  Div.  125. 
But,  as  we  understand  these  decisions, 
they  do  not  decide  that  the  corpora- 


tion may  not  be  held  as  upon  a  new 
contract  from  the  time  of  its  adoption. 
McArthur  v.  Times  Printing  Co.,  48 
Minn.  319,  s.  c.  51  N.  W.  R.  216,  31 
Am.  St.  R.  653. 

2  Taylor  on  Priv.  Corp.,  §  90 ;  Bur- 
rows v.  Smith,  10  N.  Y.  550;  Bedford 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stanley,  32  L.  J.  Eq.  60. 
Unless  it  in  some  way  accepts  the 
contract  so  as  to  make  it  liable  for 
failure  to  perform  the  same  it  can  not 
successfully  claim  the  right  to  enforce 
the  contract  to  which  it  never  became 
a  party.  Penn  Match  Co.  v.  Hapgood, 
141  Mass.  145,  s.  c.  7  N.  E.  R.  22.  See, 
also,  Gentt?.  Manufacturer's,  etc.,  Co., 
107  111.  652,  s.  c.  8  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cas.  306 ;  Van  Buren  Div.  Toledo,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Lamphear,  54  Mich.1  575; 
note  to  Moore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Towers,  etc., 
Co.,  13  Am.  St.  R.  23. 

8  Bell's  Gap  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Christy,  79 
Pa.  St.  59;  Low  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R. 
R.,  45  N.  H.  370,  46  N.  H.  284;  Pax- 
ton  Cattle  Co.  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  21 
Neb.  621,  s.  c.  59  Am.  R.  852;  Grand 
Junction  R.  R.  Co.,  1  Mylne  &  C.  650. 
But  see  Weatherford,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 
v.  Granger,  86  Tex.  350;  Taft  v.  Qua- 
ker, etc.,  Bank,  141  Pa.  St.  550,  s.  c.  21 
Atl.  R.  660;  Davis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hills- 
boro,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Ind.  App.  42,  s.  c. 
37  N.  E.  R.  549;  Be  Rotherham,  etc., 
Co.,  50  L.  T.  N.  S.  219. 

*Penobscot  B.  Co.  v.  Lamson,  16 
Me.  224. 


22 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  10 


privileges  not  possessed  by  individuals,  yet  acting  in  many 
respects  as  an  individual.1  It  is  necessary  to  the  creation  of 
the  corporation  that  it  be  authorized  by  legislative  enactment.2 
It  was  formerly  a  criminal  offense  to  assume  to  act  as  a  corpo- 
ration without  such  authority,8  and  is  still  held  to  be  so  in  the- 
ory in  some  jurisdictions.4 

§  16.  Creation  by  special  charter. — Such  legislative  author- 
ity was  formerly  given  by  special  act,  in  which  the  powers, 
duties  and  liabilities  of  the  specified  corporation  were  enumer- 
ated at  length,  and  it  is  still  granted  in  this  way  in  some  states.5 
It  is  not  necessary  to  the  existence  of  a  corporation  that  it  be 
expressly  declared  a  corporation  in  so  many  words.6  It  is  suf- 
ficient if  powers  are  granted  to  a  body  of  men  that  can  only  be 
exercised  by  a  corporation.7  Where  certain  designated  persons 
are  declared  to  be  a  corporation  and  given  corporate  powers  by 
a  special  charter,  they  have  been  held  to  become  a  corporation 


*4  Am.  &  Eng.  Enc.  186;  Mora- 
wetz  on  Priv.  Corp.  (2d  ed.),J§§  1, 227 ; 
1  Thomp.  Corp.,  §§  1,  2. 

2  Angell  &  Ames  on  Corporations, 
§§  66-75 ;  People  v.  Assessors,  1  Hill 
(N.  Y.)  616;  Franklin  Bridge  Co.  v. 
Wood,  14  Ga.  80;  Hoadley  v.  County 
Commissioners,  105  Mass.  519.  Con- 
gress has  power  to  charter  railroad 
companies  in  the  territories  within  its 
jurisdiction.  Thomson  v.  Pac.  R.  R. 
Co.,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  579;  Union  Pacific 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lincoln  County,  1  Dill. 
(U.  S.)314;  California  v.  Pacific  R. 
R.,  127  U.  S.  1,  39,  s.  c.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R. 
1073. 

8  Duvergier  v.  Fellows,  5  Bing.  248, 
5  Moore  &  P.  403. 

«  People  v.  Ridgley,  21  111.  65.  It  is 
so  declared  by  statute  in  Iowa.  Rev. 
Stat.  Iowa,  1888,  §  1072. 

5  An  act  declaring  that  "a  company 
is  hereby  created  called  the  St.  Joseph 
and  Iowa  Railroad  Company,"  and 
naming  the  first  board  of  directors, 
was  held  to  be  a  present  grant  of  cor- 


porate powers,  of  which  the  construc- 
tion and  operation  of  part  of  its  road 
by  such  company  was  a  sufficient  ac- 
ceptance. Roosa  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  114  Mo.  508.  See,  also,  Little 
Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Little  Rock,  etc., 
Co.,  36  Ark.  663,  684;  Stoops  v. 
Greensburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Ind.  47. 

6  Denton  v.  Jackson,  2  Johns,  Ch. 
(N.  Y.)  320;    Com.  v.  West  Chester 
Co.,  3  Grant  Cas.  (Pa.)  200. 

7  Atkinson  -c.  Bemis,  11  N.  H.  44; 
Coburn  v.  Ellenwood,  4   N.  H.  101; 
Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v.  Common- 
wealth, 50  Pa.  St.  399;   Dunn  v.  Ore- 
gon University,  9  Ore.  357;  Inhabi- 
tants of  Springfield  v.  Miller,  12  Mass. 
415;    Liverpool    Ins.   Co.   v.    Massa- 
chusetts, 10  Wall.  (U.  S.)  566 ;  Blanch- 
ard  v.  Kaull,   44   Cal.  440;    Dean  v. 
Davis,  51  Cal.  406.    But  see  State  v. 
Davis,  23  Ohio  St.  434 ;  Neil  v.  Board, 
31  Ohio  St.  15;  Shelton  v.  Banks,  10 
Gray  (.Mass.)  401 ;  Walsh  v.  New  York 
and  Brooklyn  Bridge,  96  N.  Y.  427. 


§  17      PROMOTION    AND    FORMATION    OF   THE    CORPORATION.          23 


eo  instanti.1     But  a  man  can  not  be  compelled  to  become  a 
member  of  a  private  corporation  against  his  will.2 

§  17.  Acceptance  of  charter. — For  the  reason  stated  in  the 
last  section,  a  special  charter  does  not,  ordinarily,  create  an 
effective  private  corporation  until  it  is  accepted.3  But,  as  spe- 
cial charters  are  usually  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  are  named, 
an  acceptance  may  be  presumed  in  many  cases.  Thus,  the 
fact  that  they  had  applied  for  the  charter,*  that  they  afterwards 
exercised  the  powers  conferred,5  or  the  like,6  is  strong,  if  not 
conclusive,  evidence  of  an  acceptance.  It  is  not,  therefore,  es- 
sential that  an  express  acceptance  of  the  charter  should  appear 
in  the  records  of  the  corporation.7  The  acceptance  must  usually 
be  unconditional,  for  a  charter  can  not  be  accepted  in  part  and 
rejected  in  part,  but  must  either  be  accepted  or  rejected  as  of- 
fered.8 Although  directors  may  sometimes  bind  a  corporation 


kittle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  r. 
Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Ark.  663, 
684;  Talledega  Ins.  Co.  v.  Landers, 
43  Ala.  115;  Stoops  v.  Greensburgh, 
etc.,  Plank  Road  Co.,  10  Ind.  47. 
Compare  Dartmouth  College  v.  Wood- 
ward, 4  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  518;  State 
v.  Dawson,  16  Ind.  40. 

8 2  Kent.  Com.  277;  Ellis  v.  Mar- 
shall, 2  Mass.  269,  s.  c.  3  Am.  Dec.  49; 
Lauman  v.  Railroad  Co.,  30  Pa.  St.  46, 
s.  c.  72  Am.  Dec.  685. 

'Lexington  &  West  Cambridge  R. 
R.  Co.  v.  Chandler,  13  Met.  (Mass.) 
311 ;  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward, 
4  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  518,  708;  Haslett  v. 
Wotherspoon,  1  Strobh.  Eq.  209 ;  Quin- 
lan  «.  Houston,  etc.,  Co.,  (Tex.)  34  S. 
W.  R.  738. 

4  City  of  Atlanta  r.  Gate  City,  etc., 
Co.,  71  Ga.  106 ;  Astor  v.  N.  Y.  Rail- 
road Co.,  48  Hun  (N.  Y.)  562;  Mid- 
dlesex, etc.,  v.  Davis,  3  Met.  (Mass.) 
137.  But  the  presumption  of  accept- 
ance arising  from  the  application  for 
the  charter  may,  it  seems,  be  rebutted 
by  proof  that  no  steps  were  taken  to 


organize  or  proceed  under  it,  al- 
though a  great  many  years  had  elapsed 
since  it  was  granted.  Newton  v.  Car- 
bery,  5  Cranch  C.  C.  (U.  S.)  632. 

5  Illinois  River  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Zimmer, 
20  111.  654 ;   Eastern  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bos- 
ton and  Maine  R.  R.,  Ill  Mass.  125; 
Newton  v.  Carbery,  5  Cranch  C.   C. 
(U.  S.)   632;    Talledega  Ins.   Co.  v. 
Landers,  43  Ala.  115. 

6  Taylor  r.  Newberne,  2  Jones  Eq. 
(X.  Car.)   141;    Gleaves  v.  Turnpike 
Co.,  1  Sneed  (Tenn.)  491 ;   McKay  v. 
Beard,  20  S.  Car.  156;  St.  Paul  Divis- 
ion v.  Brown,  11  Minn.  356;  Snead  v. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  11  Ind. 
104. 

7  Russell  r.  McLellan,   14  Pick. 
(Mass.)  63.     The  question  of  accept- 
ance is  usually  a  question  of  fact  for 
the   jury.      Hammond  v.  Straus,  53 
Md.  1. 

'Lyons  v.  Orange,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
32  Md.  18;  Kenton  County  Court  v. 
Bank  Lick,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Bush  (Ky.) 
529 ;  Rex  v .  Westwood,  2  Dow  &  Cl. 
21.  s.  c.  7  Bing.  1,  90. 


24  THE    CORPORATION.  §  18 

by  acts  performed  by  them  in  other  states  than  that  in  which 
the  corporation  was  created,  yet  the  meetings  of  the  stockhold- 
ers or  corporators  must  usually  be  held  within  the  jurisdiction 
creating  the  corporation,  and  it  has  been  held  that  the  accept- 
ance of  a  charter  by  the  corporators  in  their  constituent  capac- 
ity at  a  meeting  held  in  another  state  for  the  purpose  of  organ- 
ization is  ineffective.1  If  a  charter  is  granted  by  the  legisla- 
ture without  any  application  upon  the  part  of  those  to  whom 
it  is  granted,  it  is  regarded  as  a  mere  offer  upon  the  part  of 
the  state,  and  may  be  withdrawn  at  any  time  before  it  is  ac- 
cepted.2 When  accepted,  a  charter  takes  effect  immediately,1 
unless  otherwise  provided. 

§  18.  Incorporation  under  general  laws. — To  prevent  the 
grant  of  special  and  exclusive  privileges,  to  secure  uniformity 
in  the  powers  of  all  corporations  of  the  same  class  and  render 
them  subject  to  all  such  general  laws  as  may  be  enacted  for  the 
government  of  corporations  of  that  class,  and  to  secure  to  the 
state  the  right  to  amend  or  repeal  the  charter  at  pleasure,  pro- 
vision is  made  for  the  creation  of  corporations  by  general  laws 
in  most  of  the  states,4  in  several  of  which  the  constitutions 
forbid  the  passage  of  any  special  act  chartering  railroads.5 

1  Miller  v.  Ewer,  27  Me.  509,  s.  c.  46  8  Kaiser  ».  Lawrence  Savings  Bank, 
Am.  Dec.  619,  and  note ;  Smith  v.  Sil-  56  Iowa  104,  s.  c.  41  Am.  R.  85.    See, 
ver  Valley,  etc.,  Co.,  64  Md.  85,  s.  c.  also,  Colemanr.  Coleman,  78Ind.  344; 
54  Am.  R.  760.    See,  also,  Freeman  v.  Cincinnati,  H.  &  D.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Cole, 
Machias,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Me.  343;   Bank  29  Ohio  St.  126. 

of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  (U.  S.)  *  Morawetz  on  Private  Corp.  (2ded.) 
519;  Aspinwall  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  §12;  Stimson's  Am.  St.  Law,  §  8520; 
Co.,  20  Ind.  492,  s.  c.  83  Am.  Dec.  329.  Pierce  on  Railroads,  3 ;  Cook  on  Stock- 
But  compare  Missouri  Lead,  etc.,  Co.  holders,  §§6,  33  and  34;  1  Thomp. 
v.  Reinhard,  114  Mo.  218,  s.  c.  35  Am.  Corp.,  §  540. 
St.  R.  746.  s  This  is  true  of  Arkansas,  Colorado, 

2  State  v.  Dawson,  16  Ind.  40.     See,  California,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Kansas, 
also,  Cincinnati,  H.  &  I.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Missouri,  Ne- 
Clifford,  113  Ind.  460,  463,  464 ;   State  braska,  New  Jersey,  Texas,  New  York, 
v.  Bull,  16  Conn.  179,  191 ;   Mississip-  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Nevada,  Mary- 
pi  Society  v.  Musgrove,  44  Miss.  820,  land,  Maine,  Oregon,  Ohio,  Wisconsin 
B.  c.  7  Am.  R.  723;   Chesapeake,  etc.,  and  the  territories.    Stimson's  Am. 
Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  4  G.  St.  Law,  §441;  1  Thomp.  Corp.,  §§539, 
&  J.  (Md.)  1 ;  Illinois  River  R.  R.  Co.  540 ;  1  Beach  on  Private  Corporations, 
v.  Zimmer,  20  111.  654.  §  8.    The   Kansas  act  in  relation  to 


§  18      PROMOTION   AND    FORMATION    OF   THE    CORPORATION.  25 


These  general  laws  usually  provide  for  the  filing  of  articles  of 
-association,  conforming  to  certain  statutory  requirements,  by 
persons  who  have  subscribed  stock  in  the  projected  company. 
The  persons  subscribing  to  the  articles  of  incorporation  need 
not  be  residents  of  the  state  issuing  the  charter,  unless  the 
statute  requires  it.1  When  the  requisite  stock-  is  subscribed, 
and  the  articles  signed  and  filed  as  provided  (generally  with 
the  secretary  of  state)  the  subscribers  and  stockholders  usually 
become  a  corporation,  clothed  with  the  powers  and  charged 
with  the  duties  and  liabilities  of  corporations.8  Proof  of  the 
act  of  incorporation  and  of  user  or  corporate  action  under  it 
is  generally  sufficient  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  corpo- 
ration,3 and  a  proper  certificate  of  incorporation,  or  copy  of 


the  Missouri,  Kansas  and  Texas  Rail- 
way Company  and  the  Union  Pacific 
Railway  Company,  purporting  to  con- 
vey and  extend  all  the  rights  pos- 
sessed to  any  part  of  their  line  to 
their  entire  road,  and  to  give  a  right 
of  way  over  all  lands  as  full  as  that 
enjoyed  over  other  lands  under  other 
acts,  is  in  violation  of  Kan.  Const., 
Art.  12,  §  1,  providing  that  the  legisla- 
ture shall  pass  no  special  act  confer- 
ring corporate  powers.  Roberts  v. 
Missouri,  K.  &  T.  R.  Co.,  43  Kan.  102, 
43  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  532,  22  Pac.  R. 
1006. 

1  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Penn.  R.  Co.,  4 
Stewart  (31  N.  J.  Eq.)  475;  National 
Docks  R.  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  5 
Stewart  (32  N.  J.  Eq.)  755;  Detwiller 
tj.  Commonwealth,  131  Pa.  St.  614,  s. 
c.  7  L.  R.  A.  357 ;  note  to  State  v.  Man- 
ufacturers, etc.,  Ass'n,  24  L.  R.  A.  252 ; 
Commonwealth  v.  Hemingway,  131 
Pa.  St.  614,  s.  c.  7  L.  R.  A.  360. 

8Clarkson  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co., 
12  N.  Y.  304;  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Danville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  111.  113; 
Hunt  v.  Kansas  and  Missouri  Bridge 
Co.,  11  Kan.  412;  Hoagland  v.  Cincin 
nati,  etc.,  Railroad  Co.,  18  Ind.  452; 
James  v.  Greensboro,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Ind. 


379.  The  requirements  of  the  stat- 
ute must  be  substantially  complied 
with.  People  v.  Chambers,  42  Cal. 
201 ;  McCallion  v.  Hibernia,  etc., 
Society,  70  Cal.  163,  s.  c.  12  Pac.  R. 
114;  Reed  v.  Richmond  Street  R. 
Co.,  50  Ind.  342;  Abbott  v.  Omaha, 
etc.,  Co.,  4  Neb.  416;  Eaton  v.  Aspin- 
wall,  19  N.  Y.  119;  Peoples.  Cheese- 
man,  7  Colo.  376,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  400;  Childs  v.  Hurd,  32  W.  Va. 
66,  s.  c.  9  S.  E.  R.  362.  But  slight 
omissions  in  the  certificate  will  not 
vitiate  it.  People  v.  Stockton,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  45  Cal.  306;  Commonwealth  v. 
Central  Pass.  R.  Co.,  52  Pa.  St.  506; 
Rogers  v.  Danby  Universalist  Society, 
19  Vt.  187;  Eakright  v.  Logansport, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  13  Ind.  404;  Buffalo, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gary,  26  N.  Y.  75.  The 
fact  that  nearly  all  the  officers  of  a 
railroad  company  are  also  officers  of 
other  railroad  companies  does  not 
affect  the  corporate  existence  of  the 
former  company,  and,  under  the  Kan- 
sas law,  its  existence  dates  from  the 
filing  of  its  charter.  Southern  Kan. 
&  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Towner,  41  Kan.  72, 
s.  c.  21  Pac.  R.  221. 

8Braintree,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Braintree, 
146  Mass.  482 ;   Bank  v.  International 


26 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§18 


the  original  articles  of  incorporation,  is,  in  most  states,  prima 
facie  evidence  thereof;1  but  a  certificate  which  fails  to  comply, 
in  substance,  with  the  statutory  requirements  is  not  proof  of  a 
valid  corporate  existence.2  The  articles  of  incorporation  must 
specify  the  objects  of  the  corporation  in  at  least  substantial 
compliance  with  the  statute,3  the  place  in  which  its  operations 
are  to  be  carried  on  or  in  which  its  principal  office  is  located,* 
the  amount  of  the  capital  stock,5  and  the  names  and  residences 
of  the  incorporators,6  and  the  like.7  In  the  case  of  a  railroad 
company  it  is  also  usually  provided  that  the  line  of  the  road 
shall  be  more  or  less  definitely  described,  but  where  the  statute 
merely  requires  that  the  termini  should  be  stated  and  the  coun- 
ties named  into  or  through  which  it  is  intended  to  pass,  it  is 
sufficient  to  so  describe  the  line  by  designating  such  places  and 
naming  each  county  into  or  through  which  it  is  expected  to 
8  Most  of  the  statutes  require  that  the  articles  of  incor- 


run/ 


Bank,  21  N.  Y.  542;   Columbia,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Meier,  39  Mo.  53;  Wood  v.  Wi- 
ley, etc.,  Co.,  56  Conn.  87,  s.  c.  13  Atl. 
R. 137. 
1 1  Thomp  Corp.,  §  220. 

2  McCallion  v.  Hibernia,  etc.,  Soci- 
ety, 70  Cal.  163,  s.  c.  12  Pac.  R.  114; 
People  v.  Selfridge,  52  Cal.  331 ;  Fifth 
Baptist  Church  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  4  Mackey  (D.  C.)  43. 

3  West  v.  Bullskin,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Ind. 
138;  O'Reiley  v.  Kankakee,  etc.,  Co., 
32  Ind.  169;  Attorney-General  ».  Lor- 
man,  59  Mich.  157;   State  v.  Central 
Ohio,  etc.,  Ass'n,  29  Ohio  St.  399. 

4  Harris  v.  McGregor,  29  Cal.  124; 
People  v.  Beach,  19  Hun  (N.  Y.)  259;^ 
Clegg  v.  Hamilton,  etc.,  Co.,  61  Iowa 
121. 

5  State,  ex  rel.,  v.  Shelbyville,  etc., 
Co.,  41  Ind.  151;    Heinig  v.  Adams, 
etc.,  Co.,  81  Ky.  300. 

6Busenback  v.  Attica.,  etc.,  Co.,  43 
Ind.  265;  Vawter  v.  Franklin  College, 
53  Ind.  88.  But  the  residence  need 
not  be  stated  unless  the  statute  re- 
quires it.  State,  ex  rel.,  v.  Foulkes, 


94  Ind.  493.  It  is  sufficient  if  the 
initials  of  the  Christian  name  be  used. 
State  v.  Beck,  81  Ind.  500. 

7  State  v.  Central  Ohio,  etc.,  Ass'n, 
29  Ohio  St.  399;   New  Orleans,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  Frank,  39  La.  Ann.  707, 
s.  c.  2  So.  R.  310,  s.  c.  30  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  R.  Gas.  275 ;   Piper  v.  Rhodes,  30 
Ind.  309. 

8  Board  v.  Center  Tp.,  105  Ind.  422, 
441.     Where  the  line  is  described  with 
reasonable  certainty  and  the  termini 
are  shown  to  be  in  the  state  in  which 
the  company  is  incorporated,  it  has 
been  held  that  the  fact  that  the  line 
as  described  runs  partly  through  an- 
other state  does  not  invalidate  the  in- 
corporation. Piedmont,  etc.,  R  .R.  Co. 
v.  Speelman,  67  Md.  260,  s.  c.  30  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  316.     An  approximate 
estimate  of  the  length  of  the  road  is 
sufficient  where  the  length  is  required 
to  be  stated.    Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
v.  Hatch,  20  N.  Y.  157.     And  indeii- 
niteness    in    the  description   of    the 
route  may  be  rendered  immaterial  by 
legislative  recognition,  and  the  con- 


§  18       PROMOTION    AND    FORMATION    OF   THE    CORPORATION.  27 


poration  shall  be  signed  and  acknowledged  by  a  certain  num- 
ber of  incorporators,1  and  that  the  certificate  or  copy  shall  be 
filed  with  the  secretary  of  state,  or  other  officer,  or  published 
in  some  specified  manner.  In  some  jurisdictions  the  failure 
to  comply  with  such  a  requirement  has  been  held  not  to  vitiate 
the  organization  or  prevent  the  corporation  from  coming  into 
existence,8  but  much  depends  upon  the  language  of  the  partic- 
ular statute,  and  if  the  requirement  is  a  condition  precedent  it 
must  be  complied  with.8  It  is,  indeed,  the  general  rule  that 
all  conditions  precedent  must  be  substantially  performed.* 
Thus,  where  the  statute  provides  that  a  certain  amount  of  stock 
shall  be  subscribed  before  articles  of  incorporation  can  be  filed, 
or  that  a  certain  percentage  of  the  capital  stock  shall  be  paid 
in  before  the  articles  are  filed,  the  statute  must  be  complied 
with  before  a  corporation  can  be  legally  organized.8  In  the 


struction  and  operation  of  the  road. 
Cayuga  Lake  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Kyle,  5 
Thomp.  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  659,  s.  c.  64  N. 
Y.  185.  See  post,  §  36. 

'People  v.  Montecito,  etc.,  Co.,  97 
Cal.  276,  s.  c.  33  Am.  St.  R.  172;  State 
t.Critchett,  37  Minn.  13 ;  Indianapolis, 
etc.,  Mining  Co.  v.  Herkimer,  46  Ind. 
142;  Corey  v.  Merrill,  61  Vt.  598.  In 
such  a  case  one  who  merely  signs  the 
articles  of  association  without  ac- 
knowledging them  does  not  become  a 
stockholder  and  is  not  bound  by  the 
subscription.  Coppage  v.  Hutton,  124 
Ind  401. 

2  Holmes  v.  Gilliland,  41  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  568;  Granby  Mining  Co.  v.  Rich- 
ards, 95  Mo.  106;  In  re  Shakopee, 
etc.,  Co,,  37  Minn.  91,  s.  c.  33  N.  W. 
R.  219.  See,  also,  Vanneman  v. Young, 
52  N.  J.  L.  403,  s.  c.  3  Lewis  Am.  R. 
R.  &  Corp.  R.  660,  and  note. 

3Bigelow  v.  Gregory,  73  111.  197; 
Childs  v.  Kurd,  32  W.  Va.  66;  Martin 
v.  Deetz,  102  Cal.  55,  s.  c.  41  Am.  St. 
R.  151 ;  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Mining  Co. 
v.  Herkimer,  46  Ind.  142;  State  v. 
Critchett,  37  Minn.  13;  Field  &  Co.  v. 


Cooks,  16  La.  Ann.  153 ;  Clegg  v.  Ham- 
ilton, 61  Iowa  121 ;  Capp  &  McCreary  v. 
Hastings.etc.,  Co.,  40  Neb.  470,  24  L.R. 
A.  259;  Hurt  v.  Salisbury,  55  Mo.  310. 
Where,  however,  the  articles  are  prop- 
erly delivered  to  the  designated  officer 
for  record,  the  fact  that  he  records 
them  in  the  wrong  book  will  not  in- 
validate the  incorporation.  Walton  v. 
Riley,  85  Ky.  413,  s.  c.  3  S.  W.  R.  605. 
See,  also,  State  v.  Foulkes,  94  Ind.  493. 

4  Mokelumne  Hill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wood- 
bury,  14  Cal.  424,  s.  c.  73  Am.  Dec. 
658;  Attorney  General  v.   Hanchett, 
42  Mich.  436 ;  Danbury,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 
v.  Wilson,   22  Conn.   435;  Dutchess, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.   Mabbett,  58  N.  Y. 
397;  Garnett  v.  Richardson,  35  Ark. 
144. 

5  State,  exrel.,  v.  St.  Paul  Co.,  etc.,  92 
Ind.  42;  State,  ex  rel.,  v.  Dillon,  36 
Ind.  388;  Holman  v.  State,  105  Ind. 
569;  People  v.  Chambers,  42  Cal.  201. 
But  where  this  is  not  required  to  pre- 
cede the  filing  of  the  articles  there 
may  be  a  corporate  existence  suffi- 
cient, at  least,  to  withstand  a  collat- 
eral attack.     Eastern  Plank  Road  Co. 


28  THE    CORPORATION.  §  19 

absence,  however,  of  any  provision  upon  the  subject  in  the 
statute  or  contract  of  subscription,  it  has  been  held  not  to  be 
necessary  that  the  entire  capital  stock  should  have  been  sub- 
scribed for  before  the  incorporation.1 

§  19.  Perfecting  the  organization. — Under  some  of  the 
statutes  the  names  of  those  who  are  to  serve  as  directors  for  the 
first  year  must  be  stated  in  the  articles  of  incorporation,  and 
where  such  or  similar  provisions  are  found  it  would  seem  that 
there  must  be  a  preliminary  meeting  and  organization,  or  at 
least  a  selection  in  some  manner  of  those  who  are  to  serve  as 
directors.  But,  ordinarily,  the  articles  of  incorporation  are  first 
executed  and  filed  and  a  meeting  of  the  stockholders  or  mem- 
bers is  then  held  for  the  purpose  of  adopting  by-laws,  electing 
directors,  and  perfecting  the  corporate  organization,2  although, 
as  already  stated,  the  corporation  comes  into  existence,  under 
many  of  the  statutes,  as  soon  as  the  articles  of  incorporation 
are  properly  filed.  The  directors  then  usually  hold  a  directors' 
meeting  and  elect  the  officers.  This,  ordinarily,  completes  the 
corporate  organization,  although  there  may  be  other  statutory 
requirements  that  should  be  complied  with  before  the  corpora- 
tion is  ready  to  do  business.8 

v.  Vaughan,  14  N.  Y.  546;  Palmer  v.  J.  Exch.  227;  Macdougall  v.  Jersey, 

Lawrence,  3  Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  161.    See,  etc.,  Co.,  2  H.  &  Miller  528.    But  see 

also,   Boston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Moring,  15  Shurtz  v.  S.  &  T.   R.  R.  Co.,  9  Mich. 

Gray  (Mass.)  211;  McClinchfl.  Sturgis,  269;  Cabot,  etc.,  Bridge  v.  Chapin,  6 

72  Me.  288;  Cheraw,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Gush.  (Mass.)  50 ;  Salem  Mill  Dam  Co. 

White,  14  S.  C.  51 ;  People*?.  Stockton,  v.  Ropes,  6  Pick. (Mass.)  23 ;  Worcester 

etc.,R.  R.Co.,  45  Cal.  306 ;  Buffalo,  etc.,  and  Nashua  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hinds,  8  Cush. 

R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  20  N.  Y.  157;  Og-  (Mass.)  110;  Livesey  v.  Omaha,  etc., 

densburgh,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v .  Frost,  21  Co.,  5  Neb.  50,  and  compare  City  Hotel 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  541 ;  Spartanburg,  etc.,  v.   Dickinson,    6  Gray   (Mass.)   586; 

R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ezell,  14  S.  C.  281.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wellington, 

1  Schenectady,  etc.,  Plank  Road  Co.  113  Mass.  79.     See  post,  §  111. 

v.  Thatcher,  11  N.  Y.  102;  Johnson  v.  2  See  Walker  v.  Devereaux,  4  Paige 

Kessler,  76  Iowa  411,  s.  c.  41  N.  W.  R.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  229 ;   Lehman  v.  Warner, 

57;  Massey  v.  Citizens,  etc.,  Assn.  22  61  Ala.  455;   McClinch  v.  Sturgis,  72 

Kan.  624;  Minors.  Mechanics' Bank,  Me.  288. 

1  Pet.  (U.  S.)  46 ;  Boiling  v.  Le  Grand,  8  In  the  recent  case  of  Wechselberg 

87  Ala.  482,  s.  c.  6  So.  R.  332;  Water-  v.  Flour  City  Nat.  Bank,  64  Fed.  R. 

ford,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dalbiac,  20  L.  90,  it  was  held  that,  under  the  Wis- 


§  20      PROMOTION    AND    FORMATION    OF    THE    CORPORATION.  29 


§  20.   Defective  organization — Waiver — Collateral  attack. 

— If  the  organization  be  defective,  this  fact  can  not,  as  a  rule, 
be  taken  advantage  of  in  any  collateral  action,1  for  mere  irreg- 
ularities may  be  waived  by  the  state,2  which  alone  can  object  to 


consin  statute,  where  the  requisite 
number  of  persons  duly  signed,  ac- 
knowledged and  filed  articles  of  in- 
corporation, but  did  not  subscribe  for 
or  issue  any  stock  or  do  anything  else 
to  perfect  the  organization,  the  corpo- 
ration had  only  a  qualified  existence 
without  the  full  privileges  of  a  com- 
plete incorporation  and  organization, 
and  that  one  of  said  persons  was 
bound  with  the  others  for  debts  in- 
curred by  them  in  the  name  of  the 
corporation,  although  he  did  not  act- 
ively participate  in  their  acts.  See, 
also,  Anvil  Mining  Co.  v.  Sherman,  74 
Wis.  226,  s.  c.  42  N.  W.  R.  226 ;  State  v. 
Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.,  49  Ohio  St.  440,  31 
N.  E.  R.  658,  s.  c.  6  Lewis  Am.  R.  R. 
&  Corp.  R.  599.  As  a  general  rule,  how- 
ever, conditions  to  be  performed  after 
incorporation,  in  order  to  carry  on 
business,  are  not  conditions  precedent 
in  such  a  sense  as  to  affect  the  corpo- 
rate existence.  Spartanburg,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.  v.  Ezell,  14  S.  Car.  281;  Har- 
rod  v.  Hamer,  32  Wis.  162;  Hughes- 
dale,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Vanner,  12  R.  I.  491 ; 
Whitney  v.  Wyman,  101  U.  S.  392; 
Hammond  v.  Straus,  53  Md.  1.  And 
see  Rutherford  v.  Hill,  22  Ore.  218; 
Cincinnati,  H.  &  I.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Clif- 
ford, 113  Ind.  460. 

1  Aurora  &  C.  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Law- 
renceburg,  56  Ind.  80 ;  Board  of  Com- 
missioners v.  Hall,  70  Ind.  469 ;  Illinois 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  v.  Cook,  29  111. 
237;  Brown  «.  Calumet  R.  Co.,  125111. 
600,  18  N.  E.  283;  Eaton  v.  Aspinwall, 
19  N.  Y.  119;  Lahman  v.  Warner,  61 
Ala.  455;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Fifth  Baptist  Church,  137  U.  S.  568, 
6.  c.  11  Supr.  Ct.  R.  185 ;  Taggart  v. 


Western  Md.  R.  Co.,  24  Md.  563; 
Swartwoutc.  Mich.  A.  L.  Co.,  24  Mich. 
389,  394;  Hanover  Junction,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Haldeman,  82  Pa.  St.  36,  46 ; 
Frost  v.  Frostburg  Coal  Co.,  24  How. 
278,  283 ;  Gill  v.  Kentucky,  etc.,  Co., 
7  Bush  (Ky.)  635 ;  note  to  People  v. 
Montecito  Water  Co.  (Cal.)  33  Am. 
St.  R.  172,  180,  et  seq. ;  note  to  Vanne- 
man  v.  Young,  3  Lewis  Am.  R.  R.  & 
Corp.  R.  660,  662,  et  seq. 

2  If  the  state  fail  for  eight  years  to 
avail  itself  by  quo  icarranto,  of  a  de- 
fect in  articles  of  association  consist- 
ing in  an  uncertain  statement  of  a 
terminus  of  a  road,  it  can  not  do  it 
afterward.  State  v.  Bailey,  19  Ind. 
452.  Under  the  statutes  of  Tennessee 
which  provide  that  a  railroad  com- 
pany's charter  shall  first  be  registered 
in  the  county  where  the  company's 
principal  office  is ;  that  it  shall  then 
be  transmitted  to  the  secretary  of 
state,  who  shall  affix  his  certificate  of 
registration  and  the  great  seal  of  state, 
and  that  these  shall  be  registered 
where  the  charter  was  originally  regis- 
tered ;  and  that  this  shall  complete  the 
company's  corporate  character,  it  has 
been  held  that,  where  a  company  was 
organized  to  run  a  railroad  through 
several  counties,  the  county  where  its 
charter  is  registered  should  be  deemed 
to  have  been  determined  on  as  the 
location  of  the  principal  office,  and 
holding  a  directors'  and  stockholders' 
meeting  in  another  county  will  not 
change  the  rule.  Anderson  v.  Middle 
and  East  Tennessee  Cent.  R.  Co., 
91  Tenn.  44, 52  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  149, 
s.  c.  17  S.  W.  803. 


30 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§20 


the  unauthorized  assumption  of  corporate  powers.1  Legisla- 
tive recognition  of  a  corporation  as  a  subsisting  one  is  such  a 
waiver,8  for  the  legislature  has  the  same  right  to  ratify  and  con- 
firm an  irregularly  organized  corporation  that  it  has  to  create 
a  new  one,3  but  mere  legislative  recognition  only  operates  to 
cure  defects  in  the  organization,  and  not  to  create  a  new  corpo- 
ration where  there  is  not  even  a  de  facto  organization  upon 
which  it  can  act.* 


1  Hay  v.  People,  59  111.  94;  Reisner 
v.  Strong,  24  Kan.  410,  10  Am.  &Eng. 
R.  Cas.  335. 

2  McAuley  v.  Columbus,,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
83  111.  348;   McCartney  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  112  111.  611,  29  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  326;  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
St.  Louis,  66  Mo.  228 ;  Cowell  v.  Colo- 
rado Springs  Co.,  3  Colo.  82, 100  TJ.  S. 
55;  Mead  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
45  Conn.  199;    Black  River,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Barnard,  31  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  258 ; 
Koch  v.  North  Ave.  Ry.  Co.,  75  Md. 
222. 

3  Mitchell  v.  Deeds,  49  111.  416,  95 
Am.  Dec.   621.     See,   also,   Fisher  v. 
Evansville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  7  Ind.  407, 
413 ;  Comanche  County  r.  Lewis,  133 
IT.  S.  198,  s.  c.  10  Supr.'ct.  R.  286,  288. 
See,  generally,  Hogue  v.  Capital,  etc., 
Bank,  (Neb.)  66  N.  W.  R.  1036;  Peo- 
ple v.  Barker,  39  N.  Y.  S.  88;  Mylrea 
r.  Superior,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Wis.)  67  N. 
W.  R.  1138. 


4  Attorney  General  v.  Railroad  Cos., 
35  Wis.  425,  602;  State  v.  Ford  Co.,  12 
Kan.  441,  approved  in  Comanche 
County  v.  Lewis,  133  U.  S.  198,  s.  c. 
10  Supr.  Ct.  R.  286,  288.  See,  also, 
Oroville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Supervisor, 
37  Cal.  354.  On  this  theory  it  is  held 
that  a  statute  curing  defects  in  the  or- 
ganization of  a  de  facto  corporation 
does  not  violate  a  constitutional  pro- 
vision prohibiting  the  creation  of  a  cor- 
poration by  special  legislation.  Central 
Agricultural  Assn.  v.  Alabama,  etc., 
Co.,  70  Ala.  120.  Where  articles  of 
incorporation  filed  are  void,  they  can 
not  be  made  good  by  amendment. 
State,  ex  rel.  Clapp  v.  Critchett,  37 
Minn.  13,  23  N.  W.  R.  767.  See,  gen- 
erally, Pearsall  v.  Great  Northern, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Fed.  R.  933;  State  v. 
Webb,  (Ala.)  20  So.  R.  462;  Willis  v. 
Chapman,  (Vt.)  35  Atl.  R.  459. 


CHAPTER  III. 


LEGAL      STATUS. 


§21.   As  individual,  person,  citizen. 

22.  Corporation  confined  to  juris- 

diction creating  it — Business 
elsewhere — Comity . 

23.  Citizenship— Removal  of  causes. 

24.  Residence  and  domicile — Juris- 

diction. 

25.  Federal  corporations. 

26.  Railroad  in  more  than  one  state 

— Citizenship. 

27.  Control  of    railroads   in  more 

than  one  state. 


§  28.  Result  of  consolidation  or  con- 
current action  of  several 
states  creating  new  corpora- 
tions. 

29.  Railroad  only  a  citizen  or  do- 

mestic corporation  of  the 
states  that  charter  it — Effect 
of  mere  license. 

30.  Foreign  corporations  —  Condi- 

tion of  admission  to  state. 

31.  Railroads  as  property. 

32.  Railroads  as  monopolies. 

33.  Railroads  as  public  highways. 


§  21.  As  individual,  person,  citizen. — A  railroad  company 
may  be  regarded  as  an  individual,  in  the  sense  that  it  may, 
unless  restrained  by  law,  make  contracts,1  sue  and  be  sued,2 
buy  and  sell  property,8  in  furtherance  of  its  business,  and  in 
general  carry  on  business  much  the  same  as  if  it  were  a  natu- 
ral person.  It  is  a  "person"  within  the  meaning  of  the  four- 
teenth amendment  to  the  United  States  Constitution  forbidding 
a  state  to  deny  to  any  person  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws  ;* 
and,  generally,  is  to  be  treated  as  a  person  within  the  meaning 


1  See  post,  chapter  on  Contracts. 

8  See  post ,  chapter  on  Actions  by 
and  against  Railroad  Companies. 

3  Richardson  v.  Mass.,  etc.,  As- 
sociation, 131  Mass.  174;  Crawford 
v.  Longstreet,  43  N.  J.  L.  325 ;  Gra- 
ham v.  Railroad  Co.,  102  U.  S.  148, 
161.  As  elsewhere  shown,  however, 
it  can  not,  without  legislative  author- 
ity, sell  property  necessary  for  it  to 


keep  in  order  to  perform  its  duties  to 
the  public. 

*  Santa  Clara  Co.  v.  Southern  P.  R. 
Co.,  118  U.  S.  394 ;  24  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  523 ;  San  Mateo  Co.  v.  Southern 
P.  R.  Co.,  7  Sawy.  (U.  S.)  517;  Min- 
neapolis, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Beckwith, 
129  TJ.  S.  26;  Pembina,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Pennsylvania,  125  U.  S.  181 ;  Missou- 
ri Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mackey,  127  TJ.  S. 
205. 

(31) 


32 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  22 


of  statutes  conferring  rights  and  remedies  on  "persons," 
unless  it  is  evident  that  the  intention  of  the  legislature  was 
that  it  should  not  be  so  considered.2  It  is  not,  however,  a  cit- 
izen entitled  to  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
several  states  within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.8  But  it  is,  for  jurisdictional  and  other  pur- 
poses, regarded  as  a  citizen  of  the  state  chartering  it.4 

§  22.  Corporation  confined  to  jurisdiction  creating  it- 
Business  elsewhere — Comity. — In  common  with  other  corpora- 
tions, a  railroad  company  exists  only  by  force  of  law,  and  can 
not  remove  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  that  law,5  nor  can  it  ex- 
ercise any  rights  or  privileges  in  a  foreign  jurisdiction  unless 
it  is  admitted  to  do  so  by  express  or  implied  permission  of  the 
foreign  state,6  or  except,  perhaps,  as  an  instrument  of  inter- 
state commerce.  A  corporation,  where  not  restrained  by  the 
1  Louisville  Safety  Vault  Co.  v.  Lou-  isville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.,  14  L.  R.  A.  579. 


isville  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.,  (Ky.)  14  L.  R. 
A.  579,  and  note ;  Boyd  v.  Craydon  R. 
Co.,  4  Bing.  N.  C.  669 ;  Mott  v.  Hicks, 


2  Commonwealth  v.   Phenix  Bank, 
11  Met.  (Mass.)  129. 
8  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  168 ;  Chi- 


1  Cow.  (N.  Y)  513;   State  of  Indiana    cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitton,  13  Wall. 


v.  Worain,  6  Hill  (N.  Y.)  33,  s.  c.  40 
Am.  Dec.  378 ;  State  v.  Nashville  Uni- 
versity, 4  Humph.  (Tenn.)  157;  Field 
v.  N.  Y.  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  29  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  176;  Wrights.  N.  Y.  Central 
R.  R.  Co.,  28  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  80;  Min- 
eral Point  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Keep,  22  111.  9 ; 
Lehigh  Bridge  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Coal  Co., 
4  Rawle  (Pa.)  9.  So,  under  statutes 
imposing  taxes,  People  v.  Utica  Ins. 
Co.,  15  John  (X.  Y.)358; — relating  to 


(IT.  S.)  270;  Woodward  v.  Common- 
wealth, (Ky.)  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 
Gas.  498;  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Pennsylvania,  136  U.  S.  114;  Pembi- 
na,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  125  U. 
S.  181 ;  State  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co., 
(Del.)  31  Atl.  R.  714. 

4  See  post,,  §  23. 

5  Miller  v.  Ewer,  27  Me.  509;  Paul  v. 
Virginia,  8  Wall.  (U.  S.)  168;  County 
of  Allegheny   v.   Cleveland,   etc.,  R. 


usury,  Thornton  v.  Bank  of  Washing-  Co.,  51  Pa.  St.  228;  Aspinwall  r.  Ohio, 
ton,  3  Pet.  (U.  S.)  36 ;  Grand  G.  B.  v.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Ind.  492 ;  note  to  Young 
Archer,16  Miss. 151 ;  Commercial  Bank  v.  South  Tredegar,  etc., Co. ,4  Am.  St.  R. 
v.  Nolan,  7  How.  (Miss.)  508;— relat-  752,  760;  Connor  v.  Vicksburg,  etc., 
ing  to  limitations,  Olcott  v.  Tioga  R.  R. 
Co.,  20  N.  Y.  210 ;— relating  to  penal 
offenses,  United  States  v.  Amedy,  11 
Wheat  (U.  S.)  392.  See  generally,  as 
to  what  is  and  what  is  not  a  denial  of 
equal  protection  of  the  laws  within 


R.  R.  Co.,  1  L.  R.  A.  331,  and  note. 

6  Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet. 
(U.  S.)  519;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Glenn,  28  Md.  287;  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Fletcher,  35  Kan.  236 ;  Demarest 
v.  Flack,  128  N.  Y.  205,  28  N.  E.  R. 


the  meaning  of  the  constitution,  note    645;  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
to  Louisville  Safety  Vault  Co.  v.  Lou-     168.  Duke  v.  Taylor,  (Fla.)  19  So.  R.17L. 


§  23  LEGAL    STATUS.  33 

law  of  its  creation,  may,  however,  do  business  and  perform 
corporate  acts  in  any  state  which  will  permit  it  to  do  so.1  By 
the  comity  of  nations,  such  permission  is  always  implied  un- 
less there  is  an  affirmative  refusal.8 

§  23.  Citizenship — Removal  of  causes. — It  is  generally  held 
that  a  corporation  may  be  adopted  by  the  legislation  of  a  state, 
so  as  to  become  a  citizen  thereof,  for  the  purposes  of  jurisdic- 
tion, where  that  is  plainly  the  legislative  intent.3  It  has  been 
held  in  Virginia  that  a  corporation,  by  leasing  and  operating  a 
road  in  a  foreign  state  becomes  a  citizen  of  that  state  for  pur- 
poses of  jurisdiction;  and  that  a  suit  against  it  for  a  cause  of 
action  arising  in  that  state  could  not  be  removed  from  the  state 
courts  to  the  federal  courts.4  But  the  weight  of  authority  is 
that  a  railroad  company  is  a  citizen  of  the  state  by  which  it  is 
created,  far  the  purposes  of  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States 
courts,  and  may  take  advantage  of  the  constitutional  privilege 
of  conducting  its  suits  against  the  citizens  of  other  states  in 
those  courts.5  And  a  foreign  corporation  can  not  be  deprived 

1  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fletcher,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Poole,  (S.  C.)  24  L.  R.  A. 

35  Kan.  236;  Dodge  v.  Council  Bluffs,  289. 

57  Iowa  560;  Reichwald  v.  Commer-  3  Williams  v.  Missouri,  etc., Railroad 
cial  Hotel  Co.,  106  111.  439;  Miller  v.  Co.,  3  Dill  (TJ.  S.)  267  ;  Ohio,  etc., 
Ewer,  27  Me.  509;  Bank  of  Augusta,  Railroad  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  1  Black  (TJ. 
v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  (U.  S.)  519;  Chris-  S.)  286;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Harris,  12 
tian  Union  r.  Yount,  101  U.  S.  352;  Wall.  (U.  S.)  65;  Railway  Co.  v.  Whit- 
Newburg  Petroleum  Co.  r.  Weare,  27  ton,  13  Wall.  (U.  S.)  270;  Railroad 
Ohio  St.  343;  Williams  v.  Creswell,  51  Co.  v,  Vance,  96  U.  S.  450.  A  rail- 
Miss.  817 ;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  road  corporation  of  another  state 
Glenn,  28  Md.  287 ;  Blair  v.  Perpetual  operating  a  railroad  in  the  state  under 
Ins.  Co.,  10  Mo.  559;  Ohio  Life  Ins.,  a  lease  maybe  so  adopted.  Western, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Merchants  Ins.,  etc.,  Co.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eoberson,  61  Fed.  R. 
11  Humph.  (Tenn.)  1;  Thompson  v.  592. 

Waters,  25  Mich.  214;  Merrick  v.  Van  *  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wight- 

Santvoord,  34  N.  Y.  208.  man,  29  Gratt.  (Va.)  431 ;  Baltimore, 

2Cowell  v.  Colorado  Springs  Co.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoell,  32  Gratt.  (Va.) 

100  U.  S.  55,  3  Colo.  82;  Christian  394.     Contra:  See  Wilkinson  v.  Dela- 

Union  v.  Yount,  101  U.  S.  352,  356;  ware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Fed.  R.  353,  20 

Reichwald  v.  Commercial  Hotel  Co.,  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  597,  and  cases 

106  111.  439;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  cited. 

Glenn,  28  Md.  287.    See  note  to  Cone,  5  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Letson,  2 
CORP.  3 


34 


THE    CORPORATION. 


of  the  right  of  removal  to  the  federal  courts  by  state  legislation.1 
Any  officer  authorized  to  act  for  it  in  that  behalf  may  make  the 
necessary  affidavit  and  procure  the  transfer  to  the  federal  courts 
of  any  suit  begun  against  it  in  the  courts  of  a  state  wherein  it 
is  not  domiciled.2  Where  a  railroad  corporation  is  chartered 
by  two  or  more  states,  it  is  for  most  purposes  a  citizen  of  each.3 

§  24.  Residence  and  domicile — Jurisdiction. — A  railroad 
corporation  is  a  legal  entity,  or  person,  capable  of  having  a 
home,  or  domicile,  which  is  always  within  the  state,  or  sover- 
eignty by  which  it  is  created.4  And  it  has  recently  been  set- 
tled by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  that,  under  the 
act  of  congress  of  March  3,  1887,  as  corrected  by  the  act  of 
August  13,  1888,  a  corporation  incorporated  in  one  state  only 
it  not  a  citizen  nor  a  resident  of  another  state,  although  it  has 
a  place  of  business  in  the  latter,  and  can  not  be  sued  in  a  Uni- 
ted States  circuit  court  of  the  latter  state,  which  is  in  a  differ- 
ent district  from  that  in  which  the  company  is  incorporated, 
by  a  citizen  of  a  third  state.5  Like  a  natural  person,  however, 


How.  (U.  S.)  497;  Marshall  v.  Balti- 
more R.  Co.,  16  How.  (U.  S.)  314; 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Harris,  12  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
65;  Quigley  v.  Cent.  Pac.  Co.  11  Nev. 
350;  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  1 
Black.  (U.  S.)  286;  Railroad  Co.  v. 
Koontz,  104  U.  S.  5 ;  William  v.  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co., 3  Dill.  (U.  S.)  267; 
AVilkinson  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 
Fed.  R.  353 ;  Callahan  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Fed.  R.  536. 

1  State  legislation  seeking  to  deprive 
foreign  corporations  of  the  right  to 
resort  to  the  federal  courts  must  be 
held  inoperative  where  such  right  is 
conferred  by  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States.  Rece  v.  New- 
port News,  etc.,  Co.,  32  W.  Va.  164,  9 
S.  E.  R.  212,  3  L.  R.  A.  572,  5  Ry.  & 
Corp.  L.  J.  515;  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R. 
R.  Co.  v.  Whitton,  13  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
270;  Martina.  Railroad  Co.,  151 1".  S. 
673,  s.  c.  14  Supr.  Ct.  R.  533.  A  stat- 


ute attempting  to  prohibit  the  right  of 
removal  would  be  unconstitutional. 
Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Morse,  20  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  445;  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.  r. 
Harper,  3  Hughes  260;  Commonwealth 
v.  East  Tenn.  Coal  Co.,  (Ky.)  30  S.W. 
R.  608 ;  Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Denton, 
146  U.  S.  202,  s.  c.  13  Supr.  Ct.  R.  44; 
Barren  v.  Burnside,  121  IT.  S.  186,  s.  c. 
7  Supr.  Ct.  R.  931. 

2  Quigley  v.  Cent.  Pac.  R.  Co.,  11 
Xev.  350 ;  Mahone  v.  Manchester,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  Ill  Mass.  72;  Barren  v.  Burn- 
side,  121  U.  S.  186. 

3  Railroad  Co.  v.  Letson,  2  How.  (IT. 
S.)  497;  Uphoff  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  5  Fed.  R.  545 ;  post,  §  26. 

4  Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet. 
(U.  S.)  519;   Railroad  Co.  v.  Koontz, 
104  U.  S.  5,  12. 

5  Shaw  v.  Quincy  Mining  Co.,  145  TJ. 
S.  444.  s.  c.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  935,   6  Lewis' 
Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  357.    This  decis- 


§24 


LEGAL    STATUS. 


35 


it  may,  for  some  purposes,  have  a  legal  residence  in  a  state  of 
which  it  is  not  a  citizen  ; 1  and  under  the  statutes  of  most  states 
is  held  to  be  a  resident  of  each  state  and  municipality  through 
which  the  road  runs,  so  as  to  be  entitled  to  the  protection  of 
the  local  laws,2  and  for  purposes  of  taxation,8  and  of  suing  and 
being  sued,4  and  for  the  service  of  summons.5  And  "  a  law 
which  requires  a  foreign  corporation  to  appoint  an  agent  upon 
whom  process  may  be  served,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  its 
right  to  transact  business  within  the  limits  of  a  state,  is  valid 
and  binding."6  For  most  other  purposes  railroads  are  treated 
as  persons  having  their  residence  only  in  the  place  where  their 
principal  office  is  located.7  Suits  relating  to  any  matters  con- 
cerning the  organization,  and  conduct  of  the  corporation  as 
such,  must  generally  be  brought  in  the  state  by  which  it  is 
chartered,  although  its  principal  office  may  be  in  another 
state.8  And  so,  as  a  rule,  must  all  corporate  acts  done  by  the 


ion  sets  at  rest  a  vexed  question  upon 
which  there  was  much  difference  of 
opinion  among  the  circuit  judges,  and 
the  contrary  view  taken  by  Mr.  Wood 
in  Wood  on  Railways.,  §  14a,  is  not 
the  law. 

1  Thorn  v.  N.  Y.  Central  R.  Co.,  26 
N.  J.  Law  121 ;  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Shepard,  5  McLean  (U.  S.)  455 ;  An- 
droscoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  17 
Me.  434;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Letson,  2  How.  (U.  S.)  497.  In  Pa- 
cific R.  Co.  v.  Perkins,  36  Neb.  456, 
57  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas,  673,  it  was  held 
that  the  word  "non-resident,"  in  §  100, 
c.  16,  Comp.  St.,  relating  to  condem- 
nation proceedings  for  right  of  way 
for  a  railroad,  means  a  non-resident 
of  the  state,  and  not  of  the  locality  of 
the  land  affected,  or  of  the  county 
where  it  ie  situated. 

*Glnize  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  1 
Strobh.  (S.  C.)  L.  70;  Richardson  v. 
Burlingtoa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Iowa  260; 
People  v.  Fredericks,  48  Barb.  (N.Y.) 
173. 


8  People  v.  Fredericks,  48  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  173. 

4  Baldwin  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  5  Iowa  518. 

SR.  S.  Ind.  1881,  §4039;  Belden  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  17. 

6  Youmansfl.  Minnesota,  etc.,R.  Co., 
67  Fed.  R.  282,284;  Wilson  v.  Selig- 
man,  144  TJ.  S.  41,  45,  s.  c.  12  Sup.  Ct. 
R.  541  ;  Exparte  Schollenburger,  96  U. 
S.  369,  374;  Reyer  v.  Odd  Fellows, 
etc.,  Association,  157  Mass.  367,  373, 
s.  c.  32  N.  E.  R.  469. 

''  Androscoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stev- 
ens, 28  Me.  434;  Thorn  v.  N.  Y.  Cen- 
tral R.  Co.,  26  N.  J.  L.  121. 

8Erickson  v.  Nesmith,  4  Allen  233; 
Williston  v.  Mich.  Southern,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  13  Allen  400;  Chase  v.  Vander- 
bilt,  5  J.  &  S.  (N.  Y.  Sup.)  334,  62  N. 
Y.  307 ;  Carey  r«  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  5  Iowa  357 ;  Howell  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  51  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  378. 


36  THE    CORPORATION.  §  25 

body  of  the  corporation  be  performed  in  the  domestic  jurisdic- 
tion, for  a  corporation  can  only  act  in  other  states  by  its  agents 
in  matters  which  it  may  delegate  to  them.1 

§  25.  Federal  corporations.  —  Corporations  formed  under 
authority  of  the  federal  government  have  their  domicile  within 
its  territorial  jurisdiction,  and  may  reside  any  place  within  the 
United  States  where  they  have  a  general  office  established  by 
authority  of  law.2  Congress  has  power  to  charter  railroad 
companies  in  the  territories  within  its  jurisdiction.8  And  it 
seems  that  a  state  is  powerless  to  prevent  a  corporation  from 
doing  acts  in  the  discharge  of  its  employment  by  the  federal 
government,*  or  to  exclude  one  engaged  in  interstate  com- 
merce under  authority  of  the  acts  of  congress.5 

§  26.   Railroad  in  more  than  one  state — Citizenship. — The 

legislature  of  one  state  may  authorize  a  railroad  corporation  of 
another  to  extend  its  line  into,6  or  hold  property  in,7  the  terri- 
tory of  the  former.  Such  authority  granted  to  a  foreign  cor- 
poration does  not  make  of  it  a  domestic  corporation.8  But  where 

1  See  Aspinwall  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Goodlettt).  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
20  Ind.  492,  where  the  company  un-  122  U.  S.  391,  7  Sup.  Ct.  1254;  Balti- 
dertook  to  make  a  call  for  unpaid  sub-  more,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  12  Wall, 
scriptions  at  a  meeting  held  outside  (U.S.)  65;  Pomeroyw.  New  York,  etc., 
the  state.  Ante,  §  17.  But  a  stockhold-  R.  Co.,  4  Blatch.  (U.  S.)  120. 
ers' meeting  may  be  held  in  a  foreign  'Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.  #,,  Wight- 
jurisdiction,  if  all  the  shareholders  man,  29  Gratt.  (Va.)  431 ;  Indian- 
consent  to  such  meeting,  or  ratify  its  apolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vance,  96  U.  S. 
action.  Stutz'rc.  Handley,  7  Ry.  &  450;  Goshornfl.  Ohio  County,  1  W.Va. 
Corp.  L.  J.  407,  41  Fed.  R.  531 ;  Mis-  308 ;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Noell,  32 
souri  Lead,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Reinhard,  114  Gratt.  (Va.)  394;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Mo.  218,  s.  c.  35  Am.  St.  R.  746.  Co.  *>.  Gallahue,12  Gratt. (Va.)  655.  The 

8  Bank  of  U.S.T.  McKenzie,  2  Brock,  authority  granted  does  not  confer  ju- 

(U.  G.  C.  C.)  393.  risdiction  as  to  such  property  on  the 

"Ante,  §15,  note.  incorporating  state.     Eaton  &  H.  R. 

G  Stockton  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Rail-  Co.  v.  Hunt,  20  Ind.  457. 

road  Co.,  32  Fed.  R.  9,  14;   Pembina  8  Dennistown  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 

Mining  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  125  U.  S.  Co.,  1  Hilton  (N.Y.)  62 ;  State  v.  Dela- 

181,   186;   Horn    Silver  Min.   Co.   v.  ware,     etc.,    R.     Co.,    30    N.    J.   L. 

New  York,  143  U.  S.  305.  473,  31  N.  J.  L.  531;    Erie    R.   Co.  r. 

8Pensacola  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  U.  Stringer,  32  Ohio  St.  468;  Baltimore, 

Tel.  Co.,  96  U.  S.  1, 12.  <stc.,  R.  Co.v.  Gary, 28  Ohio  St.  208.  Nor 

I 


$27 


LEGAL    STATUS. 


37 


a  railroad  corporation  is  formed  by  the  concurrent  legislation 
of  two  or  more  states,1  or  by  the  consolidation  of  corporations 
of  two  or  more  states  by  authority  of  their  laws,2  it  is  a  citizen 
of  each,  having  a  domicile8  therein  where  its  corporate  business 
may  be  transacted.4  It  is  not  the  same,  but  a  distinct  corpora- 
tion in  each  state,  so  far  as  its  property  and  business  within 
that  state  are  concerned,6  and  is  controlled  therein  by  the  laws 
of  the  state  substantially  as  any  other  domestic  corporation  is 
controlled.6 

§  27.   Control  of  railroads  in  more  than  one  state. — The 

laws  of  a  state  can  have  no  effect  beyond  the  limits  of  its  ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction,7  and  such  a  corporation  is  not  affected,  in 


does  it  change  the  relationship  to  the 
incorporating  state.  Commonwealth 
v.  Pittsburg  &  C.  R.  Co.,  58  Pa.  St.  26. 
But  it  may  be,  in  a  sense,  a  domestic 
corporation  if  the  statute  so  provides 
in  fixing  the  terms  upon  which  it  is 
authorized  to  enter  and  carry  on  busi- 
ness in  the  state.  Young  v.  South 
Tredegar,  etc.,  Co.,  85  Tenn.  189,  s.  c. 
4  Am.  St.  R.  752.  The  same  statute 
construed  in  the  case  just  cited  has, 
however,  been  held  by  the  federal 
court  not  to  make  the  foreign  corpora- 
tion authorized  to  do  business  in 
Tennessee  a  domestic  corporation  of 
that  state.  Markwoodfl.  Southern  Ry. 
Co.,  65  Fed.  R.  817.  It  was,  therefore, 
permitted  to  remove  the  cause  to  the 
federal  court.  See,  also,  Rece  v.  New- 
port News,  etc.,  Co.,  32  W.  Va.  164,  3 
L.  R.  A.  572. 

1  Ohio,    etc.,  R.   Co.   v.  Wheeler,  1 
Black  (U.  S.)  286 ;  Newport,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Woolley,   78  Ky.  523;  Nashua,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136  U. 
S.  356. 

2  Cohn  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 
Fed.  R.  227;  In  re  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  36  Minn.  85;    Guinault  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,   41  La.  Ann.  571; 
State,  ex  rel.,  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 


25  Neb.  165;   Beach  on  Priv.  Corp., 
§336. 

3  Guinault  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
41  La.   Ann.  571 ;    Covington,    etc., 
Bridge  Co.  v.  Mayer,  31  Ohio  St.  317. 

4  Graham  v.   Boston,   etc.,  R.  Co., 
118  U.  S.  161;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Harris,  12  Wall.   (U.  S.)  65;  Cov- 
ington, etc.,  Bridge  Co.  v.  Mayer,  31 
Ohio  St.  317. 

5Peik  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  U. 
S.  164;  Central  Trust  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  551 ;  Sprague 
v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  R.  I.  233; 
Atwood  v.  Shenandoah  Valley  R.  R. 
Co.,  85  Va.  966,  s.  c.  38  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  R.  Cas.  534,  9  S.  E.  R.  748;  Pitts- 
burgh, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Rothschild, 
(Pa.)  26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  50. 

6  Delaware  Railroad  Tax  Cases,  18 
Wall.  (U.S.)  206;  Clark  v.  Barnard, 
108  TJ.  S.  436;  Gage  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  70  N.  Y.  220;  Ohio, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weber,  96  111.  443; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Auditor-Gen- 
eral, 53  Mich.  79. 

'Newport,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Woolley,  78 
Ky .  523 ;  Land  Grant  Ry .  Co.  v.  Comrs. 
of  Coffey  Co.,  6  Kan.  245 ;  Bank  of  Au- 
gusta v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  (U.  S.)  519,  586 ; 
County  of  Allegheny  v.  Cleveland, 


38 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§27 


regard  to  its  rights,  duties,  and  liabilities,  in  one  sovereignty , 
by  the  terms  of  the  charter  granted  to  it  by  another,1  but  its 
charter  may  be  amended  in  either  state  so  as  to  control  its  ac- 
tion in  that  state  although  the  amendment  be  opposed  to  the  con- 
stitution or  laws  of  another  state  by  which  it  is  also  chartered.2 
Where  it  has  but  one  set  of  shareholders  owning  shares  of  a 
capital  stock  which  represents  the  entire  property,  and  its  en- 
tire business  and  property  are  under  a  single  management  and 
operated  as  a  unit,  contracts  made  by  the  controlling  power 
are  held  to  be  made  by  each  of  the  corporations,8  and  a  decree 
rendered  against  the  railroad  in  one  state  will  bind  it  in  the 
other.4  It  may  be  restrained  by  the  courts  of  one  state  from 
using  its  corporate  funds  for  other  than  corporate  purposes  in 
another  through  which  it  runs.5  But  it  has  been  held  that  a 
state  can  not  tax  bonds  of  such  a  railroad  corporation,  secured 
by  a  mortgage  on  its  entire  line,  for  the  reason  that  this  would 


etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Pa.  St.  228;  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Letson,  2  How. 
(U.  S.)  497 ;  Warren  v.  First  Nat.  Bank, 
149  111.  9,  s.  c.  25  L.  R.  A.  746. 

^hio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  1 
Black  (U.  S.)  286;  Mailer  v.  Dows,  94 
U.  S.  444.  One  state  can  not  impose 
any  restrictions  or  limitations  upon 
the  exercise  of  corporate  powers  in 
another  state  by  a  corporation  which 
extends  into  both  jurisdictions.  At- 
wood  v.  Shenandoah  Valley  R.  Co.,  85 
Va.  966,  s.  c.  9  S.  E.  R.  748.  But  it  is 
held  that  a  corporation  which  has 
been  adjudged  insolvent  and  placed 
in  the  hands  of  a  receiver  in  the  state 
of  its  incorporation  can  not  prosecute 
a  writ  of  error  in  another  state,  over 
the  objection  of  the  receiver.  Amer- 
ican Water-works  Co.  v.  Farmers,  etc., 
Co.,  (Colo.)  25  L.  R.  A.  338.  The 
court  admitted  the  general  rule  that 
laws  have  no  extra-territorial  force  as 
mere  laws,  but  said  that  "things  done 
in  one  state  in  pursuance  of  laws 


thereof  are  valid  and  binding  in  other 
states." 

2  City  of  Covington  v.Covington,etc., 
Bridge  Co.,  10  Bush.  (Ky.)  69. 

3Bissell  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 
N.  Y.  258;  Racine,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Farmers',  etc.,  Co.,  49  111.  331. 

4  Paine  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 
Ind.  283,  347. 

5  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Glenn,  28 
Md.  287,  320;  Stater.  Northern  C.  R. 
R.  Co.,  18  Md.  193,  215;  Fisk  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Abbott's  Pr.  N.  S. 
(N.  Y.)  378,  53  Barb.  513 ;  March  v. 
Eastern   R.  Co.,  40  N.  H.   548,  577; 
Wilmer  v.  Atlanta,   etc.,  R.    Co.,   2 
Woods  (U.  S.)  409.     And  it  may  be 
enjoined  as  an  entirety  in  the  courts 
of  either  state    from    making  unjust 
discrimination  as  a  common  carrier, 
although  some  of  the  acts  were  per- 
formed in  the  other  state.     Scofieldr. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Ohio  St. 
571,  s.c.  23Am.&Eng.  R.R.  Cas.612; 
McDuffee  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
52  N.  H.  430,  447. 


§  28  LEGAL    STATUS,  39 

be  a  tax  upon  property  lying  without  the  state.1  The  courts 
of  one  state,  having  jurisdiction  of  the  mortgagor  and  trustees 
under  a  mortgage  covering  such  a  road  may  order  the  sale  of 
the  entire  road,  subject  to  liens  existing  in  the  other  state.2 
But  where  a  corporation  which  is  subject  to  a  mortgage  in  one 
state,  consolidates  with  a  corporation  of  another  state,  the 
courts  of  such  other  state  acquire  no  jurisdiction  to  enforce  a 
foreclosure  of  the  mortgaged  The  courts  of  either  state  may 
appoint  a  receiver  for  so  much  of  the  line  as  lies  within  its 
jurisdiction, ~  and  the  corporation  in  one  state  may  be  wound 
up  and  dissolved  without  affecting  its  charter  rights  in  other 
states.6  The  circuit  court  of  the  United  States,  for  a  district  in 
one  state  will  exercise  jurisdiction  to  appoint  a  receiver  for  an 
entire  line  extending  into  several  states.6  It  may  be  somewhat 
difficult  to  reconcile  all  of  these  decisions  with  one  another, 
for  in  several  of  them  the  court  evidently  looked  upon  the 
corporation  as  one  and  the  same  in  each  state,  while  in  most 
of  them  the  court  treated  it  as  practically  a  separate  corpora- 
tion in  each  state.  In.  some  of  the  cases  the  result  would  have 
been  the  same  from  either  point  of  view. 

§  28.  Result  of  consolidation  or  concurrent  action  of  sev- 
eral states  creating;  new  corporations. — It  is  said  that  the  fic- 
tion that  makes  two  or  three  corporations  out  of  what  is  in  fact 
one,  is  established  for  the  purpose  of  giving  each  state  its  le- 
gitimate control  over  the  charters  which  it  grants;  but  the  acts 
and  neglects  of  the  corporation  are  those  of  it  as  a  whole.7  There 

1  Northern  Cent.  Ry.  Co.  v .  Jackson,  stock  Co.,  55  How.  Pr.  286,  57  How. 

7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  262.     See,  also,  Wood  Pr.  16;  Richardson  v.  Vermont,  etc., 

v,  Goodwin,  49  Me.  260.  R.  Co.,  44  Vt.  613. 

2Muller  v.  Dows,  94  U.  S.  444;  Me-  5Hart  v.    Boston,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  40 

JElrath  ?.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  55  Conn.  524. 

Pa.  St.  189;  Mead  v.  New  York,  etc.,  6  Wilmer  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

R.  Co.,  45  Conn.  199;  Hand  v.  Savan-  Woods  (U.   S.)  409;  Brassey  v.  New 

nah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  S.  C.  314,  366.  York,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  19  Fed.   R.  663; 

8  Eaton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunt,  20  Ind.  Mercantile  Trust  Co.  v.  Missouri,  etc., 

457.  R.  Co.,  36  Fed.  R.  221. 

4  Ellis  v.   Boston,   etc.,  R.  Co.  107  7  Home  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

Mass.  1 ;  In  re  United  States  Rolling-  Fed.  R.  50. 


40  THE    CORPORATION.  §  28 

is  conflict  among  the  authorities  as  to  whether  the  result  of  a 
consolidation  or  incorporation  under  the  laws  of  two  or  more 
states  is  one  corporation  or  several  corporations  with  a  com- 
mon name,  stock,  stockholders  and  property.  But,  as  already 
stated,  they  are  substantially  in  accord  upon  the  proposition 
that  for  certain  purposes,  practically  at  least,  two  or  more 
corporations  are  thus  created.  In  other  words,  the  portion  of 
a  railroad  in  either  state  is  subject,  in  the  main,  to  the  laws  of 
that  state  just  as  if  it  were  a  separate  corporation  of  such  state. 
Upon  the  general  subject,  however,  it  is  said  on  the  one  hand, 
that  the  legislatures  of  two  different  states  can  not  co-operate 
and  unite  in  creating  a  single  corporation  so  as  to  make  it  one 
and  the  same  legal  being  in  both,1  and  that,  if  a  corporation 
be  regarded  as  a  legal  institution  or  group  of  laws  manifested 
in  legal  relations,  as  such  laws  can  have  no  extra  territorial 
force,  they  must  constitute  a  single,  complete  and  separate 
corporation  in  each  state.2  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  said  that 
there  is  no  reason  why  several  states  can  not  unite  in  creating 
one  and  the  same  corporation  having  a  common  name,  stock, 
stockholders  and  property,3  which  will  be,  in  reality,  a  single 
corporation,  although  it  may  be  clothed  with  the  powers  of  two 
corporations »L  Thus,  it  has  been  held  that  such  a  corporation 
may  legally  hold  shareholders'  meetings  in  either  state  which 
will  be  valid  as  to  all  the  property  and  stockholders  in  both.8 
Another  court  has  said  that  "a  corporation  may  have  a  two- 
fold organization,  and  beP  so  far  as  its  relation  to  our  state  is 
concerned,  both  foreign  and  domestic.  It  may  have  a  corpo- 
rate entity  in  each  state,  yet  its  general  character  be  of  a  bi- 

1  Ohio  and  Mississippi  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pierce  strongly  advocates    this  doc- 
Wheeler,  1  Black  (U.  S.)  286;  Racine,  trine.     Pierce  on  Railroads,  17,  19. 
etc.,  R.  R.  Go.  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Co.,  4Covington  Bridge  Co.  v.  Mayer,  31 
49  111.  331;    Alleghany   County  v.  Ohio  St.  317. 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  51  Pa.  St.  5  Covington  Bridge  Co.  v.  Mayer,  31 

228;    Newport,   etc.,   Bridge    Co.    v.  Ohio  St.  317;  Graham  r.  Boston,  etc., 

Woolley,  78  Ky.  523.  R.  R,  Co.,  14  Fed.  R.  753,  on  appeal, 

2 Taylor's  Priv.  Corp.,  §  404,  et  seq.  118  U.  S.  161.    See,  also,  Ohio  &  M.. 

3  See  Railroad    Co.    v.    Harris,   12  Ry.  Co.,  v.  People,  123  111.  467;  Guin- 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  65;   Graham  v.  Boston,  ault  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  41 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  118  U.  S.  161.    Mr.  La.  Ann.  571. 


§  28  LEGAL    STATUS  41 

fold  organization."1  It  is  also  said  that  when  "two  corporations 
created  in  different  states  consolidate,  though  for  most  pur- 
poses they  are  not  therefore  to  be  separately  regarded,  yet  in 
each  state  the  consolidated  company  is  deemed  to  stand  in  the 
place  of  the  corporation  to  which  it  there  succeeded,  and  of  its 
members, .and  consequently  to  be  a  citizen  of  that  state  for 
many  purposes,  while  in  the  other  state  it  would  stand  in  the 
place  of  the  other  corporation  in  respect  to  citizenship  there."8 
Perhaps  the  question  is  to  some  extent  to  be  determined  by 
the  legislative  intention,  for,  if  it  be  conceded  that  two  states 
can  co-operate  so  as  to  create  one  and  the  same  corporation,  as 
it  certainly  must  be,  in  a  sense,  at  least,  it  must  also  be  con- 
ceded that  each  may  authorize  the  same  persons  to  incorporate 
a  distinct  company  in  that  state,  for  the  same  general  business, 
to  hold  property  and  operate  in  that  state  in  connection  with 
the  company  in  the  other  state.8  The  question  most  often 
arises  with  respect  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts,  but 
it  seems  that  such  jurisdiction  does  not  necessarily  depend  al- 
together upon  the  answer  to  the  question,  for,  whether  there 
be  one  or  two  corporations,  it  is  generally  held,  as  we  have 
already  shown,  that  there  is  a  domestic  corporation  or  citizen 
of  each  state  by  which  a  charter  is  granted.*  But  this  ruling 
seems  to  be  more  consistent  with  the  theory  that  there  are  two 
corporations.  And  this  is  the  view  that  appears  to  have  been 
taken  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  a  recent 
decision,  which,  however,  it  may  be  somewhat  difficult  to  rec- 
oncile with  other  decisions  and  dicta  of  that  cou*t,  and  which 
resulted  in  the  corporation  created  in  the  first  state  being  held 
to  be  a  foreign  rather  than  a  domestic  corporation  of  the  sec- 

1  McGregor  v.  Erie  Ry.  Co.,  35  N.  J.  other.  Seepost,  chapter  on  Consolida- 
L.  115,  118.  tion. 

2  Chicago  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Audi-  *Phinizyt>.  Augusta,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
tor-General,    53    Mich."  79,    92,    per  56  Fed.  R.  273 ;  Muller  v.  Dows,  94  U. 
Cooley,  C.  J.  S.  444;   Memphis  &  C.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

3  Clark  v.  Barnard,  108  U.  S.  436.  Alabama,  107  U.  S.  581,  s.  c.  2  Sup.  Ct. 
Ante,  §  26.  And  may  authorize  a  con-  R.  432 ;    Railway  Co.  v.  Whitton,  13 
solidation,  so-called,  at  least,  by  keep-  Wall.  (U.S.)  270;   State  v.  Chicago, 
ing  one  of  the  corporations  alive  and  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  25  Neb.  156, 2  L.  R.  A. 
permitting  it  to  absorb  or  merge  the  564,  and  note. 


42  THE    CORPORATION.  §  28 

ond  state.  In  the  case  to  which  we  refer  it  appeared  that  the 
Nashua  and  Lowell  Railroad  Corporation  was  first  created  by 
the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  in  1835.  In  1836  the  legis- 
lature of  Massachusetts  constituted  the  same  persons  a  corpo- 
ration of  that  state,  under  the  same  name,  and  authorized  them 
to  build  their  road  from  Nashua,  New  Hampshire,  to  Lowell, 
Massachusetts.  In  1838  both  states  passed  laws  constituting 
the  stockholders  of  each  corporation  stockholders  in  the  other, 
and  uniting  them  into  one  corporation  under  the  old  name, 
and  providing  that  all  the  "tolls,  franchises,  rights,  powers, 
privileges  and  property  of  the  two  should  be  held  and  enjoyed 
by  all  the  stockholders  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  their 
shares  in  either  or  both  of  said  corporations."  In  1857, 
the  Nashua  and  Lowell  Railroad  Corporation  entered  into  a 
traffic  agreement  with  the  Boston  and  Lowell  Railroad  Corpo- 
ration, which  was  incorporated  under  the  laws  of  Massachu- 
setts. A  controversy  afterwards  arose  over  this,  and  the  for- 
mer, alleging  that  it  was  a  New  Hampshire  corporation, 
brought  suit  against  the  latter  in  the  United  States  circuit 
court  of  Massachusetts.  It  was  held  that  the  plaintiff  "  must  ' 
be  considered  simply  in  its  character  as  a  corporation  created 
by  the  laws  of  New  Hampshire,  and,  as  such,  a  citizen  of  that 
state,  and  so  entitled  to  go  into  the  circuit  court  of  the  United 
States  and  bring  its  bill  against  a  citizen  of  any  other  state, 
and  that  its  union  or  consolidation  with  another  corporation 
of  the  same  name,  organized  under  the  laws  of  Massachusetts, 
did  not  extinguish  or  modify  its  character  as  a  citizen  of  New 
Hampshire."1  The  court,  as  an  additional  reason  for  this 
opinion,  called  attention  to  the  injustice  that  would  result  if 
the  defendant,  as  a  citizen  of  Massachusetts,  could  sue  the 

Nashua  and  Lowell  R.  R,  Corp.  v.  118  U.  S.  25)0;  Racine,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 
Boston  &  L.  R.  R.  Corp.,  136  IT.  S.  356,  v.  Farmers' L.  &  T.  Co.,  49  111.331; 
B.C.  10 Sup.  Ct.  R.  1004.  Citing Farnum  Quincy,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.  v.  Adams 
v.  Blackstone  Canal  Corp.  1  Sum  (U.  -  Co.,  88  111.  615.  See,  also,  Western 
S.)  46;  Muller  v.  Dows,  94  U.  S.  444;  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Roberson,  61  Fed. 
St.  Louis,  A.  &  T.  H.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  In-  R.  592;  Rece  v.  Newport  News,  etc., 
dianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Biss.  (U.  S.)  Co.,  32  W.  Va.  164,  3  L.  R.  A.  572. 
144,  s.  c.  on  appeal  snb  nom.,  Penna.  Co.,  32  W.  Ya.  164,  3  L.  R.  A.  572; 
Ry.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  Louisville  T.  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  75  Fed.  R.  433. 


§  29  LEGAL    STATUS.  43 

plaintiff,  as  a  citizen  of  New  Hampshire,  in  the  federal  court 
of  New  Hampshire,  and  yet  prevent  the  plaintiff  from  suing  it 
in  Massachusetts  on  the  ground  that  they  were  both  citizens  of 
the  latter  state.  Another  interesting  case  upon  the  same  gen- 
eral subject  was  recently  decided  by  the  supreme  court  of  Mas- 
sachusetts. An  action  was  brought  in  Massachusetts  by  the 
administrator  of  a  man  who  had  lived  there  but  had  been  killed 
by  the  defendant  in  Connecticut.  The  defendant  was  incorpo- 
rated in  both  states,  and  there  was  a  statute  in  Massachusetts 
providing  that  a  cause  of  action  for  the  death  of  a  person  shall 
survive  in  his  personal  representative,  but  no  such  law  in  Con- 
necticut. The  court  held  that  the  fact  that  a  railroad  is  oper- 
ated as  a  continuous  line  under  a  charter  from  each  of  two  dif- 
ferent states  does  not  make  its  liabilities  different  or  greater  in 
one  of  them  on  account  of  an  accident  occurring  in  the  other, 
nor  because  the  person  injured  was  a  resident  of  the  former, 
and  that,  as  the  statute  of  Connecticut  gave  no  right  of  action, 
the  plaintiff  could  not  recover  in  Massachusetts.1 

§  29 .  Railroad  only  a  citizen  or  domestic  corporation  of  states 
that  charter  it — ESect  of  mere  license. — Many  railroad  corpora- 
tions operate  lines  in  other  states  than  those  by  which' the  corpora- 
tions are  created,  under  license  only,  in  which  case  they  remain 
domestic  corporations  and  citizens  only  of  the  states  by  which 
their  charters  are  granted,  and  foreign  corporations  in  the 
states  granting  the  license.2  An  act  of  the  legislature  recog- 
nizing a  foreign  corporation,  or  granting  it  privileges,  will  not 
be  construed  to  be  a  charter  of  incorporation,  unless  there  be 
a  manifest  intention  to  create  a  new  corporation  within  the 
state.8  And  the  fact  that  the  title  of  an  act  denominates  it  "an 
act  to  incorporate,"  is  not  sufficient  to  show  such  intention,  where 

1  Davis  v.  New  York,  etc.  R.  R.,  143  Co.,  151  U.  S.  673,  s.  c.  14  Sup.  .Ct.  R. 
Mass.  301,  s.  c.  58  Am.  R.  138.  533. 

2  Goodlett  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commis- 
122 TJ.  S.  391;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Harris,  sioners,  112  U.  S.  609;  New  Orleans, 
12  Wall.  (U.S.)  65,  83;  Pennsylvania  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Delamore,  114  U.S. 
Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  118  U.  S.  508;  Martin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R. 
290;  Martin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  151  U.  S.  673,  s.  c.  14  Sup.  Ct.  R. 

533. 


44  THE    CORPORATION.  §  30 

the  body  of  the  act  is  more  properly  construed  as  a  license.1 
A  railroad  company  operating  a  line  in  a  foreign  jurisdiction 
under  a  lease,2  or  under  authority  given  to  it  to  condemn  land 
for  a  right  of  way,  and  to  build  and  operate  a  railroad,8  does 
not  thereby  become  a  domestic  corporation,  even  where  the  act 
'giving  it  authority  contains  a  proviso  that  it  shall  be  deemed 
a  domestic  corporation  as  to  all  causes  of  action  arising  within 
the  state.*  Where  a  corporation  is  doing  business  under  a 
license,  the  license  may  generally  be  revoked  at  the  pleasure  of 
the  state  granting  it;5  but  this  rule  would  probably  be  subject, 
as  to  railroads,  to  the  principle  that  a  state  can  not  exclude  a 
corporation  engaged  in  interstate  commerce.6 

§  30.  Foreign  corporation — Conditions  of  admission  to  state. 

— The  .provision  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  of  the  federal 
constitution,  declaring  that  no  state  shall  "deny  to  any  person 
within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws,"  does 
not  prohibit  a  state  from  imposing  conditions  upon  foreign  cor- 
porations before  admitting  them  and  allowing  them  to  do  busi- 
ness within  the  state.7  But  the  conditions  must  not  be  such  as 

1  Goodlett  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  within  the  limits  of  the  latter,  or,  in- 
122  U.  S.  391.  deed,  through  the  entire  state,   and 

2  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koontz,  may  use  and  operate  the  line  as  one 
104  U.  S.  5;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  road,  by  the  permission  of  the  state, 
Gary,   28  Ohio   St.  208;  Callahan  v.  without  thereby  becoming  a  corpora- 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  11  Fed.  R.  tion  or  a  citizen  of  the  state  of  Indi- 
536.     So,  where  it  purchases  the  local  ana."     Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, 
road.     Morgan  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  etc.,  Co.  118  U.  S.  290. 

R.  Co.,  48  Fed.  R.  705;  Conn  v.  Chi-  *  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Becker,  32 

cago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  48  Fed.  R.  177.  Fed.  R.  849.     But  see  Western  &  A. 

Unless  it  is  merged  or  consolidated  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Roberson,  61  Fed.  R.  592. 

with  it.     Augier  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  5  Woods  Ry.   Law,    §15'  and  cases 

R.  R.  Co.,  74  Ga.  634,  s.  c.  20  Am.  &  cited;  Doyle  v.  Continental  Ins.  Co., 

Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  618 ;  Schaefer  v.  East  94  U.  S.  535 ;  Hartford  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ray- 

Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  76  Ga.  99.  mond,  70'Mich.  485. 

3  Hand  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  6Pensacola    Tel.    Co.    v.    Western 
S.  C.  314.     "A  corporation  of  Illinois,  Union  Tel.  Co.,  96  U.  S.   1;  Norfolk, 
authorized  by  its  laws  to  build  a  rail-  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  136  U.  S. 
road  across  the  state  from  the  Missis-  114.     See  also  41  Cent.  L.  J.  152. 
sippi  river  to  its  eastern  boundary,  'Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylva- 
may,  by  the  permission  of  the  state  of  nia,  136  U.  S.  114,  s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R. 
Indiana,  extend  its  road  a  few  miles  958;  Milnor  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R. 


§30 


LEGAL    STATUS. 


45 


tax  interstate  commerce,1  or  invade  the  province  of  Congress. 
Many  of  the  states  have  laws  prescribing  the  conditions  upon 
which  such  corporations  will  be  permitted  to  do  business.2 
Several  of  them  prohibit  any  foreign  railroad  corporation  from 
acquiring  a  right  of  way  and  doing  business  without  procuring 
a  charter  and  becoming  a  domestic  corporation.8  Bringing  an. 
action  in  the  state  or  federal  courts  of  a  foreign  state  does  not 
constitute  "doing  business"  in  such  state,  and  such  an  action 
may  be  maintained,  although  the  laws  of  that  state  relating  to 
foreign  corporations  within  its  limits  have  not  been  complied 


Co.,  53  N.  Y.  363;  People  v.  Fire 
Ass'n,  92  N.  Y.  311,  s.  c.  44  Am.  R. 
380.  A  statute  imposing  as  a  condi- 
tion upon  foreign  corporations  doing 
business  in  Pennsylvania  that  they 
shall  assess  and  collect  the  tax  upon 
that  portion  of  their  loans  in  the 
hands  of  individual  residents  within 
the  state  was  held  valid,  as  such  stat- 
ute does  not  impose  a  tax,  but  simply 
defines  a  duty,  and  fixes  a. penalty  for 
a  disregard  thereof.  Com.  v.  New 
York,  L.  E.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  129  Pa.  463, 
25  W.  N.  C.  15 ;  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Com.,  7  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J. 
14,  18  Atl.  412.  But  this  was  reversed 
in  N.  Y.,  L.,  E.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Penna.,  153  U.  S.  628,  s.  c.  14  Sup.  Ct. 
R.  952,  for  the  reason  that  the  statute 
impaired  the  obligation  of  the  contract 
between  the  company  and  the  state. 
See  note  to  States.  Ackerman,  (Ohio) 
24  L.  R.  A.  298,  and  note  to  Cone, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Poole,  (S.  Car.)  24  L.  R. 
A.  289;  "State  Legislation  Against 
Foreign  Corporations,"  41  Cent.  L. 
Jour.  152. 

1  Crutcher    v.  Commonwealth,    141 
U.  S.  47,  s.  c.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  851 ;  Nor- 
folk, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 
136  U.  S.  114,  s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  958; 
McCall  v.  People,  136  U.  S.  104,  s.  c. 
10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  881. 

2  See   Stimson's    Am.    Stat.    (1892) 
§  8400-8415. 


3  See,  for  instance,  Pub.  Acts,  Va., 
1889-90,  c.  67,  p.  51.  So,  in  Nebraska, 
it  is  held  that  a  foreign  railroad  cor- 
poration, being  prohibited  by  the 
constitution  from  acquiring  a  right  of 
way  in  Nebraska,  can  not  do  so  in- 
directly through  a  Nebraska  corpora- 
tion. Koenig  v.  Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  R. 
Co.,  27  Neb.  699,  43  N.W.  423.  In  Penn- 
sylvania, where  the  statutes  allow  the 
stock  of  domestic  corporations  to  be 
held  by  other  corporations,  it  is  held 
that  a  foreign  corporation  does  not, 
by  owning  all  the  stock  of  a  domestic 
corporation,  "acquire  or  hold"  the 
real  estate  of  the  domestic  corporation 
so  as  to  violate  the  act  of  April  26, 
1855,  against  acquiring  or  holding  real 
estate  "directly  in  the  corporate  name, 
or  by,  or  through  any  trustee  or  other 
device  whatsoever,  unless  specially 
authorized,"  under  penalty  of  escheat. 
Com.  ex  rel.  Attorney-General  v.  New 
York,  L.  E.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  ( Pa.)  7  L.  R. 
A.  634,  25  W.  N.  C.  404,  47  Leg.  Int. 
222,  19  Atl.  291,  132  Pa.  St.  591.  A 
constitutional  provision  that  no  for- 
eign corporation  shall  "have  power 
to  condemn  or  appropriate  property" 
does  not  prevent  a  foreign  railroad 
corporation  from  acquiring  a  right  of 
way  by  agreement  with  the  land 
owner.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v, 
Foltz,  52  Fed.  R.  627. 


46 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§31 


with.1  Where  a  foreign  corporation  doing  business  in  the  state 
fails  to  designate  a  resident  agent,  upon  whom  service  of  pro- 
cess may  be  made  as  required  by  law,  it  has  been  held  that  a 
court  possessing  equity  powers  has  jurisdiction  to  appoint  a 
receiver  for  the  business  of  such  corporation,  without  personal 
service,  upon  a  showing  of  an  immediate  necessity  for  such 
action.2 

§  31.  Railroads  as  property. — All  property  essential  to  the 
operation  of  a  railroad,  including  the  right  of  way,  road-bed, 
ties,  rails,  side-tracks,  switches,  depots,  station-houses,  wa- 
ter-tanks, and  other  fixtures,  together  with  the  rolling  stock 
and  other  necessary  movable  appliances,  has  been  held  by 
the  federal  courts  to  be  real  estate.8  The  same  ruling  is 
made  by  the  courts  of  many  states,4  in  some  of  which  the 
character  of  rolling  stock  as  property  is  fixed  by  statute.5 

pond,  doves  in  a  cote,  all  of  which 
have  been  held  to  be  realty.  Farrar 
v.  Stackpole,  6  Greenl.  155 ;  Lushing- 
ton  v.  Sewell,  1  Sim.  435,  480;  Wash- 
burn  on  real  Property,  (3d  ed.)  vol.  1, 
page  10.  But  see  as  to  taxation,  the 
more  recent  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  in  Green 
v.  Van  Buskirk,  7  Wall.  139,  150; 
Gloucester  Ferry  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 
114  U.  S.  196,  s.  c.  13  Am.  &  Eng. 
Corp.  Cas.  3G5 ;  also  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  22  Fed.  R.  376,  s.  c. 
17  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  461. 

4  Farmers'  Loan  and  Trust  Co.  v. 
Hendrickson,  25Barb.(N.Y.)  484, 493; 
Palmer  v.  Forbes,  23  111.  237 ;  Young- 
man  v.  Elmira,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Penn. 
St.  278;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
State,  25  Ind.  177 ;  Tiedeman  on  Real 
Property,  §2;  and  authorities  cited  in 
19  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law,  882,  883, 
where  it  is  said  that  the  better  and 
more  recent  authorities,  which  are 
there  cited,  hold  that  it  is  personalty. 

'Phillips  v.  Winslow,  18  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)  431 ;  Miller  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  36  Vt.  452,  490. 


1  Texas  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Worsham, 
76  Tex.  556;  Christian  v.  American, 
etc.,  Co.,  89  Ala.  198,  7  So.  R.  427; 
American  Loan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  & 
W.  R.  Co.,  37  Fed.  R.  242;  Powder 
River,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Custer  County,  9 
Mont.  145,  22  Pac.  383;  C.  B.  Rogers 
&  Co.,  v.  Simmons,  155  Mass.  259; 
Ayres  v.  Siebel,  82  Iowa  347. 

2Glinesw.  Supreme  S.  0.  of  I.  H., 
20  N.  Y.  Supp.  275. 

8  Minnesota  Co.  v.  St.  Paul  Co.,  2 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  609;  Farmers'  Loan 
and  Trust  Co.  v.  St.  Jo.,  etc.,  Rail- 
road Co.,  3  Dill.  (TT.  S.)  412;  Pen- 
nock  v.  Coe,  23  How.  (U.  S.)  117. 
This  ruling  is  made  the  more  read- 
ily when  necessary  to  the  protec- 
tion of  the  rights  of  lien  holders,  in 
whose  hands  the  permanent  struct- 
ure without  the  movable  appliances 
would  have  little  value.  An  analogy 
is  drawn  between  rolling  stock  and 
other  movable  railroad  appliances, 
and  Venetian  blinds,  lightning  rods, 
cattle,  and  slaves,  and  implements 
used  in  working  a  plantation,  a  steel- 
yard in  a  machine  house,  fish  in  a 


§  32  LEGAL    STATUS.  47 

In  those  states  in  which  the  subject  is  uncontrolled  by  stat- 
ute, the  preponderance  of  authority  is  to  the  effect  that 
only  the  land  owned  by  the  railroad  company,  together  with 
the  ties,  rails  and  other  structures  permanently  affixed  thereto, 
is  realty;  and  that  engines,  cars,  and  other  movable  appli- 
ances are  to  be  regarded  for  most  purposes  as  personalty.1 
The  question  of  what  is  permanently  affixed  to  a  railroad  right 
of  way  is  one  partly  of  law  and  partly  of  fact,  mainly  dependent 
on  the  purpose  of  the  builders,  whether,  for  example,  it  be 
to  construct  a  main  line  or  side  branches  for  temporary  use.8 
A  railroad  corporation's  property,  so  far  as  the  ownership  and 
the  profit  are  concerned,  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes  private, 
though  applied  to  a  use  in  which  the  public  has  an  interest.* 

§  32.  Railroads  as  monopolies. — A  railroad  is  not  necessari- 
ly nor  usually  a  monopoly  in  a  legal  sense,  nor  is  the  company 
entitled  to  prevent  the  location  of  a  rival  railroad  upon  or 
across  the  territory  through  which  its  road  runs,  when  such 
rival  road  is  duly  authorized  by  the  state;*  for  the  grant  of  a 
franchise  to  one  corporation  will  not  be  construed  as  a  pledge 
that  the  state  will  not  grant  similar  franchises  to  another, 
although  by  so  doing  it  may  impair  or  even  destroy  the  value 
of  the  first  franchise.5  The  legislature  may,  however,  unless 

!Rorer  on  Railroads,  §§  10,  11;  cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  111.  506;  Pitts- 
Green's  Brice's  Ultra  Vires,  238  and  burg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benwood  Iron 
note ;  Hoyle  v.  Plattsburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Works,  31  W.  Ya.  710,  36  Am.  &  Eng. 
Co.,  54  N.  Y.  314,  s.  c.  13  Am.  R.  595 ;  R.  Cas.  531. 

Randall  v.  Elwell,  52  N.  Y.  521,  s.  c.  11  *  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  «.  State,  45 

Am.  R.  747 ;  Williamson,  Trustee,  v.  Md.  596;    Newcastle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

New  Jersey  Southern  R.  Co.,  29  N.  J.  Peru,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Ind.  464;  Metro- 

Eq.  311,  15  Am.  R.  Rep.  572,  and  au-  politan  R.  Co.  v.  Highland  St.  R.  Co., 

thorities  there  cited ;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  118  Mass.  290;  1  Rorer  on  Railroads, 

R.   Co.  v.   Ft.   Howard,  21  Wis.  44 ;  9 ;  Pierce  on  Railroads,  452,  453.   But 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Gilmore,  37  see  Raritan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Delaware, 

N.  H.  410;Coe  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  etc.,    Canal   Co.,   18  N.   J.   Eq.  546. 

R.  Co.,  10  Ohio  St.  372,  s.  c.  75  Am.  5  Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren 

Dec.  518;  and  authorities  cited  in  25  Bridge,  6  Pick.  (Mass.)  376,  7  Pick. 

Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law,  654.  (Mass.)  344,    11  Peters   (U.  S.)  420. 

2  Van  Keuren  v.  Central  R.  of  N.  J.,  See,  also,  as  to  turnpikes,  Indian  C. 

38  N.  J.  L.  165,  13  Am.  R.  Rep.  43.  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson,  13  Cal.  519;  Bart- 

8  Lake  Shore,   etc.,  R.  Co.    v.  Chi-  ram  v.  Central  T.  Co.,  25  Cal.  283; 


48 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§32 


prohibited  by  the  constitution,  grant  an  exclusive  franchise  to 
build  and  maintain  a  railroad  within  certain  limits,1  such 
franchise  being  always  subject  to  the  right  of  eminent  domain.2 
But  a  monopoly  is  not  to  be  implied.8 


Collins  v.  Sherman,  31  Miss.  679; 
Turnpike  Co.  v.  State,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
210;  Washington  &  B.  T.  R.  v.  Balti- 
more &  0.  R.  Co.,  10  Gill  &  J.  392; 
White  R.  T.  Co.  V.Vermont  C.  R.  Co., 
21  Vt.  590 ;  Lafayette  P.  R.  Co.  v.  New 
Albany  &  S.  R.  Co.,  13  Ind.  90.  As  to 
bridges,  see  Hamilton  Ave.,  In  re,  14 
Barb.  405;  Fall  v.  Sutter  C.,  21  Cal. 
237;  Oswego  Falls  B.  Co.  v.  Fish,  1 
Barb.  Ch.  547 ;  Hartford  B.  Co.  v.  Un- 
ion FerryCo.,  29  Conn.  210 ;  Thompson 
v.  New  York  &  H.  R.  Co.,  3  Sandf.  Ch. 
625.  As  to  ferries,  see  Collins  v. 
Sherman,  31  Miss.  679 ;  Fitch  v.  New 
Haven,  N.  L.  &  S.  R.  Co.,  30  Conn. 
38;  Wright  v.  Nagle,  101  U.  S.  791; 
Richmond  &  L.  T.  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers, 
1  Duvall  135 ;  McLeod  v.  Burroughs, 
9  Ga.  213 ;  Harrison  v.  Young,  9  Ga. 
359;  Shorter  v.  Smith,  9  Ga.  517.  As 
to  canals,  see  Tuckahoe  C.  Co.  v  Tuck- 
ahoe,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Leigh  42;  Illi- 
nois &  M.  C.  Co.  v.  Chicago  &  R.  I.  R. 
Co.,  14  111.  314. 

1  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Salem,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  2  Gray  (Mass.)  1;  Pennsylva- 
nia R.  Co.  v.  National,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
23  N.  J.  Eq.  441 ;  State  v.  Noyes,  47 
Me.  189,  208;  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Md.  263; 
Gambles  v.  Phila.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 
Brewster  (Pa.)  563,  595;  19  Am.  & 
Eng.  Encyl.  of  L.  784 ;  Pierce  on  Rail- 
roads, 454,  citing  Micou  v.  Tallassee 
C.  Co.,  47  Ala.  652;  Binghampton  B. 
Co.,  In  re,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.)  51 ;  Chenan- 
go  B.  Co.  v.  Binghamton  B.  Co.,  27  N. 
Y.  87;  Chenango  B.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  63 
Barb.  Ill ;  Bridge  Proprietors  v.  Ho- 
boken  Co.,  1  Wall.  116,  13  N.  J.  Eq. 
81,503;  Martin  v,  O'Brien,  34  Miss. 


21;  California  State  Tel.  Co.v.  AltaT. 
Co.,  22  Cal.  398;  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Louisa  R.  Co.,  13  How.  71; 
Pontchartrain  R.  Co.  v.  Orleans  Nav. 
Co.,  15  La.  404 ;  Delaware  &  R.  C.  Co. 
v.  Camden  &  A.  R.  Co.,  16  N.  J.  Eq. 
321,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  546;  Michigan  C.  R. 
Co.  v.  Michigan  S.  R.  Co.,  4  Mich. 
361;  Penna.  R.  Co.  v.  National  R. 
Co.,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  441.  In  Fidelity 
Trust  &  Safety  Vault  Co.  v.  Mobile 
St.  R.  Co.,  53  Fed.  R.  687,  it  is  held 
that  one  public  corporation  can  not 
take  the  franchise  of  another  even 
under  legislative  authority,  if  such 
taking  will  materially  affect  its  use. 
Where  there  is  no  reserved  right  of 
amendment,  the  grant  of  an  exclusive 
franchise  to  operate  a  railroad  within 

2Enfield  T.  B.  Co.  v.  Hartford  & 
N.  H.  R.  Co.,  17  Conn.  40,  454 ;  Piscat- 
aqua  B.  v.  New  Hampshire  Bridge,  7 
N.  H.  35;  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Southern  &  A.  T.  Co.,  53  Ala.  211 ;  New 
Jersey  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Long  Branch  Com., 
31  N.  J.  L.  28 ;  Metropolitan  C.  R.  Co. 
v.  Chicago  W.  D.  R.  Co.,  87  111.  317. 

3  Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren 
Bridge,  11  Peters  (U.  S.)  420 ;  State,  ex 
rel.  Attorney-General,  v.  Hamilton,  47 
Ohio  St.  52,  29  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cas.  208,  23  W.  L.  Bull.  190,  23  N.  E. 
935 ;  Syracuse  Water  Co.  v.  Syracuse,  5 
L.  R.  A.  546,  116  N.  Y.  167,  29  Am.  & 
Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  307,  26  N.  Y.  S.  R. 
364,  22  N.  E.  381;  Hudson  River 
Teleph.  Co.  v.  Watervliet  Turnp. 
&  R.  Co.,  56  Hun  67,  29  N.  Y. 
S.  R.  694, 9  N.Y.  Supp.  177 ;  Lafayette 
Plank  Road  Co.  v.  New  Albany,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  13  Ind.  90.  Post,  §39. 


§33 


LEGAL    STATUS. 


49 


§  33.  Railroads  as  public  highways. — Railroads,  by  whom- 
soever constructed  or  owned,  are  quasi  public  works  and  are 
often  likened  to  public  highways.1  The  constitutions2  and  laws* 
of  some  states  declare  them  to  be  public  highways  ;  those  of 
others  declare  the  companies  to  be  common  carriers,  whose 
roads  are  available  to  all  persons  for  the  transportation  of  them- 
selves and  their  property.*  This  latter  definition  expresses 
most  nearly  the  relation  of  a  completed  railroad  to  the  public. 
Except  in  discharging  its  duties  as  a  carrier,  the  company  is 


certain  limits  amounts  to  a  contract 
on  the  part  of  the  state,  which  it  can 
not  violate  by  the  conferring  upon  an- 
other company  power  to  build  and 
operate  a  parallel  road.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Salem,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Mass. 
(2  Gray)  1 ;  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Md.  263. 
See,  also,  Raritan,  etc.,  R.  R.  v.  Canal 
Co.,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  546;  Pontchartrain 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  11  La.  Ann.  253.  But  compare 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  5  Cush.  (Mass.)  375;  Rich- 
mond, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Louisa,  etc.,  R. 
R. Co.,  13  How.  (U.S.)  71;  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Louisville  City  R.  R. 
Co.,  2  Duv.  (Ky.)  175. 

1  White  River  T.  Co.  v.  Vermont  C. 
R.  Co.,  21  Vt.  590.  "We  regard  it  as  a 
misnomer  to  attach  even  the  name 
'quasi  public  corporation'  to  a  railroad 
company.  *  *  *  Its  road  may  be 
called  a  quasi  public  highway."  Gor- 
don, J.,  in  Peirce  v.  Com.,  104  Pa.  St. 
150,  13  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  74,  79. 
LakeSuperior,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  TJ.  S.,  93  U. 
8.  442,  458,  dissenting  opinion.  "That 
railroads,  though  constructed  by  pri- 
vate corporations  and  owned  by  them, 
are  public  highways,  has  been  the 
doctrine  of  nearly  all  the  courts  ever 
since  such  conveniences  for  passage 
and  transportation  have  had  any  ex- 

CORP.  4 


istence."  Olcott  v.  Supervisors,  16 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  678,  694.  But  the  old 
theory  that  a  railroad  is  a  public  high- 
way in  the  same  sense  as  a  turnpike, 
over  which  any  person  may  run  his  ve- 
hicles upon  payment  of  suitable  tolls, 
has  been  abandoned.  Cook  on  Stock 
and  Stockholders,  (3d  ed.)  §  900.  cit- 
ing Beekman  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
3  Paige  (N.  Y.)  45,  74;  Camblos  v. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Brewster 
(Pa.)  563,  597.  They  are  not  high- 
ways in  such  a  sense  as  to  render 
an  obstruction  thereon  a  public  nui- 
sance. Stoneback  v.  Thomas  Iron 
Co.,  (Pa.)  4  Atl.  R.  721. 

2  Const.  Pa.,  art.  17,  §  1 ;  111.,  art.  11, 
§12;  Neb.,  1875,  art.  2,  §  4;  W.  Va., 
art.  11,  §  9;  Mo.,  art.  12,  §  13;  Ark., 
art.  17,  §  1 ;  Tex.,  art.  10,  §§1,2;  Cal., 
art.  12,  §  17;  Colo.,  art.  15,  §  4;  Ala., 
art.  13,  §  21 ;  La.,  1879,  art.  244;  Miss. 
1890,  art.  6,  §  184 ;  Charter  Pennsylva- 
nia R.  Co.,  1846,  see  Trunicku.  Smith, 
63  Pa.  St.  18. 

3Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  Law,  §§  8801, 
8830. 

4  The  Pennsylvania  railroad  is  de- 
clared by  its  charter  (Pamphlet  Laws, 
1846, 323)  to  be  a  public  highway,  over 
which  the  company  must  haul  the  cars 
of  all  persons  who  require  such  serv- 
ice subject  to  restrictions.  Trunickv. 
Smith,  63  Pa.  St.  18. 


50 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§33 


entitled  to  the  exclusive  use  and  possession  of  its  property.1 
There  may  also  be  said  to  be  a  resemblance  to  public  highways 
in  that  the  power  of  eminent  domain  can  be  invoked  to  aid  in 
the  construction  and  extension  of  railroads,2  whenever,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  legislature,  they  will  be  of  value  as  thorough- 
fares over  which  the  services  of  common  carriers  can  be  ren- 
dered.3 Again,  they  are  so  far  public  improvements  that  the 
state  may  levy  and  collect  a  tax  to  aid  in  their  construction.* 


1  Central  R.  of  Georgia  v.  Brinson, 
10  Ga.  207,  19  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  42; 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Schwind- 
ling,  101  Pa.  St.  258,  8  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  544;  T.  P.  &  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Pence, 
63  111.  524 ;  Hoyt  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co., 
93  111.  601 ;  Chicago,  etc.,  Railway  Co. 
v.  Chicago  City  Railway  Co.,  10  Nat. 
Corp.  Rep.  651. 

2  In  re  Niagara  Falls,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
108  N.  Y.  375 ;  Inhabitants  of  Worces- 
ter v.  The  Western  R.   Co.,   4  Met. 
(Mass.)    564,   1    Am.   Ry.  Cas.   350, 
352;    Hodgerson    v.    St.   Louis,   etc., 
R.  R.   Co.,    (111.)   43    N.  E.  R.  614; 


Gibson  v.  Mason,  5  Nev.  283;  Stewart 
v.  Erie  &  W.  Trans.  Co.,  17  Minn.  372 ; 
Olcotto.  The  Supervisors,  16  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  678 ;  Cooley's  Const.  Lim.  (4th  ed.) 
665. 

3  Weir  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 
Minn.   155;   Newburyport  T.  Co.,  v. 
Eastern  R.  Co.,  23  Pick.  326, 1  Am.  Ry. 
Cas.  294;  Contra  Costa  R.  Co.  v.  Moss, 
23  Cal.  323. 

4  Olcott  v.  Supervisors,  16  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  678,   ante,  §  1 ;  post,    chapter  on 
Municipal  Aid ;  Ravenswood  R.  Co. 
v.  Ravenswood,  (W.  Va.)  24  S.  E.  R. 
597. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


CHARTERS. 


§34.  Special   charters   and   general 
laws. 

35.  Acceptance  of  charter. 

36.  Terms  upon  which  charter  is 

granted  must  be  complied 
with— Provisions  in  general 
laws. 

37.  Particular  corporation  must  be 

authorized. 

38.  Construction  of  charter  —  Gen- 

eral rules. 

39.  Grants  of  monopolies  and  pow- 

ers in  derogation  of  public 
rights — Perpetuity . 

40.  Practical  construction. 

41.  Charter  to  build  and  operate  a 

railroad  —  What  powers  are 
included. 

42.  Other  powers  of  railroad  com- 

panies —  Implied  powers  in- 
cluded in  certain  grants. 

43.  Amendment  —  Power  must  be 

reserved. 

44.  Police  regulations. 

45.  Material  amendments   require 

unanimous  consent  of  stock- 
holders— What  are  material. 

46.  Statutory  provisions  authorizing 

amendments. 

47.  Forfeiture  —  Statutory    provis- 

ions dispensing  with  judicial 
determination. 


(§48.  Implied  condition  that  corpo- 
rate franchise  is  subject  to 
forfeiture  —  Judicial  determi- 
nation— Causes  for  forfeiture. 

49.  Grounds  of  forfeiture — Illustra- 

tive cases. 

50.  When  duty  to  declare  forfeiture 

is  mandatory  and  when  dis- 
cretionary. 

51.  What  is  not  cause  for  forfeiture. 

52.  Waiver  of  forfeiture — Collateral 

proceedings. 

53.  Proceedings  to:forfeit — Quowar- 

ranto — Parties. 

54.  Proceedings  must  generally  be 

in  court  of  law  —  Statutory 
provisions. 

55.  Collateral  proceedings — Plead- 

ings and  judgment  in  forfeit- 
ure proceedings. 

56.  Repeal  of  charter  —  Reserved 

power. 

57.  Repeal  where  conditional  power 

is  reserved. 

58.  Rule  where  power  to  repeal  is 

not  reserved. 

59.  Effect  of  repeal. 

60.  Repeal  of  by  general  laws. 

61.  Charter  is  subject  to   general 

laws  reserving  power  to  re- 
peal. 

62.  Expiration  of  charter. 


§  34.  Special  charters  and  general  laws. — The  power  to 
grant  railroad  charters  in  common  with  charters  of  other  cor- 
porations is  a  legislative  function,  usually  exercised  in  this 

(51) 


52  THE    CORPORATION.  §  85 

country  by  the  legislatures  of  the  various  states,1  although  con- 
gress may,  in  the  exercise  of  its  power  to  regulate  interstate 
commerce,  construct,  or  authorize  individuals  or  corporations 
to  construct,  railroads  across  the  states  and  territories  of  the 
United  States.2  These  charters  are  either  special,  in  which 
case  corporate  powers  &re  conferred  upon  certain  designated 
persons  by  an  act  of  the  legislature,  in  which  the  powers,  duties 
and  liabilities  of  the  specified  corporation  are  enumerated  at 
length;  or  they  are  derived  from  a  general  authorization  to 
any  man  or  men  to  be  and  act  as  a  body  corporate  upon 
complying  with  certain  terms.8  In  order  to  prevent  the  grant- 
ing of  special  and  exclusive  privileges,  and  to  render  all  cor- 
porations amenable  to  the  will  of  the  legislature  at  all  times, 
charters  are  usually  conferred  only  by  general  laws,*  special 
charters  being  prohibited  by  the  constitutions  of  most  of  the 
states.8 

§  35.  Acceptance  of  charter. — In  either  case  the  charter  is 
generally  of  no  effect  until  the  terms  upon  which  it  is  granted 
are  complied  with,  and  it  is  accepted  by  the  incorporators.6 
The  construction  and  operation  by  a  railroad  company  of  a 
part  of  its  road  is  sufficient  evidence  of  an  acceptance  of  its 
charter,  where  no  particular  mode  of  acceptance  is  designated,7 

1  Angell  &  Ames  on  Corporations,  468;  Roosa  v.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
§  71.  114  Mo.  508.    In  support  of  the  text, 

2  California  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  see  Roberts  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
2  Interstate  Com.  R.  153,  127  U.  S.I,  43  Kan.  102,  43  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1073;  Thomson  v.  Pac.  R.  532,  22  Pac.  1006;  San   Francisco  v. 
R.  Co.,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  579.  Spring  Valley  W.  W.,  48  Cal.   493; 

8  The  general  law  and  the  articles  of  Wallace  v.  Loomis,  97  U.  S.  146 ;  St. 

incorporation  or  association  execated  Paul  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Allis,  24  Minn, 

and  filed  in  compliance  therewith,  in  75.    In  England  general  power  to  or- 

such  a  case,  constitute  the  charter.  ganize  railroads  is  given  by  the  Rail- 

*Morawetz  on  Private    Corp.    (2d  ways  Construction   Facilities  Act,  27 

ed.)  §  12;  Pierce  on  railroads,  3.  and  28  Viet.  Ch.  121. 

8Stimson  Am.  St.  Law,  §441.  Even  6  Angell  and  Ames  on  Corporations, 
when  the  constitution  prohibits  the  §81;  Bates  v.  Wilson,  14  Colo.  140;  8 
creation  of  corporations  by  special  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  144;  24  Pac.  R. 
laws,  a  special  charter  granted  before  99 ;  ante,  Chapter  II. 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution  may  7  St.  Joseph  &  I.  R.  Co.  v.  Sham- 
be  amended  by  special  act.  State  v.  baugh,  17  S.  W.  R.  581,  8.  c.  106  Mo. 
Cape  Girardeau  Railroad  Co.,  48  Mo.  557. 


$  36  CHARTERS.  53 

and  it  is  held  that  a  railroad  charter  may  be  considered  as  pre- 
sumptively accepted  at  its  date  without  record  evidence  of  the 
fact,  when  it  appears  that  the  grantees  afterwards  asked  for 
and  obtained  amendments  and  have  fully  constructed  the  road/ 
although  it  has  been  said  that  the  certificate  of  incorporation 
constitutes  the  only  evidence  of  the  acceptance  of  the  terms  and 
conditions  contained  in  the  statute. *  This,  however,  is  not  the 
rule  with  regard  to  special  charters,  and  it  may  be  doubted  if 
it  is  of  universal  application  even  in  other  cases.8 

§  36.  Terms  upon  which  charter  is  granted  must  be  com- 
plied with — Provisions  in  general  laws. — It  is  generally  essen- 
tial to  the  existence  of  a  de  jure  corporation  that  the  terms  up- 
on which  a  grant  of  corporate  rights  is  made  should  be  sub- 
stantially complied  with,  though  slight  irregularities  will  not 
necessarily  defeat  the  incorporation,4  particularly  where  the 
statute  provides  for  their  amendment.5  The  general  laws  for 
the  incorporation  of  railway  companies  in  the  various  states  of 
this  country  are  substantially  the  same  in  most  respects.6  They 
usually  require  that  the  articles  shall  state  the  name  of  the 
company,7  the  amount  of  the  capital  stock,  and  the  number  of 

1  Farnsworth  v.  Lime  Rock  R.  Co.,  against  any  road,  and  that  uniform 
83  Me.  440,  s.  c.  22  Atl.  R.  373.  rates  for  the  same  services  shall  be 

2  Bates  v.  Wilson,  14  Colo.  140,     8  charged  to  either  persons  or  railroad 
R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  144,  24  Pac.  R.  99.  companies,  does  not  show  that  the 

*See  ante,  §§  17,  18,  where  the  sub-  carriage  of  passengers  was  excluded 

ject  is  more  fully  treated.  from  the  purposes  of  its  organization, 

4  People  v.  Montecito,  etc.,  Co.,  97  especially  where  the  articles  state  that 

Gal.   276,  s.  c.  33  Am.  St.  R.  172,  and  the  organization  is  for  the  purpose  of 

note ;  Eakright  v.  Logansport,  etc.,  R.  constructing,  operating  and  maintain* 

R.  Co.,   13   Ind.   404;    Busenback  v.  ing  a  railroad  of  standard  gauge.  Bay 

Attica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Ind.  265;  State  City   Belt  Line  R.  Co.  w.  Hitchcock, 

D.Wood,  84  Mo.  378 ;  People  v.  Cheese-  90  Mich.  533. 

man,  7  Colo.  376 ;  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  b  See  N.  Y.  Laws  1870,  Ch.  135,  §1; 

v.  Cary,  26  N.  Y.  75 ;  Cayuga  Lake  R.  Beach  on  the  Law  of  Railways,  §  37. 

Co.  v.  Kyle,  64  N.  Y.  185.  5  Thomp-  6The  general  acts  of  the  various 

son  &  C.  659;  Busey   v.  Hooper,  35  states  are  built  upon  the  railroad  act 

Md.  15;   Pierce  on   Railroads,  4.     A  of  New  York,  enacted  in  1850,  Laws, 

statement  in  the  articles  of  associa-  1850,  Ch.  140,  Cook  on  Corporations, 

tion  of   a   railroad   company   that  it  §  27. 

shall  be  operated  as  a  transfer  road,  ''Rhodes  v.  Piper,  40  Ind.  369.    A 

and  no  discrimination  shall  be  made  corporation  is  entitled  to  the  exclusive 


64 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§36 


shares  into  which  it  is  divided,  the  termini  of  the  road,  the 
names  of  the  counties  through  which  it  will  pass,  its  length  as 
near  as  may  be,  and  the  number  of  directors  chosen  to  manage 
the  affairs  of  the  corporation,  together  with  their  names.1  To 
these  are  added  various  requirements  by  different  states,  as 
that  the  capital  stock  shall  be  not  less  than  a  certain  sum  per 
mile,  or  that  the  places  of  residence  of  the  directors  shall  be 
given,  or  that  the  number  of  years  the  corporation  is  to  con- 
tinue shall  be  stated.2  The  articles  must  usually  be  signed  by 
a  certain  number3  of  subscribers  to  the  capital  stock,  eacli  of 
whom  must  state  his  place  of  residence  and  the  number  of 
shares  taken  by  him.*  The  filing  of  such  articles,  properly 
verified  or  acknowledged,  in  some  public  repository,  as  the  of- 
fice of  the  secretary  of  state  or  of  some  local  recording  officer, 
with  the  addition,  perhaps,  of  the  certificate  of  some  public 
officer,  that  the  statutes  have  been  complied  with,  usually  cre- 
ates the  corporation  .fc  After  such  articles  have  been  filed  they  are 


use  of  the  name  it  chooses.  Holmes 
v.  Holmes,  etc.,  Man.  Co.,  37  Conn. 
278;  Goodyear  Rubber  Co.  v.  Good- 
year Rubber  Man.  Co.,  8  Am.  &  Eng. 
Corp.  Cases,  317 ;  note  to  Cincinnati 
Cooperage  Co.  v.  Bate,  10  Lewis'  Am. 
R.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  653,  672. 

^ee  ante,  §18.  R.  S.  1881,  Ind., 
§3885;  1  N.  Y.  Laws  1850,  Ch.  140, 
§  1 ;  1  Beach  on  Laws  on  Railways, 
§  36 ;  Pierce  on  Railroads,  3.  The  fact 
that  the  articles  are  required  to  name 
the  termini  of  the  road  affords  no  argu- 
ment that  such  road  shall  be  longi- 
tudinal. A  circular  railroad  may  be 
incorporated  and  may  exercise  the 
power  of  eminent  domain.  State  v. 
Martin,  51  Kan.  462.  The  names  of 
the  directors  are  essential.  Dutchess, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mabbett,  58  N.  Y.  397. 
The  contrary  is  held  in  Eakrightr. 
Logansport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Ind.  404. 
But  the  force  of  that  case  as  an  author- 
ity is  destroyed  by  the  cases  of  Bush- 
enback  v.  Attica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Ind. 


265,  and  Reed  v.  Richmond  Street  R, 
Co.,  50  Ind.  342. 
2Stimson  Am.  St.,  §8523. 

3  The  number  required  is  twenty-five 
in  New  York,  while  five  are  sufficient 
in  many  states.     Three  only  are  re- 
quired in  Florida  and  one  may  incor- 
porate in  Iowa.     Stimson's  Am.  Stat. 
Law,   §8520.     Subscriptions  of  stock 
upon  conditions  that  can  only  be  fiu- 
filled  after  incorporation  are  not  to  be 
counted  as  a  part  of  the  necessary  pre- 
liminary subscription.     Fairview    R. 
Co.  v.  Spillman,  23  Ore.  587. 

4  Beach  on  Law  of  Railways,  §36; 
Pierce  on  Railroads,  3.   See  ante,  §18. 

s  Ante,  §  18,  Pierce  on  Railroads,  3 ; 
Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  Law,  §§8522, 
8526.  In  Illinois  it  is  said  that  a  cor- 
poration can  not  do  business  until  the 
certificate  of  complete  organization 
and  a  copy  of  all  papers  filed  with  the 
secretary  of  state  have  been  duly  re- 
corded, and  that  fraudulently  and 
surreptitiously  recording  papers  of  a 


§  37  CHARTERS.  55 

usually  the  best  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  corporation  de 
jure,1  It  is  held  in  Colorado  that  the  omission  of  any  of  the 
requisites  of  a  certificate  of  incorporation  required  by  the  gener- 
al act  for  the  formation  of  corporations,8  is  a  fatal  defect,  and  no 
de  jure  right  is  conferred  by  such  certificate  to  exercise  corporate 
franchises;  and,  therefore,  a  certificate  of  incorporation  con- 
taining no  provision  for  directors,  trustees,  or  any  governing 
body,  as  required  by  the  statute,  but  vesting  the  control  and 
management  of  the  corporation  in  a  president,  vice-president, 
and  attorney,  is  insufficient  to  confer  a  right  to  exercise  such 
franchises.3  A  statute  which  requires  the  certificate  of  organ- 
ization of  a  railroad  company  to  state  the  termini  of  the  road, 
and  the  county  or  counties  through  which  the  road  shall  pass, 
applies  only  to  the  main  line  of  the  company,  and,  hence,  it  is 
unnecessary  for  the  certificate  to  specify  the  termini  of  branch 
lines  or  the  counties  through  which  they  will  pass.4  And  it 
has  been  held  that  the  description  of  a  terminus  as  ''at  or 
near"  a  certain  place  is  not  so  indefinite  and  defective  as  to 
vitiate  the  articles  of  incorporation,8  Where  an  estimate  of 
the  length  of  the  road  is  required,  it  may  be  approximately 
given.6 

§  37 .  Particular  corporation  must  be  authorized.  —  The 
charter  confers  corporate  rights  and  privileges  only  upon  those 
named  as  incorporators  or  upon  those  to  whom  their  rights  are 
transferred  by  authority  of  law.  Parties  can  not  take  a  corpo- 
rate charter  with  which  they  have  no  concern  and  which  be- 
longs to  others,  and  effect  a  valid  corporate  organization  by  a 

new  corporation,  contrary  to  the  agree-  *Trester  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.Co., 

ment  of  the  incorporators,  is  of   no  33  Neb.  171,  49  N.  W.  1110.    See  ante, 

effect.     Ricker  v.  Larkin,  27  111.  App.  §18. 

625.  5  Central  R.  R.  Co.  c.  Penna.  R.  R. 

1  Bates  v.  Wilson,  14  Colo.  140,  8  R.  Co.,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  475;  Warner  v.  Cal- 

R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  144,  24  Pac.  99.  lender,  20  Ohio  St.  190.  But  see  De 

*  Col.  Gen.  Stat.  1883,  §  238.  Long  v.  Schimmel,  58  Ind.  64 ;  Indian- 

8  Bates  ».  Wilson,  14  Colo.  140,  8  R.  apolis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Newson,  54 

&  Corp.  L.  J.  144,  24  Pac.  99.    See,  Ind.  121. 

also,  Reed  v,  Richmond  St.  R.  Co.,  50  6  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  20 

Ind.  342.  N.  Y.  157. 


56 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  38 


pretense  of  user  thereunder.1  The  mere  purchase  of  all  the  cor- 
porate property  will  not  give  any  right  to  the  use  of  the  cor- 
porate franchise.8  Nor  can  a  corporation,  it  seems,  be  formed 
for  the  purchase  and  operation  of  a  railroad  under  a  charter 
merely  authorizing  a  corporation  for  the  purpose  of  construct- 
ing and  operating  such  a  road.* 

§  38.  Construction  of  charter — General  rules. — The  charter 
of  a  railway  company,  in  common  with  those  of  other  private 
corporations,*  is  to  be  strictly  but  reasonably  construed  in  favor 
of  the  public  and  against  the  company,5  wherever  their  inter- 
ests conflict.  This  rule  is,  perhaps,  subject  to  the  qualification 

be  strictly  construed ;  nothing  is  to  be 
taken  as  conceded  but  what  is  given 
in  unmistakable  terms  or  by  an  im- 
plication equally  clear.  Rockiand 
Water  Co.  v.  Camden  &  R. Water  Co., 
1  L.  R.  A.  388,  80  Me.  544, 15  Atl.  785; 
Oregon  R.  &  Nav.  Co.v.  Oregonian  R. 
Co.,  130  U.  S.  1,  32  L.  ed.  837,  5  By. 
&  Corp.  L.  J.  364,  9  Supr.  Ct.  R.  409; 
East  Line  &  R.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Rushing, 
69  Tex.  306,  6  S.  W.  R.  834;  Rich- 
mond, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Louisa,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  13  How.  (U.  S.)  71 ;  Coosaw 
Mining  Co.v.  State,  144  U.  S.  550,  s.  c. 
12  Supr.  Ct.  R.  689;  Bradley  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Conn.  294;  Flor- 
ida, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  r.  Pensacola,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  10  Fla.  145 ;  Davis  v.  Old  Colony 
R.Co.,  131  Mass.  258 ;  Macon  r.  Macon, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Ga.  221 ;  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.  v.  Canal  Com'rs,21  Pa.  St.  9;  Mo- 
nongahela,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kirk,  46  Pa.  St. 
112,  s.  c.  84  Am.  Dec.  527;  People  v. 
Broad  way  R.  R.Co.,  126  N.Y.  29.  "A 
doubtful  charter  does  not  exist,  be* 
cause  whatever  is  doubtful  is  decis- 
ively certain  against  the  corporation." 
Black,  J.,  in  Commonwealth  v.  Erie, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Pa.  St.  339;  Jackson 
County  Horse  Car  Co.  v.  Interstate, 
etc.,  Co.,  24  Fed.  R.  306,  308;  Penn. 
R.  R.  Co.  r.  Phila.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.. 
10  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  625,  49  Leg.  Intel.  5. 


1  Welch  v.  Old  Dominion  Min.  &  R. 
Co.,  (Sup.  Ct.)  31  N.  Y.  S.  R.  916,  8 
R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  254,  10  N.  Y.  Supp. 
174.  The  pretended  purchase  of  the 
right  of  way  of  a  railroad  company  at 
a  sale  on  execution  will  give  the  pur- 
chaser no  rights  under  the  franchises 
of  the  execution-defendant.  East  Al- 
abama R.  Co.  v.  Doe,  114  U.  S.  340. 
The  road-bed  and  superstructure  of  a 
railroad  built  under  charter  from  the 
state  is  charged  not  only  in  the  hands 
of  the  original  corporation,  but  of  pur- 
chasers, with  the  burden  of  the  char- 
ter obligations.  Such  burden  can  only 
be  removed  by  consent  of  the  state. 
State  v.  Dodge  City  R.  Co.,  53  Kan. 
377,  36  Pac.  R.  747. 

2Bruffett  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 
25  111.  310;  Coe  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  10  Ohio  St.  372,  s.  c.  75  Am. 
Dec.  518,  and  note ;  Atkinson  v.  Ma- 
rietta, etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Ohio  St.  21,  35. 

3  Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Morris,  67  Tex. 
692,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  94 ;  State, 
ex  rel.,  v.  Beck,  81  Ind.  500.     See,  also, 
State  v •.  International  Invest.  Co.,  88 
Wis.  512,  s.  c.  43  Am.  St.  R.  920. 

4  Taylor  on    Private   Corporations, 
§  122;    Waterman    on    Corporations, 
493;   Perrine  r.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Ca- 
nal Co.,  9  How.  (U.  S.)  172. 

'The  charter  of  a  corporation  is  to 


§38 


CHARTERS. 


67 


that  inasmuch  as  railway  corporations  are  created  to  further 
great  public  interests,  their  charters  will  receive  a  liberal  inter- 
pretation in  furtherance  of  those  interests,  when  they  are  ap- 
parent to  the  courts,  instead  of  the  strict  construction  usually 
given  to  the  charters  of  private  corporations  organized  exclu- 
sively for  pecuniary  profit.1  The  powers  of  a  corporation  under 
its  charter  are  such,  and  such  only,  as  are  expressly  conferred 
by  the  statutes  granting  it,  together  with  such  additional  pow- 
ers as  are  fairly  implied2  as  being  necessary  to  the  enjoyment 
of  those  enumerated.8  The  enumeration  of  certain  powers 
implies  the  exclusion  of  all  others  not  necessary  to  their  enjoy- 


1  Mayor,  etc.,  of  Baltimore  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  6  Gill.  (Md.) 
288,  s.  c.  48  Am.  Dec.  531.  See  North 
London  R.  Co.  v.  Metropolitan  Board, 
1  Johns.  Eng.  Ch.  405,  5  Jur.  N.  S. 
1121;  State  v.  Stoll,  17  Wall.  (U.S.) 
425;  Bradley  v.  N.  Y.  &  H.  R.  R.  Co., 
21  Conn.  294;  Mayor,  etc.,  of  Baltimore 
v.  The  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Md. 
50,  93.  In  this  last  case,  it  was  held 
that  power  given  to  a  railroad  compa- 
ny to  subscribe  in  aid  of  the  construc- 
tion of  lateral  roads  authorizes  it  to 
loan  money  or  bonds  to  such  road,  and 
take  a  mortgage  to  secure  such  loan. 
A  grant  of  power  for  the  performance 
of  a  public  act  is  not  to  be  so  con- 
strued as  to  make  the  act  impossible, 
and  such  a  construction  is  not  justified 
by  the  rule  that  private  charters  are 
to  be  strictly  interpreted ;  provisos  in 
a  grant  will  not  be  allowed  to  defeat 
the  grant  itself.  West  Branch  Boom 
Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Joint  Lumber 
and  Land  Co.,  22  W.  N.  C.  303,  121 
Pa.  143,  6  Am.  St.  R.  766,  15  Atl.  R. 
509.  The  interpretation  of  a  railroad 
charter,  like  the  interpretation  of  any 
other  grant,  is  the  ascertainment  of 
intention.  The  means  reasonably 
necessary  for  the  enjoyment  of  a 
granted  property  or  rights,  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  granted  power,  and  for 
the  carrying  out  of  the  purpose  of  the 


grant,  are  given  by  implication.  Burke 
v.  Concord  R.  Co.,  61  N.  H.  160.  But 
see  Oregon  R.  &  Nav.  Co.  v.  Oregonian 
R.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  1,  5  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J. 
364;  Baltimore  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dist. 
of  Columbia,  3  McArthur  122;  East 
Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rushing,  69  Tex. 
306,  and  authorities  cited  in  last  pre- 
ceding note. 

2  Thomas  v.  Railroad  Co.,  101  U.  S. 
71,  82;  Commonwealth  v.  Erie,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  27  Pa.  St.  339;  Pittsburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Allegheny  County,  63  Pa. 
St.  126,    135;   Delaware,   etc.,  Canal 
Co.  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  N.  J. 
Eq.  321,  372;  Morris,  etc.,   R.   Co. 
v.   Sussex   R.  Co.,   20  N.  J.  Eq.  542, 
562;  Mobile,  etc.,.  R.  Co.  v.  Franks, 
41  Miss.   494,  511 ;  Central  R.  Co.  v. 
Collins,  40  Ga.  582;  Pacific  R.  Co.  v. 
Seely,  45  Mo.  212,  220;  State,  ex  rel. 
Leese,  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.Co.,  24  Neb. 
143;  Lowers.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. ,59 
Iowa  563, 10  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  17. 

3  Enfield  Toll  Bridge  Co.  v.  Hartford 
R.   Co.,  17  Conn.   454;  Davis  v.  Old 
Colony  R.   R.   Co.,   131    Mass.  258; 
Housatonic  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
118    Mass.    391;    Shawmut    Bank  v. 
Plattsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Vt.  491; 
Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y.  Newark,  10  N. 
J.  Eq.  352;  Thomas  v.  Railroad  Co.. 
101  U.  S.  71 ;  Ross,  etc.,  Co.  v.  South- 
ern Co.,  72  Fed.  957. 


58  THE    CORPORATION.  §  39 

ment.1  The  phrase  "necessary  powers,"  however,  generally 
means  such  as  are  convenient,  useful  and  appropriate  to  the 
specific  power  granted.*  Ambiguity  in  the  terms  used  may 
vitiate  the  charter8  as  all  doubtful  expressions  will  generally  be 
construed  against  the  corporation.*  A  charter,  however,  like 
a  contract  between  individuals,5  is  to  be  construed  fairly  and 
reasonably,6  according  to  the  natural  import  of  the  language 
used,  with  reference  to  the  purposes  and  objects  of  the  corpo- 
ration,7 and  with  a  view  to  carrying  out  the  intention  of  the 
legislature  in  granting  it.8  Where  similar  franchises  are 
granted  to  two  corporations,  the  charters  must,  if  possible,  re- 
ceive such  a  construction  that  effect  may  be  given  to  both,  and 
neither  be  held  to  be  in  derogation  of  the  other.9 

§  39.  Grants  of  monopolies  and  powers  in  derogation  of 
public  rights — Perpetuity. — The  rule  of  strict  construction 
against  corporations  is  peculiarly  applicable  to  grants  of  exclu- 
sive privileges,  monopolies,  and  powers  in  derogation  of  pub- 
lic rights,  or  the  like.  In  such  cases  it  is  generally  held  that 
nothing  passes  by  implication,  and  it  is  said  that  "this  rule 
applies  with  peculiar  force  to  articles  of  association,  which  are 
framed  under  general  laws,  and  which  are  a  substitute  for  a 
legislative  charter,  and  assume  and  define  the  powers  of  the 
corporation  by  the  mere  act  of  the  associates,  without  any  su- 

1  Thomas  v.  Railroad  Co.,  101  U.  S.  Pa.  St.  506;  Rice  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1 

71,  82;  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  c.  Ad-  Black  (U.  S.)  358. 

ams,  3  Head.  (Tenn.)  596.  5  Waterman  on  Corp.,  §  138. 

2McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  6  Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Union 

(U.  S.)  316,  413,  Marshall,  C.  J. ;  Hood  Steamboat  Co.,  107  U.  S.  98 ;  Brown  v. 

v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co. ,22  Conn.  1,  Winnisimmet  Co.,  11  Allen  (Mass.) 

16;  Buffett  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  N.  326,  336;  Commonwealth  v.  Erie,  etc., 

Y.  168,  176;   Burnt  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  27  Pa.  St.  339. 

Co.,  36  Barb.  420 ;  Burrill's  Law  Diet.,  T  Waterman  on  Corp.,  484. 

title  "Necessary."  8  Waterman   on   Corp.,   §  138,   and 

3  Waterman  on  Corp.,  493.  cases  cited. 

4  Scales  v.  Pickering,  4  Bing.  448;  9  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  93 
Richmond,   etc.,   R.    Co.    v.   Louisa,  Pa.  St.  150,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  507; 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  How.  (U.  S.)  71;  Com-  Hudson   Riv.   Tel.  Co.  v.  Watervliet 
monwealth  v.  Central  Pass.  R.  Co.,  52  Tornp.  Co.,  56  Hun  ;N.  Y.)  67. 


§40 


CHARTERS. 


59 


perrision  of  the  legislature  or  of  any  public  authority."1 
Thus,  exclusive  privileges  and  monopolies  are  not  to  be  pre- 
sumed, and  if  not  unequivocally  granted  must  be  deemed  to  be 
withheld.2  So,  grants  in  derogation  of  public  rights,8  or  of 
the  rights  and  franchises  of  other  corporations,*  are  to  be 
strictly  construed.  And,  "as  between  a  construction  which 
will  place  a  limitation  on  the  grant  and  one  which  will  give 
rise  to  a  perpetuity,  it  is  clear  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  court, 
in  favor  of  the  public,  to  impose  the  limitation."5 

§  40.  Practical  construction. — It  is  a  familar  rule  that,  in  case 
of  doubt,  the  practical  exposition  or  construction  of  a  contract 
by  the  parties  is  entitled  to  great,  if  not  controlling  influence, 
and  will  usually  be  followed  by  the  courts.6  This  rule  has 
been  applied  to  statutes  which  have  received  a  contemporane- 


1  Central  Transp.  Co.  v.  Pullman's 
Car  Co.,  139  U.  S.  24,  49,  per  Gray,  J. ; 
Oregon  Ry.  v.  Oregonian  Ry.,  130  U. 
8.  1,  27. 

1  Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren 
Bridge,  11  Pet.  (U.  S.)  420;  Lehigh, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Borough  of  Easton,  121  U. 
S.  388;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Louisa  R.  R.  Co.,  13  How.  (U.  S.)  71 ; 
People  v.  Broadway  R.  R.  Co.,  126  N. 
Y.  29;  Indianapolis  Cable  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Citizens  R.  R.  Co.,  127  Ind.  369;  East 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  v.  East  St.  Louis 
Un.  R.  R.,  108  111.  265;  Jackson  Co. 
Horse  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  R.  Transit 
Co.,  24  Fed.  R.  306;  De  Lancey  v. 
Ins.  Co.,  52  N.  H.  581 ;  Gaines  v. 
Coates,  51  Miss.  335 ;  Georgia  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Smith,  70  Ga.  694. 

'Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  97 
U.  S.  659;  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Illinois,  96 
U.  S.  63.  Thus,  property  already  de- 
voted to  a  public  use  can  not  be  taken 
and  used  by  a  corporation  unless  the 
right  is  clearly  granted.  People  v, 
Thompson,  98  N.Y.  6 ;  People  v.  New- 


ton, 112  N.  Y.  396 ;  Stamford  v.  Bor- 
ough of  Stamford  Horse  R.  Co.,  56 
Conn.  381 ;  Elliott  on  Roads  and 
Streets,  167-169. 

4  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.'s  Appeal, 
93  Pa.  St.  150 ;  Packer  v.  Sunbury,  etc., 
R.R.  Co. ,19  Pa.  St.  211  ;City  of  Bridge- 
port v.  N.    Y.    R.  R.  36  Conn.   255; 
Worcester  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad 
Corns.,  118  Mass.  561. 

5  City  of  Detroit  tj.  Detroit  City  Ry. 
Co.,  56  Fed.  R.  867,  886.    See,  also, 
Coosaw  Min.  Co.  v.  State,  144  U.  S. 
550,  s.  c.  12  Sup.  Ct.  R.  689. 

6  Central  Trust  Co.  v.Wabash,  etc., 
Ry.  Co.,  34  Fed.  R.  254;  District  of  Co- 
lumbia v.  Gallaher,  124  U.  S.505,  s.  c. 

8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  585 ;  Chicago  v.  Sheldon, 

9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  50;  Vinton  o.  Bald- 
win, 95  Ind.  433;  Reissnera.  Oxley, 
80    Ind.    580,   and    authorities  there 
cited;  Frazierv.  Myers,  132  Ind.  71; 
Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  11 
Colo.  293,  s.  c.  18  Pac.  R.  24;  Bishop 
on  Contracts, §  598  ;Clark  on  Contracts, 
594. 


60  THE    CORPORATION.  §  41 

ous  construction,1  and  even  to  constitutional  provisions.8  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  the  practical  construction  of  a  grant  to 
a  railroad  company  established  by  years  of  uniform  usage,  ac- 
quiesced in  by  the  public  and  all  parties  interested,  will  be  of 
great  weight  in  determining  the  construction  of  the  grant  and 
will  usually  be  followed  by  the  courts  if  the  meaning  or  extent 
of  the  grant  would  otherwise  be  doubtful.3  But  this  rule 
should  not,  perhaps,  be  carried  to  the  extent  to  which  it  is  car- 
ried by  some  of  the  courts  in  the  construction  of  ordinary  con- 
tracts, that  is,  it  should  not  be  so  applied  as  to  enable  corpora- 
tions to  acquire  rights,  as  against  the  public,  which  are  clearly 
not  given  to  them,  either  expressly  or  impliedly,  by  their 
charters  or  grants  from  the  public.  In  other  words,  the  mere 
assumption  of  a  right  on  their  part  and  inaction  on  the  part 
of  the  public  will  not  necessarily  be  conclusive  that  such  a 
right  exists,  especially  as  against  the  plain  letter  of  the  law.4 

§  41.  Charter  to  build  and  operate  a  railroad — What  powers 
are  included. — The  grant  of  authority  to  build  and  operate  a 
railroad  carries  with  it,  when  necessary  to  the  enjoyment  of 
the  franchise,  the  implied  authority  to  condemn  lands  for  a 
right  of  way;5  to  appropriate  land  of  the  state  over  which  the 
chartered  route  runs,  although  no  provision  is  made  for  com- 
pensation for  it  when  taken;6  to  erect  bridges  over  navigable 

1  United  States  v.  Philbrick,  120  U.    R.  II.  Co.,  84  Ala.  115,  s.  c.  5  Am.  St. 
S.  52;    Hovey  v.  State,  119  Ind.  386,     R.  342. 

395 ;  People  v.  Board,  100  111.  495 ;  *  Powers  that  can  only  be  obtained 
Rogers  v.  Goodwin,  2  Mass.  475;  Pike  by  charter  or  grant  can  not  be  ac- 
v.  Megoun,  44  Mo.  491 ;  State  v.  Park-  quired  by  assuming, without  authority, 
inson,  5  Nev.  15.  In  Bruce  v.  Schuy-  to  exercise  them ;  nor  is  the  public,  al- 
ler,  4  Gilm.  (111.)  221,  it  is  said:  -"It  though  it  may  be  represented  by  its 
has  always  been  regarded  by  the  officers,  in  a  situation  to  protect  its 
courts  as  equivalent  to  a  positive  law."  rights  or  take  action  to  the  same  ex- 
Approved  in  Board  of  Comrs.  v.  Bunt-  tent  as  are  individuals, 
ing,  111  Ind.  143.  5Tennessee, etc.,  R.R.  Co. v.  Adams, 

2  Bingham  v.  Miller,  17  Ohio,  445 ;  3  Head  (Tenn.)  596. 

Johnsons.  Joliet,  23  111.  202;  State  v.  6  Indiana  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  State,  3 
Mayhew,  2  Gill  (Md.)  487.  Ind.  421.  But  this  doctrine  is  of  doubt- 

3  Port  of  Mobile  v.  Louisville,  etc.,    ful  soundness. 


§41 


CHARTERS. 


Cl 


streams;1  to  repair  bridges  where  it  is  authorized  to  build;2  to 
construct  its  road  across  a  high  way3  or  railroad*  between  its 
authorized  termini;  but  not,  ordinarily,  along  and  upon  a  high- 
way 5  or  property  already  devoted  to  railroad  use;6  to  take  gravel 
and  material  for  use  in  construction  of  the  road-bed,  and  water 
for  the  use  of  the  engines;7  to  run  trains  of  cars  over  the  road  by 
the  use  of  steam  as  a  motive  power,  even  though  it  be  so  near 
to  a  public  highway  as  to  frighten  horses  driven  thereon;8  and 
to  take  tolls  for  the  carriage  of  goods  and  passengers.9  The 


1  Fall  River  Iron  Works  Co.  v.  Old 
Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Allen  (Mass.) 
221 ;    Tennessee  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  3 
Head.  (Tenn.)  596;  Hamilton  t?.Yicks- 
burg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  La.   Ann.  970; 
Mijler  v.  Prairie  du  Chien,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
34  Wis.  533.     In   Schofield  ».  Penn- 
sylvania, etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
R.  122,  it  was  held  that  the  railroad 
had  power  to  build  a  branch  road  ex- 
tending a  thousand  feet  along  the  bed 
of  a  navigable  stream.     But  see  Stev- 
ens v.  Erie  R.  R.  Co.,  21  N.  J.  Eq.  259. 

2  Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  32  Fed.  R.  566. 

3  State  v.  Montclair  R.  Co.,  35  N.  J. 
L.  328;   Lewis  v.  Germantown,   etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  16Phila.  (Pa.)  608;  White 
River  Turnp.   Co.  v.  Vermont  Cent. 
R.  R.  Co.,  21  Vt.  590. 

«  St.  Louis  J.  &  C.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Sprin- 
field,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  96  111.  274;  City 
of  Ft.  Wayne  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Ry. 
Co.,  132  Ind.  558,  s.  c.  32  Am.  St.  R. 
277,  citing  Elliott  on  Roads  and 
Streets,  169. 

5  Springfield  v.  Connecticut  River  R. 
Co.,  4  Cush.   (Mass.)  63;   St.  Louis, 
etc.,R.  R.  Co.  v.  Haller,  82  111.  208; 
Kenton  County  Court  v.  Bank  Lick 
Turnp.  Co.,  10  Bush  (Ky.)  529. 

6  Housatonic,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lee, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  118  Mass.  391;  Contra 
Costa,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Moss,  23  Cal. 
323;    Alexandria,  etc.,  R.  R.   Co.  v. 
Alexandria,  etc.,  Co.,  75Va.780;  City 


of  Seymour  v.  Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  126  Ind.  466;  Lewis  on  Emi- 
nent Domain,  §267.  Express  or  at 
least  clearly  implied  authority  is  gen- 
erally necessary  in  such  cases.  Central 
City  Horse  Ry.  Co.  v.  Fort  Clark  Horse 
Ry.  Co.,  81  111.  523 ;  Eastern  R.  R.  Co. 
v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  Ill  Mass. 
125;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  f. 
North,  103  Ind.  486;  Elliott  on  Roads 
and  Streets,  167, 168.  See,  also,  Den- 
ver &  R.  G.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Denver,  etc., 
Co.,  17  Fed.  R.  867;  Railway  Co.  v. 
Ailing,  99  U.  S.  463,  as  to  respective 
rights  of  two  railroad  companies  in  a 
narrow  canon  or  defile.  Other  authori- 
ties, and  a  full  treatment  of  this  sub- 
ject will  be  found  in  the  chapter  on 
Eminent  Domain. 

7  See  Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  U.  S. 
217 ;  also,  Strohecker  v.  Alabama,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  42  Ga.  509;  Pennsylvania 
R.  R.  Co.,  v.  Miller,  112  Pa.  St.  34; 
Aldrich  v.  Drury,  8  R.  I.  554;  Early- 
wine  v.  Topeka,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  43 
Kan.  746;  Henry  v.  Dubuque.  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  2  Iowa  288;   Taylor  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  38  N.  J.  L.  28. 
But  see  Preston  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  11  Iowa  15. 

8  Bordentown,  etc.,  T.  Co.  v.  Cam- 
don,  etc.,  R.,Co.,  17  N.  J.  L.  314,  319. 

9  See  Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  U.  S. 
217.  "Courts  have  construed  the  char- 
ter of  a  canal  or  railroad  company,  in 
relation  to  the  right  to  take  freight  or 


62 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§41 


grant  of  a  right  to  construct  a  railroad  between  two  towns  has 
been  held  to  carry  implied  authority  to  run  a  branch  line  along 
a  street  of  one  of  the  towns  to  reach  a  depot  and  turn-table 
which  lay  off  from  the  direct  line.1  Power  to  build  a  road  "to" 
or  "from"  a  certain  town,  or  to  construct  works  "at"  such  a 
town,  includes  power  to  build  to  such  point  within  the  corpor- 
ate limits  suitable  for  the  transaction  of  its  business  and  the 
accommodation  of  the  public  as  may  be  fixed  upon  by  the  com- 
pany and  the  municipal  authorities.2  "A  railroad  company 
whose  charter  gives  it  the  right  to  build  its  road  from  a  certain 
city  is  not  barred  from  making  the  union  depot  in  such  city  its 
terminus  by  the  fact  that  it  began  to  construct  its  road  from  a 
point  in  the  outskirts  of  the  city,  and  for  some  time  ran  trains 
from  such  point,  when  it  appears  the  company  never  made  any 
permanent  improvements  at  such  point,  and  that  from  the  first 


toll,  in  favor  of  the  public  and  against 
the  company."  1  Waterman  on  Corp. 
§  138,  citing  Stourbridge  Canal  Co.  v. 
Wheeley,  2  B.  &  Adol.  793;  Barrett  v. 
Stockton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Man.  &  Gr. 
134,  7  Man.  &  Gr.  870;  Gildart  v. 
Gladstone,  11  East  675;  Proprs.  of 
Leeds,  etc.,  Canal  v.  Hustler,  1  Barn. 
&  Cress.  424;  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Briggs,  22  N.  J.  L.  623.  Where  the 
charter  of  a  canal  imposed  a  toll  on 
goods  carried  on  vessels  passing 
through  the  canal,  and  on  such  vessels 
as  had  not  sufficient  goods  aboard  to 
yield  a  toll  of  four  dollars,  it  was  held 
that  the  company  had  no  right  to 
charge  toll  for  passengers,  and  a  ves- 
sel laden  exclusively  with  passengers 
was  entitled  to  navigate  the  canal  up- 
on payment  of  the  toll  imposed  upon 
an  empty  vessel.  Perrine  v.  Chesa- 
peake, etc.,  Canal  Co. ,9  How.  (U.S.) 
172. 

1  Flanagan  v.  Great  Western  Ry. 
Co.,  L.  R.  7.  Eq.  Cas.  116.  See,  also, 
Clarke  v.  Cuckfield  Union,  21  L.  J.  Q. 
B.  349;  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 


Second  Municipality  of  New  Orleans, 
1  La.  Ann.  128;  Knight  v.  Carrollton 
R.  Co.,  9  La.  Ann.  284.  But  see 
Northeastern  R.  Co.  v.  Payne,  8  Rich. 
L.  (S.  C.)  177,  to  the  effect  that 
authority  to  build  "from"  a  city  does 
not  give  a  right  to  build  within  the 
city  limits. 

2  Moses  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
21  111.  515,  522;  Mohawk  Bridge  Co. 
v.  Utica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Paige  Ch.  (N. 
Y.)  554;  Commonwealth  v.  Erie,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  27  Pa.  St.  339,  344.  These 
terms  are  generally  regarded  as  in- 
clusive and  authorize  a  location  with- 
in the  city  or  place  named.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  112.  111.  589,  s.  c.  25  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  R.  Cas.  158;  Rio  Grande,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.  v.  Brownsville,  45  Tex.  88; 
Mason  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  35 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  373.  Contra,  North- 
eastern R.  R.  Co.  v.  Payne,  8  Rich.  L. 
(S.  C.)  177.  The  term  "between"  has 
also  been  construed  as  inclusive.  Mor- 
ris, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Central,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  31  N.  J.  L.  205. 


CHARTERS.  63 

it  made  efforts  to  extend  its  line  to  the  union  depot."1  But 
no  authority  is  given  to  build  the  road  into  such  a  town  in  a 
direction  different  from  that  of  the  general  direction  of  the  road.2 
A  company  chartered  to  build  a  railroad  for  the  purpose  ofr 
transporting  lumber  for  shipment  by  water,  with  authority  to 
construct  the  road  "to  the  place  of  shipping  lumber"  on  a 
river,  may  lawfully  appropriate  lands  for  a  right  of  way  across 
the  flats  or  overflowed  lands  within  the  ordinary  banks  of  the 
river  and  extend  its  tracks  across  such  lands  to  a  convenient 
navigable  part  of  the  river  from  which  lumber  may  be  shipped.8 
A  railroad  corporation  has  implied  authority  to  build  and  main- 
tain restaurants  for  its  passengers;4  to  erect  or  secure  the  erec- 
tion of  a  telegraph  line  along  its  route;5  and  to  erect  and  main- 
tain depots,  car  houses,  water  tanks,  repair  shops,  and  the  like.6 
It  also  has  power  to  make  reasonable  rules  and  regulations  for 
the  safety  and  convenience  of  its  passengers7  and  the  manage- 
ment of  its  road  and  business.8 

§  42.   Other  powers  of  railroad  companies — Implied  powers 
included  in  certain  grants. — A  railroad  company  may  offer  a 

• 

1  Colorado  E.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Union  Pac.  Wright)  v.  Carter,  3  Dutcher   (N.  J.) 
Ry.  Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  293.  76 ;  State  v.  Newark,  1  Dutcher  (N.  J.) 

2  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shiels,  315.    But  it  has  been  held  that  a  rail- 
33  Ga.  601.  road  has  no  implied  power  to  erect 

3  Peavey  v.  The  Calais  R.  Co.,  30  houses  for  its  employes  nor  to  estab- 
Me.  498,  1  Am.  R.  Cas.  147.  lish  factories  for  making  its  own  rails 

*  Flanagan  v.  Great  Western  R.  R.  and  rolling  stock,  nor  to  do  any  other 

Co.,  L.  R.  7  Eq.  Cas.  116.  acts  not  necessary  to  the  successful 

5  Prather  v.  Western  U.  Tel.  Co.,  89  operation  of  the  road.   State  v.  Mans- 
Ind.   501;    Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.   Co.   v.  field,  supra. 

Shaw,  £Pa.)  36  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  'Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.Co.  v. Williams, 

453;  Marietta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Western  55111.  185;    Gray  v.  Cincinnati,  etc., 

U.  Tel.  Co..  38  Ohio  St.  24,  10  Am.  &  R.  R.  Co.,  11  Fed.  R.  683,  s.  c.  6  Am. 

Eng.   R.   Cas.  387;  Western  U.  Tel.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  588. 

Co.  v.  Rich,  19  Kan.  517,  27  Am.  R.  8  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  People, 

159.   Or  scales  at  its  stations  for  weigh-  56  111.  365,  s.  c.  8  Am.  R.  690 ;  Reagan 

ing  freight.    London,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  93  Mo. 

v.  Price,  L.R.11Q.  B.Div.485,  s.  c.  13  348;     Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   R.  Co.  v. 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  128.  Bartram,  11  Ohio  St.   457.    See  By- 

6  Waterman  on  Corp.,  §  138,  citing  laws,  Rules  and  Regulations,  Chap- 
State  v.  Mansfield,  3  Zab.  CN.  J/J  510 ;  ter  X. 


64  THE    CORPORATION.  §  42 

reward  for  the  detection  of  persons  obstructing  its  track.^  Un- 
der an  authority  to  erect  a  bridge,  the  corporation  may  condemn 
land  for  abutments8  and  may  build  necessary  approaches.8  So, 
'"under  a  general  authority  to  condemn  land  for  a  right  of  way, 
a  corporation  may  take  land  for  depots,  water-tanks,  round 
houses,  shops,  and  coal  and  wood  yards,  and  such  other  works 
as  are  necessary  to  the  operation  of  the  road,4  and  it  may  build 
side  tracks  to  the  establishments  of  large  shippers  as  a  power 
incidental  to  its  expressly  granted  powers.5  It  is  said  that  the 
burden  is  upon  those  asserting  the  fact  to  show  that  the  char- 
ter of  a  corporation  authorizes  it  to  take  or  convey  lands,6  and 
those  claiming  such  authority  by  implication  must  show  that 
it  is  necessary  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  franchises  expressly 
granted.7  The  power  to  make  contracts  includes  power  to  dis- 
pose of  securities  received  in  the  prosecution  of  the  objects  for 
which  the  company  is  chartered.8  A  railroad  corporation  has 
implied  authority  to  contract  generally  in  the  course  of  its 
legitimate  business,  where  not  prohibited  or  restricted  by  some 
express  provision  of  law.9  Thus,  it  may  make  proper  traffic 
arrangements  with  other  companies10  and  permit  them  to  use 

1  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cheatham,  right  of  way  for  a  side  track  to  a  steel 
85  Ala.  292,  37  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  mill,   even  where  there  is  evidence 
282.  that  all  who  wish  to  avail  themselves 

2  Linton  v.  Sharpsburg,  etc.,  Co.,  1  of  the  proposed  switch  for  shipping 
Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  414.  purposes  may  do  so. 

"Slatten  v.   Des    Moines,  etc.,    R.  6  Lumbard  v.  Aldrich,  8  N.  H.  31. 

Co.,  29  Iowa  148,  4  Am.  R.  205.  7  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis, 

4  State  v.  Comrs.  of  Mansfield,  23  43  N.  Y.  137;  In  re  New  York  Cent. 

N.    J.    L.    510;    Vermont    Cejit.    R.  R.  Co.,  66  N.  Y.  407. 

Co.  v.  Burlington,  28  Vt.  193;  Nash-  8 1  Rorer  on  Railroads,  35. 

ville,   etc.,   R.   Co.    ".   Cowardin,   11  9  Racine,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Farmers', 

Humph.  (Tenn.)  348.  etc.,   Co.,  49  111.  331 ;   Philadelphia, 

6  Wilson  v.  Furness  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  9  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hickman,  28  Pa.  St. 

Eq.  Cas.  28 ;  Chicago,etc.,R.  Co.  v.  Por-  318 ;  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Talman  & 

ter,  43  Minn.  527,43  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  Ralston,   15  Ala.  472;  Chicago,  etc., 

170;  Getz's  Appeal,   65  Pa.  St.  1,  3  R.  Co.  v.  Howard,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  392; 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  186.    But  see  Pitts-  Pixley  v.  Western  Pac.  R.  Co.,  33  Cal. 

burg,  etc.,  R.    Co.   v.   Benwood  Iron  183;  Arrington  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R. 

Works,  31 W.  Va.  710,  36  Am.  &  Eng.  Co.,  95  Ala.   434;   Chattanooga,  etc., 

R.  Cas.  531,  where  :t  is  held  that  a  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  89  Ga.  708. 

railroad  company  can  not  exercise  the  "Sussex,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  etc., 

oower  of  eminent  domain  to  secure  a  R.  Co.,  19  N.  J.  Eq.   13;  Wheeler  v. 


§43 


CHARTERS. 


65 


its  terminals.1  It  may  borrow  money,  and  give  negotiable 
notes,2  or  issue  or  guarantee  bonds,  to  carry  into  effect  the  ob- 
ject of  the  organization.3  Authority  to  build  a  branch  or  lat- 
eral road  implies  power  to  condemn  lands  for  a  right  of  way  for 
such  road,4  and  to  construct  a  branch  line  running  in  the  same 
general  direction  as  the  main  line,  even  though  it  be  built  to 
connect  with  the  main  line  of  another  road,5  and  even,  it  has 
been  held,  to  build  a  short  elevated  road  from  the  original  term- 
inus of  its  route  along  a  public  landing.6  A  limitation  as  to  the 
time  within  which  the  ''works  hereby  required"  shall  be  fin- 
ished, will  usually  be  held  to  apply  only  to  the  building  and 
equipping  of  the  main  line,  and  the  building  of  lateral  roads  will 
be  understood  to  be  optional  with  the  company.7 

§  43.   Amendment — Power  must  be  reserved. — The  charter 
of  a  corporation  constitutes  a  contract  between  the  corporation 


San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  31  Cal. 
46,  s.  c.  89  Am.  Dec.  147 ;  Perkins  v. 
Portland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  47  Me.  573, 
s.  c.  74  Am.  Dec.  507. 

1  Miller  v.  Green  Bay,   etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  (Minn.)  26  L.  R.  A.  443. 

2  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Howard,  7 
Wall.  (U.  S.)392;  White  Water  C.  Co. 
v.  Vallette,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  414 ;  Wood 
v.  Whelen,  93  111.  153;  Branch  v.  At- 
lantic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Woods  481. 

3  Cases  cited  preceding  note.     Con- 
tra,   in    England,    Bateman  v.  Mid- 
Wales  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  499. 

4Newhall  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
14  111.  273.  The  right  to  "construct 
such  branches  as  the  directors  may 
deem  necessary,"  conferred  upon  a 
railroad  corporation  by  its  charter 
gives  it  a  continuing  power  of  branch 
building  which  is  not  taken  away  by 
a  subsequent  act  requiring  the  com- 
pany within  a  certain  time  to  complete 
its  road  "with  one  or  more  tracks, 
sidings,  depots  and  appurtenances." 

CORP.  5 


Pittsburg,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Pittsburg, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  159  Pa.  St.  331. 

5  Blanton  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
86  Va.  618,  43  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  617. 
Where  the  charter  of  a  railroad  cor- 
poration empowers  it  to  build   only 
one  specified    branch  road,  another 
road,  incorporated  under  the  laws  of 
a  different  state,  though  constructed 
and  operated  by  the  first  road,  is  not  a 
"branch"  of    such    road   within  the 
meaning  of  a  deed  reserving  a  right  of 
way  over  such  premises  in  favor  of  such 
road  or  any  of  its  branches.  Biles  v.  Ta- 
coma,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Wash.  St.  509, 32 
Pac.  R.  211.    Where  a  railroad  com- 
pany's charter  expressly  authorizes  it 
to  build  branch  roads,  contracts  en- 
tered into  by  it  with  a  construction 
company  for    the  construction  of  a 
projected  branch  road  are  valid  and 
may  be  enforced.     Arrington  v.   Sa- 
vannah, etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Ala.  434. 

6  McAboy's  Appeal,  107  Pa.  St.  548. 

7  Blanton  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 


66 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§43 


and  the  state,  and  is  not  subject  to  amendment  or  repeal,1  un- 
less the  right  to  alter  or  revoke  is  reserved.2  And  it  has  been 
held  that  an  express  reservation  by  the  legislature  of  power  to 
repeal  a  charter  can  give  no  authority  to  take  away  or  destroy 
property  lawfully  acquired  or  created  under  authority  conferred 


86  Va.  618.  But  see  Newhall  v.  Galena, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  111.  273,  where  it  is 
held  that  a  limitation  or  extension  of 
time  in  which  to  construct  should,  by 
intendment,  be  applied  to  the  lateral 
or  branch  lines  equally  with  the  main 
line  of  the  road.  In  Commonwealth 
v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  R.  129,  a  railroad  and  mining 
company  was  authorized  by  its  char- 
ter to  build  a  railroad  or  railroads 
from  any  lands  held  by  them  to  a  cer- 
tain railroad,  or  to  connect  any  two 
or  more  railroads  which  might  be  con- 
structed by  them  in  either  or  both  of 
two  counties  named.  The  court  held 
that  the  building  of  one  road  did  not 
exhaust  the  powers  of  the  company, 
and  that  having  built  one  railroad  and 
finding  it  unprofitable,  the  building  of 
another  did  not  operate  to  forfeit  the 
company's  charter. 

1  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward, 
4  Wheat.(U.S.)  518 ;  Piqua Branch  Bk. 
v.  Knopp,  16  How.  (U.  S.)  369 ;  State  v. 
Noyes,  47  Me.  189;  Commonwealth  r. 
Erie,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  107  Pa.  St.  112 ; 
Pennsylvania    R.   Co.  v.   Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Md.  263;    Houston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70 
Tex.  649. 

2  The  several  states  now  provide  by 
general  laws  or  by  constitutional  pro- 
visions that  all  charters  granted  shall 
be  subject  to  alteration,  amendment 
and  repeal,  at  the  discretion   of  the 
legislature.    Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  Law, 
§§442,8003.     See  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Ryan,  56  Ark.  245 ;    Mowrey  v. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Biss.  (U. 


S.)  78;  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Har- 
ris, 27  Miss.  517;  Commonwealths. 
Fayette,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  55  Pa.  St.  452; 
Delaware  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Tharp,  5  Harr. 
(Del.)  454;  Greenwood  v.  Union 
Freight  R.  R.  Co.,  105  U.  S.  13;  In  re 
New  York,  El.  R.  R.  Co.,  70  N. 
Y.  327;  1  Beach  Priv.  Corp.,  §§36,57. 
Exemption  from  legislative  interfer- 
ence, given  by  charter,  "  must  appear 
by  such  clear  and  unmistakable  lan- 
guage that  it  can  not  be  reasonably 
construed  consistently  with  the  reser- 
vation of  the  power  by  the  state." 
Georgia  R.  &  Big.  Co.  v.  Smith,  128 
U.  S.  174,  32  L.  ed.  377,  16  Wash.  L. 
R.  749,  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  47.  "The  con- 
dition is  implied  in  every  grant  of 
corporate  existence,  that  the  corpora- 
tion shall  be  subject  to  such  reasona- 
ble regulations,  in  respect  to  the  gen- 
eral conduct  of  its  affairs,  as  the  legis- 
lature may  from  time  to  time  pre- 
scribe, which  do  not  materially  inter- 
fere with  or  obstruct  the  substantial 
enjoyment  of  the  privileges  the  state 
has  granted,  and  serve  only  to  secure 
the  ends  for  which  the  corporation 
was  created."  Hill  v.  Merchants 
Mat.  Ins.  Co..  134  U.  S.  515,  33  L.  ed. 
994,  7  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  442,  10  Sup. 
Ct.  R.  589 ;  Reed  r.  Gettysburg  B.  F. 
M.  Asso.,  129  Pa.  329,  24  AY.  N.  C.  292,' 
18  Atl.  R.  130;  Montclair  Tp.  v.  Ne\v 
York  &  G.  L.  R.  Co.,  6  R.  R.  &  Corp. 
L.  J.  385,  18  Atl.  R.  242,  45  N.  J.  Eq. 
(18  Stew.)  436,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
342.  Exemption  from  future  general 
legislation,  either  by  a  constitutional 
provision  or  by  an  act  of  the  legisla- 


$43 


CHARTERS. 


67 


by  the  charter;1  nor  to  disturb,  affect  or  impair  vested  rights 
either  of  the  corporation  or  of  its  shareholders.2  It  has  no 
power  to  make  any  material  or  essential  alteration  in  the  con- 
tract between  the  members  themselves  and  the  corporation  ; 
and  therefore  a  new  charter  obtained  by  the  directors  of  a  rail- 
road company,  without  the  consent  of  the  stockholders,  chang- 
ing the  capital  stock  and  route,  is  not  binding  upon  the  stock- 
holders.8 But  the  right  of  the  state  to  amend  the  charter  of  a 
railroad  company  is  not  abridged  or  affected  by  executory  con- 
tracts between  the  company  and  a  construction  company,  and 
between  the  latter  and  subcontractors,  touching  the  construc- 
tion and  equipment  of  the  road  ;  for  all  parties  contracting 
with  a  corporation  must  take  notice  of  the  conditions  on  which 
it  holds  its  franchises,  and  of  its  subjection  to  the  legislative 

Close  v.  Glenwood  Cemetery,  107  U. 
S.  466.  And  compare  Orr  v.  Bracken 
County,  81  Ky.  593;  County  of  San 
Mateo  v.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 
Sawy.  (U.  S.)  238,  279. 

2  Hill  v.  Glasgow  R.  Co.,  fcC.  C.  D. 
Ky.)  41  Fed.  R.  610 ;  Bryan  v.  Board,  90 
Ky.  322,  7  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  389 ;  Ken- 
osha,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Marsh,  17  Wis. 
13;   City  of  Knoxville  v.  Knoxville, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  22  Fed.  R.  758;  Troy, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Kerr,  17  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  581.     "After  vested  rights  have 
been  acquired,  the  charter  of  a  corpo- 
ration can  not  be  so  amended  as  to 
impair   them,   unless  the    power   to 
amend  or  repeal  is  expressly  reserved ; 
but  where  the  original  and  amenda- 
tory acts  are  passed  at  the  same  ses- 
sion of  the  legislature,  with  only  a 
brief  interval  between,  during  which 
there  is  no  acceptance  of  the  provis- 
ions of  the  original  act  and  no  rights 
are  acquired  thereunder,  the  amenda- 
tory act  is  valid."    Cincinnati,  H.  &  I. 
R.  R.Co.  v.  Clifford,  113  Ind.  460 ;  Nash- 
ville Co.  v.  State,  (Tenn.)  34  S.  W.  4. 

3  Snook  v.  Georgia  Imp.  Co.,  83  Ga. 
fil,  38  Am.  &  Erg.  R.  Cas.  492,  9  S.  E. 
K. 1104.    See,  also,  Zabriskie  v.  Hack- 


ture,  does  not  exist  unless  it  is  given 
expressly,  or  unless  it  follows  by  an 
implication  equally  clear  with  express 
words.  In  the  absence  of  any  prior 
contract  exempting  it  from  liability  to 
future  general  legislation,  a  railroad 
corporation  takes  its  charter  subject 
to  the  general  law  of  the  state  and  to 
such  changes  as  may  be  made  in  such 
general  law,  and  subject  to  future  con- 
titutional  provisions  and  future  gen- 
eral legislation.  Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P. 
R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  Minn.  R.  R.  & 
W.  Com.,  134  U.  S.  418,  33  L.  ed.  970, 
41  Alb.  L.  J.  325,  2  Advocate  182,  42 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  285,  10  Sup.  Ct. 
R.  462,  702.  This  rule  applies  to  fut- 
ure general  legislation  as  to  compen- 
sation for  property  taken  in  the  exer- 
cise of  eminent  domain.  Pennsylva- 
nia R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  132  U.  S.  75,  33 
L.  ed.  267, 129  Pa.  181,  25  W.  N.  C.  1, 
46  Phila.  Leg.  Int.  487,  10  Sup.  Ct.  R. 
34. 

1  People  v.  O'Brien,  2  L.  R.  A.  255, 
111  N.  Y.  1,  19  N.  Y.  S.  R.  173,  7  Am. 
St.  R.  684,  18  N.  E.  R.  692.  But  this 
decision  is,  in  some  respects,  of  doubt- 
ful soundness.  See  Greenwood  r. 
Union  Freight  R.  R.  Co.,  105  U.  S.  13 ; 


68  THE    CORPORATION.  §  44 

will.1  Where  a  special  charter  containing  no  provision  for  its 
amendment  is  granted  to  a  railroad  company  while  an  act  is  in 
force  declaring  that  the  charter  of  every  corporation  created 
under  a  general  law,  and  every  charter  granted  by  act  of  the  gen- 
eral assembly,  unless  such  act  declares  the  contrary,  is  subject 
to  amendment,  it  has  been  held  that  the  general  assembly  may 
impose  upon  such  railroad,  in  common  with  others,  the  burden 
of  paying  the  salary  and  expenses  of  a  state  officer  to  whom  is 
given  the  supervision  of  the  railroads  of  the  state.8  It  may 
also  impose  upon  the  railway  company  the  duty  of  construct- 
ing and  maintaining  bridges  on  the  line  of  highways  across 
rights  of  way  which  it  has  merely  graded  without  laying  the 
rails.'  Such  amendments  may  be  made  by  the  enactment  of  a 
general  railroad  act  which  applies  to  the  specially  chartered 
corporation.4  A  charter  granting  to  a  railway  company  the  privi- 
lege of  choosing  its  own  route  between  two  places  may  be  amended 
by  requiring  it  to  pass  through  an  intermediate  point,  even  after 
its  route  has  been  located  and  contracts  have  been  let  for  its 
construction.5  And  it  is  held  that  a  change  of  a  charter  with- 
in a  month  after  it  was  granted,  so  as  to  make  the  corporation 
liable  to  pay  a  certain  percentage  of  its  gross  receipts  from  the 
operation  of  a  street  railroad,  instead  of  fifty  dollars  per  car,  is 
within  the  general  authority  to  alter  a  charter,  under  the  New 
York  statute.6 

§  44.    Police  regulations. — Even  where  no  power  to  amend 
the  charter  is  reserved,  the  railroad  company  is  still  governed  by 

ensack,  etc.,R.  R.  Co.,  18 N.  J.  Eq.  178.  *  Inhabitants  of  Township  of  Mont- 

1Macon,   etc.,   R.    Co.    v.    Gibson,  clair  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N. 

(Stamps  etal.)   85  Ga.  1,   43  Am.  &  J.  Eq.  (18  Stew.)  436,  6  R.  R.  &  Corp. 

Eng.  R.  Gas.  318,  11  S.  E.  R.  442,  21  L.  J.  385,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  342, 

Am.  St.  R.  135.  18  Atl.  R.  242. 

2  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gibbes,  27  5  See  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gibson. 
S.  Car.  385,  31  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  464,  (Stamps)  85  Ga.  1,  43  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
4  S.  E.  R.  49.  Cas.  318,  11  S.  E.  R.  442. 

3  Inhabitants  of  Township  of  Mont-  6  City  of  New  York  v.  Twenty-third 
clair  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Street  R.  Co.,  5  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J. 
J.  Eq.  436,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  342,  583,  113  N.  Y.  311,  22  N.  Y.  S.  R.  958r 
18  Atl.  R.  242.  21  N.  E.  R.  60. 


$  45  CHARTERS.  69 

the  principle  that  every  owner  of  property,  however  absolute  and 
unqualified  his  title,  holds  it  subject  to  the  implied  condition 
that  the  use  shall  not  be  injurious  to  the  public,  and  is  amen- 
able to  regulations  prescribed  under  the  police  power  of  the 
state.1  Thus,  it  has  been  held  that  railroad  companies  may 
be  compelled  by  statutes  passed  after  their  incorporation  to 
fence  their  tracks,2  to  provide  accommodations  for  their  passen- 
gers, and  the  like.*  So,  they  may  have  imposed  upon  them  a 
liability  for  setting  fire  to  property  along  their  right  of  way.4 
Other  illustrations  and  a  fuller  treatment  of  this  subject  will 
be  found  elsewhere.5 

§  45.  Material  amendments  require  unanimous  consent 
of  stockholders — What  are  material. — It  is  a  general  rule 
that  fundamental  and  material  amendments  can  not  be 
made  by  the  directors  or  majority  stockholders  so  as  to 
bind  the  minority  stockholders  without  their  consent.  Such 
amendments  require  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  stockhold- 
ers, and  can  not  be  made  by  the  majority  stockholders  under 
general  laws  authorizing  the  filing  of  amended  articles  of 
association  unless  the  minority  stockholders  consent.6  But 

1  Power  of  state  over  railroads  as  re-    Ct.  R.  334;  Smith  v.  Alabama,  124  U. 
stricted    by    legislative    charters,  32    S.  465,  s.  c.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  564. 

Cent.  L.  J.  181.  *  Rodemacker  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R. 

2  Wilder  v.  Maine  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  R.  Co.,  41  Iowa  297;  Lyman  v.  Bos- 
65  Me.  332;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  ton,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  4  Gush.  (Mass.) 
Willenborg,  117  111.  203,  s.  c.  7  N.  E.  288;  Grissellfl.  Housatonic,  etc.,  R.  R. 
R.  698;   Thorpe  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Conn.  447,  s.  c.82  Am.  &Eng. 
R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  140,  148;  New  Albany,  R.  R.  Cas.  349. 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  ».  Tilton,  12  Ind.  3.  *  See  chapter  on  State  Control. 

3  State  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  6  New  Orleans,   etc.,  R.   R.   Co.,  v. 
43  Conn.  351;    State  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  Harris,  27  Miss.  517;   Hartford  &  N. 
R.  R.  Co.,  133  Ind.  69,  32  N.  E.  R.  817.  H.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Croswell,  5  Hill  (N. 
To  provide    for  safety  of  employes,  Y.)  383 ;  Marietta,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
State  v.  Nelson,  52  Ohio  St.  88,  s.  c.  Elliott,  10  Ohio  St.  57 ;    Sparrow  v. 
26  L.  R.  A.  317;    State  v.  Hoskins,  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  R.Co.,  7  Ind.  369; 
(Minn.)   25  L.  R.  A.  759,  and  note.  Union  Lochs,  etc.,  Canals,  a.Towne, 
To  fence  tracks,  stop  trains  at  cross-  1  N.  H.  44,  s.  c.  8  Am.  Dec.  32;  Mow- 
ings,  slacken     speed,    post     tariffs,  rey  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  4 
charge  no  more  than  a  certain  fixed  Bias.  (U.  S.)  78;   Printing  House  v. 
rate,  etc.     Stone  v.  Farmers'  Loan  &  Trustees,  104  (U.  S.)  711.  The  author- 
Trust  Co.,  116  U.  S.  307,  s.  c.  6  Sup.  ities  are  collected  in  the  elaborate  note 


70 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§45 


immaterial  amendments,  or  those  for  the  benefit  of  the  cor- 
poration and  in  furtherance  of  its  original  purposes,  may 
usually  be  made  or  accepted  by  a  majority  of  the  stockholders.1 
It  is  difficult  to  formulate  any  general  rule  for  determining 
what  are  material  amendments  and  what  are  immaterial.  But 
it  may  be  said,  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  accuracy,  that  an 
amendment  that  changes  the  rights  of  the  stockholders  inter 
se,  alters  the  original  object  of  the  corporation,  or  adds  to  or 
restricts  its  franchises,  rights  and  powers  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  increase  the  liabilities  of  the  stockholders  or  deprive  them 
of  vested  rights,  is  material  and  requires  the  consent  of  all  the 
stockholders,2  while  an  amendment  which  merely  clothes  the 
corporation  with  such  additional  immunities  and  privileges  as 
are  strictly  in  furtherance  of  the  original  design,  without  sub- 
stantially adding  to  or  restricting  the  same  and  without 
materially  affecting  the  rights  of  the  stockholders  inter  se,  may 
be  regarded  as  immaterial  and  accepted  by  a  majority  of  the 


to  Commonwealth  v.  Cullen,  (Pa.)  53 
Am.  Dec.  450,  462.  See,  also,  1  Beach 
Priv.  Corp.,  §44;  1  Thomp.  Corp., 
§  72;  2  Morawetz  Priv.  Corp.,  §645. 

1  Fry  v.  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
2  Mete.  (Ky.)  314,  322;  Winter  v. 
Muscogee  R.  R.,  11  Ga.  438;  Gifford 
v.  New  Jersey  R.  R.  Co.,  10  N.  J.  Eq. 
171;  Board  of  Supervisors  v.  Missis- 
sippi, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  21  111.  338;  Chi- 
cago Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Needles,  113  U. 
S.  574;  Agricultural,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Winchester,  13  Allen  (Mass.)  29;  Rut- 
land, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Thrall,  35  Vt. 
536;  Cross  v.  Peach  Bottom  Ry.  Co., 
90  Pa.  St.  392;  Poughkeepsie,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Griffin,  24N.Y.  150;  Troy,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  Kerr,  17  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
581;  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dud- 
ley, 14  N.  Y.  336 ;  1  Beach  Priv.  Corp., 
§§41,42;  1  Thomp.  Corp.,  §§68,  72. 
Contra,  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Collins, 
40  Ga.  582,  617 ;  Zabriskie  v.  Hacken- 
sack,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  178; 
1  Morawetz  Priv.  Corp.,  §403. 


z  Changing  course  and  termini  of 
railroad,  Marietta,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Elliott,  10  Ohio  St.  57;  Middlesex 
Turnp.  Co.  v.  Locke,  8  Mass.  268;  Wit- 
ter v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  20 
Ark.  463 ;  Hester  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  32  Miss.  378;  Stevens  v.  Rut- 
land, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  29  Vt.  545;  Man- 
heim,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Arndt,  31  Pa.  St. 
317.  Consolidation,  Botts  v.  Simpson- 
ville,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ky.  54,  s.  c.  2  L.  R. 
A.  594 ;  McCray  v.  Junction  R.  R.  Co., 
9  Ind.  358 ;  Pearce  v.  Madison,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  441.  Division 
into  two  corporations,  Board  of 
Supervisors  v.  Mississippi,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  21  111.  338  ;  Indiana, 
etc.,  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  2  Pen. 
&  W.  (Pa.)  184.  Changing  pur- 
pose. Hartford  &  N.  H.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Croswell,  5  Hill  (N.  Y.)  383;  Ashton 
v.  Burbank,  2  Dill.  (U.  S.)  435.  See, 
also,  Mahan  v.  Wood,  44  Cal.  462; 
Thomas  v.  Railroad  Co.,  101  U.  S.  71;. 
Black  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  24  N.  J. 


§45 


CHARTERS. 


stockholders.1  It  is  held  in  some  cases  that  extensive  changes 
may  be  made  or  accepted  by  the  majority  in  the  organization 
and  objects  of  the  corporation,  provided  they  do  not 
destroy  its  distinctive  features  or  substitute  an  entirely  differ- 
ent purpose;2  but  some  of  these  cases,  as  is  clearly  demon- 
strated by  Judge  Thompson 3  and  Mr.  Morawetz,4  are  unsound 
in  principle  and  contrary  to  the  weight  of  authority.  It  is  also 
said  that  the  question  of  the  materiality  of  an  amendment 
must  depend  upon  the  peculiar  facts  and  circumstances  of  the 
particular  case;5  but,  while  this  is  doubtless  true  to  some  ex- 
tent, and  in  a  limited  sense,  there  must  be  some  general  rule 
by  which  the  courts  shall  be  guided,  for  the  question  is  one  of 
law  for  the  court  to  determine.6 


Eq.  455;   Oldtown,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Veazie,  39  Me.  571. 

1  Extending  time  for  completion  of 
road,  Agricultural  Branch  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Winchester,  13  Allen  (Mass.)  29;  City 
of  San  Antonio  v.  Jones,  28  Tex.  19; 
Taggartfl.  Western  R.R.Co.,24  Md.563. 
Changing  name  of  corporation,  Buffa- 
lo, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dudley,  14  N.Y. 
336;    Bucksport,  etc.,   R.   R.   Co.   v. 
Buck,  68  Me.  81;  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.  v.  Field,  12  Wis.  340.     Slight 
changes  in  the  route  or  branch  in 
some  direction  where  the  general  in- 
terests of  the    corporation    and    the 
rights  of  the  stockholders  are  not  af- 
fected thereby,  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 
v.   Preston,   35  Iowa    115;    Irwin    r. 
Turnpike  Co.,  2  Pen.  &  W.  (Pa.)  466; 
Fry  r.  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  2 
Mete.  (Ky.)  314,  323.     See,  also,  Mid- 
land, etc.,   R.  R.  Co.  r.  Gordon,  16 
Mees.   &  W.   804;    Willson  v.  Wills 
Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  33  Ga. 466;  Hazelett 
v.   Butler    University,   84    Ind.   230; 
leading  article  in  16  Am.  Law  Rev. 
101,  by  W.  H.  Whitaker;  and  note  in 
53  Am.  Dec.  465. 

2  Changes  in    the    governing  body 
and  organization,    Commonwealth  r. 
Cullen,  13  Pa.  St.  133,  s.  c.  53  Am. 


Dec.  450;  Mower  v.  Staples,  32  Minn. 
284.  Changes  in  the  purpose,  and 
the  like,  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes, 
22  Mo.  291 ;  Delaware  R.  R.  Co.  r. 
Tharp,  1  Houst.  (Del.)  149,  174;  Mar- 
tin a.Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. ,8  Fla. 
370;  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Renshaw,  18 
Mo.  210.  Changes  in  route  and  termini 
of  railroad,  Banetr.  Alton,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  13  111.504;  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Elting,  17  111.  429;  Ross  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  77  111.  127.  Con- 
solidation, Sprague  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  19  111.  174.  Purchase  of  other 
roads,  Venner  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  28  Fed.  R.  581.  See,  also,  Green- 
ville, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Coleman,  5 
Rich.  L.  118;  Worcester  v.  Norwich, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  109  Mass.  103;  Han- 
na  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  20 
Ind.  30;  Willson  v.  Wills  Valley  R. 
R.  Co.,  33  Ga.  466;  Rice  v.  Rock  Is- 
land, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  21  111.  93;  Troy 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  v.  Kerr,  17  Barb. 
'  (X.  Y.)  581. 

81  Thomp.  Corp.,  §§72,  73. 

41  Morawetz  Priv.  Corp.,  §402. 

5  Witter  r.  Mississipi,  etc.,  R.  R.Co., 
20  Ark.  463. 

6  Memphis  Branch  R.  R.  Co.  r.  Sul- 
livan, 57  Ga.  240;  Witters.  Mississip- 


72 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  46.  Statutory  provisions  authorizing  amendments. — Pro- 
vision is  made  in  the  various  states  for  the  amendment  of  the 
charters  granted  under  the  various  general  railroad  acts,  by 
the  voluntary  act  of  the  corporation,  when  it  is  desirable  to  in- 
crease the  amount  of  its  capital  stock,  or  the  number  of  its 
directors,  or  to  change  its  route,  or  termini.1  But  not  every 
change  in  the  fundamental  law  of  a  corporation  is  an  amend- 
ment. Where  the  alteration  by  the  legislature  is  very  material, 
the  act  may  be  construed  as  the  grant  of  a  new  charter,  if  such 
an  intention  appears  on  the  part  of  the  legislature,  and  by  ac- 
cepting it  the  company  will  be  held  to  have  surrendered  its  rights 
and  contracts  under  the  original  charter.2  The  legislature 
has,  in  every  state,  a  certain  control  over  all  corporations  in 
the  way  of  modifying  the  charters  under  which  they  operate, 
but  where  an  attempted  enlargement  of  corporate  powers  be- 
comes indistinguishable  from  a  granting  of  new  substantive 
rights,  a  statute  attempting  to  give  such  powers  is  within  the 
purview  of  a  constitutional  amendment,  prohibiting  any  pri- 


pi,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  20  Ark.  463.  But 
see  Southern  Penna.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Stevens,  87  Pa.  St.  190. 

1  Stimson's   Am.   Stat.  Law,  §  8529. 
Where  a  charter  is  amended,  under 
the  Tennessee  act,  so  as  to  change  the 
starting  point  of  a  railroad,  the  change 
will    not    be     effected    unless    such 
amendment  is  registered  where  the 
charter  was  originally  required  to  be 
registered.     Anderson  v.  Middle  and 
East  Tennessee  Cent.  R.  Co.,  91  Tenn. 
44, 52  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  149, 17  S.  W. 
R.  803. 

2  Snook  v.  Improvement  Co.,  83  Ga. 
61,  38  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  492,  9  S.  E. 
R.  1104.    This  was  a  case  in  which, 
after  the  incorporation  of  the  A.  &  H. 
R.   Co.,   under  the  general   railroad 
law,  the  legislature  passed  an  act  en- 
titled "An  act  to  incorporate  the  A.  & 
H.  R.  Co.,  to  confer  certain  powers 
and  privileges  on  said  company,  and 
for  other  purposes."    The  corporators 


named  in  the  act  were  not  altogether 
the  same  as  those  to  whom  the  orig- 
inal charter  was  granted,  and  the  act 
stated  that  "they  are  hereby  created  a 
body  politic  and  corporate,"  and  gave 
them  all  powers  necessary  to  any  rail- 
road company.  Afterwards  an  amend- 
ment to  this  act  was  passed,  entitled 
"An  act  to  amend  the  charter  of  the 
A.  &  H.  R.  Co.,  to  change  the  name 
thereof,  *  *  *  to  authorize  the 
extension  thereof,  *  *  *  and  for 
other  purposes."  The  last  amend- 
ment gave  the  company  a  new  name, 
and  in  the  construction  of  the  exten- 
sion, all  the  powers  granted  by  the  act 
as  first  amended.  The  court  held  that 
these  acts  constituted  a  separate  and 
distinct  charter,  creating  a  new  corpo- 
ration, and  were  not  merely  amend- 
ments to  the  original  charter.  Young- 
blood  v.  Improvement  Co.,  83  Ga.  797, 
B.C.  10 S.  E.  R.  124. 


CHARTERS. 


73 


vate  or  local  statute  granting  any  exclusive  privileges  or  fran- 
chises to  a  corporation. l 

§47.  Forfeiture  —  Statutory  provisions  dispensing  with 
judicial  determination. — Provision  is  made  in  many  charters 
for  their  forfeiture  upon  failure  of  the  corporation  to  comply 
with  certain  conditions  imposed,  as  that  it  shall  begin  the  con- 
struction of  its  road  within  a  certain  time,  and  complete  the 
road  and  put  it  in  operation  before  the  expiration  of  a  time 
limited.8  Such  provisions  appear  in  all  the  general  acts  for 
the  incorporation  of  railroads.3  Under  some  of  the  statutes 
the  forfeiture  will  take  effect  upon  failure  to  comply  with  the 
conditions  imposed,*  without  judicial  determination,5  and  the 
franchises  may  be  regranted  by  the  legislature  to  another  cor- 
poration.6 But  this,  as  we  shall  hereafter  show,  is  not  the 


1  Astorv.  New  York  Arcade  R.  Co., 
113  N.  Y.  93,  22  N.  Y.  S.  R.  1,  2  Law. 
R.  Ann.  789;  Braceville  Coal  Co.  v. 
People,  147  111.  66,  s.  c.  22  L.  R.  A. 
340. 

2  People  v.  New  York  Central  Un- 
derground R.  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  606.   But 
such  a  provision  does  not  apply  to 
•every  sidetrack  and  switch  which  the 
company  may  find  necessary  or  con- 
venient to  construct  after  the  road  is 
put  in  operation.     It  is  sufficient  if 
the  main  line  is  constructed  and  the 
road  put  in  operation  within  the  time 
limited.     Town  of  Arcata  v.  Arcata, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  92  Cal.  639. 

3  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §8528. 
*  A  railroad    company    buying,    at 

foreclosure  sale,  the  franchise  and 
property  of  another  company  whose 
road-bed  is  not  completed,  reorgan- 
izing under  Laws  N.  Y.,  1874,  c.  430, 
which  provide  that  such  reorganiza- 
tion shall  become  and  be  vested  with 
all  the  rights,  privileges  and  franchises 
belonging  to  the  corporation  owning 
the  property  so  sold,  "and  shall  be 
subject  to  all  the  provisions,  duties 
and  liabilities  imposed  by  the  general 


railroad  act  and  its  amendments,  ex- 
cept so  far  as  *  *  *  inconsistent  here- 
with, and  with  the  last  named  rights, 
privileges  and  franchises" ;  but  fail- 
ing to  complete  the  railroad  within 
the  time  limited  by  the  general  rail- 
road act  and  amendments  under 
which  the  company  owning  the  prop- 
erty received  its  charter,  may  lose  its 
charter  at  suit  of  the  attorney-gener- 
al, under  code  Civil  Proc.  N.Y.,  §1798, 
et  seq.  In  re  Attorney-general,  2  N.Y. 
Supp.  684,  s.  c.  50  Hun  511. 

5  Oakland  R.  Co.  v.  Oakland,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  45  Cal.  365;  Brooklyn  Steam 
Tr.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  78  N.Y.  524;  By- 
waters  v .  Paris,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Tex. 
624.     And  this  is  so  even  though  the 
construction  of  the  projected  road  is 
actually  begun  within  the  time,  by  a 
lessee;    In  re  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
72  N.Y.  245,  75  N.  Y.  335,  19  Hun  314, 
55  How.  Pr.  14;  Sulphur  Springs,  etc., 
R.   Co.  v.  St.   Louis,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  650.    Contra,  Citizens' 
Horse  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Belleville,  47 
111.  App.  388. 

6  Oakland  R.  Co.  v.  Oakland,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  45  Cal.  365;  LaGrange,  etc., 


74 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§48 


general  rule,  in  the  absence  of  such  a  statute,  for,  unless  other- 
wise provided,  a  mere  cause  of  forfeiture  is  not  ipso  facto  a  for- 
feiture, but  is  simply  ground  for  a  judicial  determination  and 
declaration  of  forfeiture.1  A  condition  to  ensure  the  speedy 
construction  of  the  road  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  public,  and  a 
forfeiture  for  non-compliance  with  such  condition  can  be  en- 
forced only  by  the  public  authorities.  A  stockholder  can  not 
take  advantage  of  it,2  nor  can  any  advantage  be  taken  of  it  in 
any  collateral  action.8  Thus,  it  is  held  that  such  non-compli- 
ance can  not  be  made  available  to  defeat  condemnation  pro- 
ceedings instituted  by  the  company,*  nor  can  a  land  owner 
take  advantage  of  it  in  support  of  a  suit  to  eject  the  company 
from  land  over  which  the  road  has  been  built.5 

§  48.   Implied  condition  that  corporate  franchise  is  subject 
to  forfeiture — Judicial  determination — Causes  for  forfeiture. 


R.  Co.  77.  Rainey,  7  Coldw.  (Tenn.) 
420;  Kennedy  v.  Strong,  14  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  128;  In  re  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  72  N.  Y.  245,  75  N.  Y.  335,  19 
Hun  314,  55  How.  Pr.  14 ;  Sturges  v. 
Vanderbilt,  73  N.  Y.  384;  Brooklyn 
Steam  Transit  Co.  v.  City  of  Brooklyn, 
78  N.Y.  524;  State  v.  Clinton,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  4  Rob.  (La.)  445;  United  States  v. 
Grundy,  3  Cranch  (II.  S.)  337,  351. 

1  Thus,  in  Brooklyn  Steam  Transit 
Co.  v.  City  of  Brooklyn,  78  N.  Y.  524, 
529,  it  is  said :  "The  general  principle 
is  not  disputed  that  a  corporation,  by 
omitting  to  perform  a  duty  imposed  by 
its  charter,  or  to  comply  with  its  pro- 
visions, does  not  ipso  facto  lose  its  cor- 
porate character  or  cease  to  be  a  cor- 
poration, but  simply  exposes  itself  to 
the  hazard  of  being  deprived  of  its 
corporate  character  and  franchises  by 
the  judgment  of  the  court  in  an  action 
instituted  for  that  purpose  by  the  at- 
torney-general in  behalf  of  the  people ; 
but  it  can  not  be  denied  that  the  leg- 
islature has  the  power  to  provide  that 
a  corporation  may  lose  its  corporate 


existence  without  the  intervention  of 
the  courts  by  any  omission  of  duty  or 
violation  of  its  charter,  or  default  as 
to  limitations  imposed,  and  whether 
the  legislature  has  intended  so  to  pro- 
vide in  any  case  depends  upon  the 
construction  of  the  language  used." 

2  City  of  Antonio  v.  Jones,  28  Tex. 
19.  See,  also,  People  v.  Ulster,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  128  N.Y.  240,  s.c.  60  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  558,  and  note ;  People 
v.  North  River  Sugar  Refining  Co.,  121 
N.  Y.  582,  s.  c.  32  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cas.,  149;  Hinchman  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  Co.,  160  Pa.  St.  150,  s.  c.  28  Atl. 
R.  652. 

8  Hodges  v.  Baltimore  U.  P.  R.  Co., 
58  Md.  603 ;  Inre  Brooklyn  El.  R.  Co., 
125  N.  Y.  434,  57  Hun  590.  See,  also, 
Central,  etc.,  Road  Co.  v.  People,  5 
Colo.  39. 

*  In  re  Brooklyn  El.  R.  Co.,  125  N.Y. 
434,  57  Hun  590. 

5  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clifford, 
113  Ind.  460;  Bravard  v.  Cincinnati, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  Ind.  1. 


§48 


CHARTERS. 


— Where  no  condition  is  expressed  in  the  charter,  there  is, 
nevertheless,  an  implied  condition  annexed  to  every  grant  of 
corporate  powers,  that  they  shall  be  subject  to  forfeiture  for 
willful  misuser  or  non-user  in  regard  to  matters  which  go  to 
the  essence  of  the  contract  between  the  corporation  and  the 
state.1  Such  a  forfeiture  can,  ordinarily,  be  declared  only  by 
decree  of  some  competent  judicial  tribunal  in  proceedings  in- 
stituted by  the  sovereign  or  its  representative  for  that  purpose.2 
To  cause  a  forfeiture  under  the  implied  condition  that  the  fran- 
chise shall  be  used  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  granted, 
there  must  be  either  an  assumption  of  privileges  not  conferred 
by  the  charter,3  a  willful  abuse  of  corporate  powers,  or  an  im- 
proper neglect  to  perform  duties  imposed.4  Each  duty  as- 
signed by  the  act  of  incorporation  is  held  to  be  a  condition  an- 


1  Beach  on  Priv.  Corp.,  §45;  Angell 
and  Ames  on  Corp.,   §774;    Water- 
man on  Corp.,  §427;   State  v.   Min- 
nesota Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  36  Minn.  246, 
s.  c.  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  440  and 
note;   People  v.  Milk  Exchange,  133 
N.  Y.  565,  s.  c.  30  N.  E.  R.  850;  Edgar 
Collegiate  Inst.  v.  Hardy,  142  111.  363, 
B.  c.  32  N.  E.  R.  494;  People  v.  Broad- 
way R.  R.  Co.,  126  N.  Y.  29,  s.  c.  48 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  692,  and  au- 
thorities there  cited. 

2  Board.etc.,  v.  Hall,  70  Ind.  469,472 ; 
Hasselman  v.  U.  S.  Mortgage  Co.,  97 
Ind.  365, 368 ;  State  v.  Mississippi,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  Ark.  495;  Darnell  v.  State, 
48  Ark.  321 ;   Dyer  v.  Walker,  40  Pa. 
St.  157;  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ver- 
mont Cent.  R.Co.,  34  Vt.  1,57;  Chicago 
Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Needles,  113  U.  S.  574. 
Neither    a  stockholder,    a    corporate 
creditor  nor  one  having  a  private  con- 
troversy with  the  company  can  insti- 
tute the  suit.     North  v.  State,  ex  ret., 
107  Ind.  356;    Folger  v.  Columbian, 
etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  99  Mass.  267;   Gaylord 
».  Fort  Wayne,  etc.  R.  Co.,  6  Biss.  (U. 
S.)  286;   Moore  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  108  N.  Y.  98;    Pickett  v.  Abney, 


84  Tex.  645,  s.  c.  19  S.W.  R.  859 ;  West 
Jersey,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  (N.  J. )  29  Atl.  R.  333. 

3  People  v.  TJtica  Ins.  Co.,  15  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  358. 

4  People  v.  Kingston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  193;   Attorney-Gener- 
al v.  Erie,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  55  Mich.  15, 
22;  Central,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  People, 
5  Colo.  39,  46 ;    Angell  and  Ames  on 
Corp.,  §776;   note  to  State  v.  Atchi- 
son,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8  Am.  St.  R.  164, 
183.    Under  Rev.  St.  Ohio,  §  6789,  a 
suit  to  oust  a  corporation  from  its 
franchise  for  misuser  must  be  brought 
within   five  years  from  the  date  of 
commission  of  the  offense.     State  r. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,R.  Co.,  50Ohio  St.  239, 
33  N.  E.  R.  1051.    An  allegation  that 
the  company  intends  at  some  time  in 
the  future  to  neglect  the  performance 
of  its  duties  to  the  public,  and  does  not 
in  good  faith  intend  to  carry  out  the 
objects  of  the  incorporation,  is  insuffi- 
cient.   State  v.  Martin,  51  Kan.  462,  60 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  567;  Common- 
wealth v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
58  Pa.  St.  26. 


76  THE    CORPORATION.  §  49 

nexed  to  the  grant  of  the  franchise  conferred.1  One  such  act 
or  neglect  may  be  sufficient  to  justify  a  forfeiture  if  tending  to 
mischievous  consequences  ;z  but  the  ordinary  rule  is  that  acts, 
to  have  that  effect,  must  be  willful  and  repeated.8  Slight  de- 
viations from  the  provisions  of  a  charter,  especially  when  aris- 
ing from  accident  or  mistake,4  or  from  the  unauthorized  acts 
of  the  company's  servants,6  will  not  necessarily  cause  a  forfeit- 
ure, unless  the  franchises  are  made  to  depend  upon  a  strict 
and  literal  performance,6  for  a  substantial  performance  of  con- 
ditions imposed  is  all  that  is  ordinarily  required.7  An  abuse 
of  one  department  of  a  franchise  may,  however,  cause  a  for- 
feiture of  the  entire  franchise.8 

§  49.  Grounds  of  forfeiture — Illustrative  cases. — Failure  to 
run  regular  trains  sufficient  for  the  accommodation  of  the  pub- 
lic,9 even  where  the  company  possesses  and  continues  to  exer- 
cise other  and  secondary  franchises,10  and  failure  to  keep  its 
principal  place  of  business  within  the  state  as  required  by  stat- 
ute," have  been  held  each  to  be  a  sufficient  ground  for  enforc- 

1  People  v.   Kingston  Turnpike  R.  7  People  v.  Thompson,  21  Wend.  (N. 
Co.,  23  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  193.  Y.)  235;  Thompson   v.   People,   23 

2  Attorney-General  v.  Petersburg  R.  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  537 ;   Commonwealth 
Co.,  6  Ired.   (N.  C.)  456;    People  v.  v.  Allegheny,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Pa.  St.  185; 
Bristol,  etc.,  Co.,   23  Wend.   (N.  Y.)  Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  People,  ex  rel, 
222, 245 ;  Commercial  Bank  of  Natchez  73  111.  541 ;  State  v.  Wood,  84  Mo.  378. 
v.  State,  6  Smedes  &  M.  599,  623.  8  People  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  T.  Co.,  23 

8  Harris  W.Mississippi  Valley  R.  Co.,  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  222;    People  v.   Kan- 

51  Miss.  602;  State  v.  Pipher,  28  Kan.  kakee,  etc.,  Co.,  103  111.  491. 

127,131;   State  v.  Royalton,  etc.,  Co.,  9Silliman  v.   Fredericksburg,    etc., 

11  Vt.  431.    The  mere  failure  to  run  R.  Co.,  27  Gratt.  (Va.)  119;  State  v. 

trains  for  five  days,  not  shown  to  have  Minnesota  Central  R.  Co.,  36  Minn, 

been  willful  or  negligent,  has  been  246,   s.  c.  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Gas. 

held  insufficient  cause  for  declaring  a  440;  People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 

forfeiture.    People  v.   Atlantic,  etc.,  N.  Y.  261.     See  State  v.  Railway  Co., 

R.  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  513,  s.  c.  48  Am.  40  Ohio  St.  504. 

&  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  688.  10  State  v.  Minnesota  Central  R.  Co., 

4  Angell  and  Ames  on  Corp.,  §  776.  36  Minn.   246.     But  see  Wadesboro, 

5  State  v.  Commercial  Bank,  14  Miss,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burns,  114  N.  C.  353,  19  S. 
218,  237.  E.  R.  238. 

'Eastern  Archipelago  Co.  v.  Regina,  "State  v.  Park  &  Nelson   Lumber 

2  Ellis  &  B.  856,  22  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  338,  Co.,  (Minn.)  10  Lewis  Am.  R.  R.  & 

cited  in  Angell  and  Ames  on  Corp.,  Corp.   R.   585;  Simmons  v.  Norfolk, 

§  776.  etc.,  Co.,  113  N.  C.  147,  s.  c.  18  S.  E. 


§  49  CHARTERS.  77 

ing  a  forfeiture.  The  state  need  only  prove  that  the  act  com- 
plained of  is  such  as  in  the  nature  of  things  is  calculated  to 
cause  injury.  No  actual  injury  need  be  shown.1  Where  a 
railroad  corporation  became  insolvent  thirteen  years  before, 
surrendered  its  property,  suspended  business,  and  permitted 
another  corporation  to  carry  on  the  business  for  which  it  was 
organized,  its  charter  was  properly  declared  forfeited.2  So, 
where  a  corporation  permitted  its  road  to  be  sold  on  execution 
and  broken  up  into  two  or  more  parts.8  A  mere  colorable  ex- 
ercise of  the  corporate  powers,  as  by  the  election  of  directors 
and  the  holding  of  occasional  meetings,  where  the  ordinary 
business  of  the  corporation  is  relinquished,  will  bring  the  case 
within  the  meaning  of  a  statute  imposing  a  forfeiture  for  sus- 
pension of  business.4  So,  where  a  railroad  company  takes  up 
part  of  its  track5  or  abandons  or  ceases  to  operate  a  part  of  its 
road,6  or  neglects  to  keep  its  road  in  such  repair  that  it  can  be 
used,7  or  neglects  to  build  part  of  its  road  and  uses  the  rest 

R.  117;  State  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  234,  s.  c.  35  N.  E.  R.  608,9  Lewis  Am. 

Co.,  45  Wis.  579.     And  it  is  suggested  R.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  1. 

that  such  failure  is  a  breach  of  the  1  Commercial     Bank    v.    State,     6 

duty  of  a  corporation  at  common  law,  Smedes  &  M.  (Miss.)  599. 

and  would  authorize  a  forfeiture  in  2  People  v.  Northern  R.  Co. ,53  Barb. 

the  absence  of  any  statute  on  the  sub-  (N.  Y.)  98.    See,   also,  Hart  v.  Bos- 

ject.    State  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  ton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Conn.  524,  where 

supra;  People  v.  Kingston,  etc.,  Co.,  it  is  held  that  the  fact  that  it  is  an 

23  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  193.     In  this  case  it  enforced  suspension  brought  on  by 

was  shown  that  such  action  on  the  legal  proceedings  is  no  defense.    But 

part  of  the  corporation  prevented  the  insolvency  does  not  ipso  facto  work  a 

enforcement  of  an  attachment  against  forfeiture.     Moran    v.    Lydecker,   27 

the  shares  of  stockholders  in  an  action  Hun  (N.  Y.)  582;  Bradt  v.  Benedict, 

brought  in  the  courts  of  Wisconsin  as  17  N.  Y.  93;  State  v.  Bailey,  16  Ind. 

provided  by  state  laws.     But  it  is  held  46,  s.  c.  79  Am.  Dec.  405. 

that  a  failure  on  the  part  of  the  princi-  3  State  v.  Rives,  5  Ired.  (N.  C.)  297, 

pal  officers  to  reside  in  the  state  and  309. 

to  keep  the  principal  offices  therein  is  *  In  re  Jackson,   etc.,   Ins.   Co.,  4 

not  per  se  a  forfeiture,  and  the  fran-  Sanf .  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  559. 

chises  will  only  be  forfeited  for  this  5  State  v.  West,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Wis. 

cause  upon  quo  warranto  where  it  is  197. 

shown  that  such  action  works  an  in-  6  People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 

jury  to  the  legal  rights  of  the  public  N.  Y.  261.     But  see  post,  §  51. 

or  of  individuals.    See  state  a.  South-  'State  v.  Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72 

ern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  24  Tex.  80;  North  Wis.  612,  s.  c.  36  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 

and  South,  etc.,  Co.  v.  People,  147111.  Cas.   135;  People  v.  Plymouth,  etc., 


78  THE    CORPORATION.  §  49 

only  in  getting  out  coal  from  mines  owned  by  those  who  con- 
trol it,1  or  leases  its  road  to  another  corporation  without  statu- 
tory authority,8  or  builds  a  line  with  other  termini  than  those 
named  in  its  charter  and  connects  with  a  foreign  railroad  with- 
out authority  of  law,8  it  has  been  held  that  the  state  may  en- 
force a  forfeiture  of  the  charter.  And  the  sale  of  part  of  its 
road  by  a  turnpike  company  to  avoid  the  obligation  to  repair, 
has  been  held  to  be  evidence  of  such  willful  non-user  as 
authorized  a  decree  of  forfeiture.*  Entering  into  an  agree- 
ment with  other  corporations  to  destroy  competition  has  been 
held  a  cause  of  forfeiture;5  and  such  agreements  on  the  part  of 
competing  lines  of  railroad  are  expressly  forbidden  in  many 
of  the  states.  Where  the  statute  requires  a  certain  amount  of 
capital  stock  to  be  subscribed  before  the  organization  of  a  rail- 
road corporation,  the  subscription  must  be  made  in  good  faith 
by  those  having  a  reasonable  expectation  of  being  able  to  pay 
for  the  stock  subscribed,  or  the  state  may  enforce  a  forfeiture.6 
And  generally  a  failure  to  proceed  in  good  faith  to  carry  out 
the  purposes  of  the  organization,  and  complete  the  enterprise, 
will  authorize  a  suit  by  the  state  for  this  purpose.7  In  Louisi- 

Co.,32  Mich.  248;  People??.  Hillsdale,  R.  173,  and  note;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 

etc.,  Co.,  23  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  254.  R.  Co.  v.  Closser,  126  Ind.  348,  s.  c.  3 

1  State  v.  R.  Co.,  40  Ohio  St.  504.  Lewis'  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  686.     But 
Where  the  charter  does  not  limit  the  see  United  States  v.  Knight  &  Co.,  15(> 
time  within  which  the  road  is  to  be  U.  S.  1,  15  Supr.  Ct.  R.  249,  s.  c.  10 
constructed,  a  railroad  may  build  its  Lewis'  Am.   R.  R.   &  Corp.  R.   737; 
line  long  after  the  date  of  its  charter,  Oakdale,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Garst,  (R.  I.)  28 
no  forfeiture  having  been   enforced  ,  Atl.  R.  973,  s.  c.  10  Lewis'  Am.  R.  R. 
against   it.     Western,   etc.,   R.  Co.'s  &  Corp.  R.  184. 

Appeal,  104  Pa.  St.  399.  6The  state  is  not  concluded  by  the 

2  State,  exrel.,  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  fact  that  the  articles  of  association 
Co.,  24  Neb.  143,  s.  c.  8  Am.  St.  R.  164.  were  filed  after  the  requisite  subscrip- 

3  Commonwealth  v.  Franklin  Canal  tion  was  made,  if  it  be  shown  that  the 
Co.,  21  Pa.  St.  117.  subscribers  were  insolvent.     Holman 

*  State  v.  Pawtuxet  Turnpike  Co.,  8  v.  State,  ex  rel.,  105  Ind.  569. 

R.  I.  182.  '  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

5 People  77.  North  River  Sugar  Ref.  §  638;  People  v.  New  York,  etc..  Ry. 

19  N.  Y.  St.  R.  853,  People  v.  Milk  Ex-  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  606,  s.  c.  33  N.  K.  R. 

change,  133  N.  Y.  565,  s.  c.  30  N.  E.  R.  744 ;  People  v.  Ulster,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

850.  See,  also,  Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.  128  N.  Y.  240;  State  v.  Nonconnah, 

Co.t».Wabash,etc.,Ry.Co.,61Fed.R.  etc.,  Co.,  (Tenn.)  17  S.  W.  R.  128. 
993,  s.  c.  10  Lewis'  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp. 


§  50  CHARTERS.  79 

ana  the  issue  of  fictitious  or  "watered"  stock  is,  by  statute, 
made  a  cause  for  the  forfeiture  of  the  charter  of  a  corporation;1 
and  in  Nebraska,  where  such  issues  are  prohibited  by  the  con- 
stitution,8 a  railroad  corporation  may  be  held  to  have  forfeited 
its  charter  for  this  cause;3  but  this  is  not,  ordinarily,  a  cause 
of  forfeiture.4 

§  50.  When  duty  to  declare  forfeiture  is  mandatory  and 
when  discretionary. — Where,  in  a  proceeding  by  quo  warranto 
on  behalf  of  the  state,  a  cause  of  forfeiture  prescribed  by  stat- 
ute is  clearly  shown  to  exist,  it  is  mandatory  upon  the  court  to 
declare  the  forfeiture,5  and  it  has  no  discretion  to  refuse  judg- 
ment upon  the  ground  that  it  would  be  against  public  interest.6 
But  in  all  cases  where  the  information  is  based  only  upon  the 
implied  condition  that  the  corporation  shall  serve  the  purposes 
of  its  creation  it  is  within  the  sound  discretion  of  the  court 
whether  or  not  it  will  pronounce  judgment  of  ouster  against  a 
corporation  which  has  misused  or  abused  its  franchises,  and  it 
will  generally  refuse  to  do  so  if,  in  its  judgment,  the  interests 
of  the  public  do  not  require  a  forfeiture.7 

§  51.  What  is  not  cause  for  forfeiture. — A  mere  intention 
to  violate  its  duty,8  or  to  fail  to  build  its  road 9  will  not  author- 
ize a  forfeiture,  even  though  it  might  authorize  an  injunction." 

'Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  Law,  (1886)  6  State  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  Co.,  23 

§  452.  Ohio  St.  121. 

2  Const.  Neb.,  art.  11,  §  5.  'State   v.    People's    Mut.     Benefit 

8  State,  ex  rel.,  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Ass'n,  42  Ohio  St.  579;  State  t».  Craw- 
Co.,  24  Neb.  143,  s.  c.  8  Am.  St.  R.  fordsville,  etc.,  Co.,  102  Ind.  283,  289. 
164.  See,  also,  People  v.  North  Chicago  Ry. 

*  State  v.  Minn.,  etc.,  R.Co.,40  Minn.  Co.,  88  111.  537. 

213, 41  N.  W.  R.  1020;  Commonwealth  8  Commonwealth  v.  Pittsburg,  etc., 

v.  Cent.  Pass.  Ry.  Co.,  52  Pa.  St.  506.  R.  Co.,  58  Pa.  St.  26,  45;  State  v.  Mar- 

Post,  §  51.  tin,  51  Kan.  462,  60  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 

5  State  v.  Minnesota  Cent.  R.  Co.,  36  Cas.  567. 

Minn.  246,  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  9  State  v.  Kingan,  51  Ind.  142;  State 

440;  State  v.  Oberlin,  etc.,  Ass'n,  35  v.  Beck,  81  Ind.  500. 

Ohio  St.  258;  People  v.  Fishkill,  etc.,  10  See  note  to  Ottaquechee  Wollen 

Co.,  27   Barb.  (N.  Y.)  445;  People  v.  Co.  v.  Newton,  57  Vt.  451,  by  H.  C. 

Northern  R.  R.,  53  Barb.  (N.  Y)  98;  Black,  21  Cent.  L.  J.  432,  435. 
State  v.  Real  Estate  Bank,  5  Ark.  595, 
s.  c.  41  Am.  Dec.  109. 


80  THE    CORPORATION.  §  51 

And  it  is  said  that  there  must  be  a  violation  of  the  spirit  as 
well  as  the  letter  of  the  law  before  such  a  decree  is  justifiable.1 
The  intent  is  sometimes  considered  in  deciding  whether  the 
charter  has  been  violated.  Where  the  charter  was  made  liable 
to  forfeiture  for  non-user  for  two  years,  the  court  decided  that 
a  forfeiture  was  not  incurred  by  the  failure  of  a  railroad  cor- 
poration to  begin  building  its  line  until  three  years  from  the 
date  of  its  charter,  where  that  time  had  been  devoted  to  efforts 
to  raise  the  necessary  funds.2  And  the  holding  of  a  meeting 
of  the  corporators  of  a  company  to  which  all  the  stock  had 
been  subscribed,  at  which  the  charter  was  accepted,  officers 
elected,  and  contracts  for  building  the  road  were  authorized, 
was  held  to  put  the  charter  in  operation  within  the  meaning 
of  the  provision  of  the  Illinois  constitution 8  abrogating  all 
charters  not  in  operation.4  Acceptance  of  a  charter,  paying  an 
enrollment  tax  and  bonus  to  the  state,  the  election  of  officers, 
appointment  of  committees,  and  the  expenditure  of  large  sums 
of  money  in  the  purchase  of  mineral  rights,  and  in  surveying, 
grading,  and  constructing  a  railroad,  were  held  sufficient  in  a 
recent  case  to  exempt  a  railroad  and  mining  company  from  the 
operation  of  the  section  of  the  Pennsylvania  constitution,5 
which  provides  that  the  charters  of  all  such  corporations  as 
have  not  commenced  business  in  good  faith,  prior  to  a  certain 
date,  shall  be  forfeited,6  and  the  court  also  said  that :  "A  mere 
temporary  suspension  of  the  business  of  a  railroad  company 
for  a  year,  the  business  being  afterwards  resumed  and  contin- 
ued without  interruption,  is  not  such  non-user  of  its  franchise 

'Thompson  v.  People,  23  Wend. (N.  People  v.  Atlantic  Ave.   R.  Co.,  125 

Y.)  537,  585.  N.  Y.    513,  affirming,    57  Hun  378. 

2  Young  v.  Webster  City,   etc.,   R.  See,  also,  State  v.  Consolidation  Coal 

Co.,  75  Iowa  140.     Under  the   New  Co.,  46  Md.  1, 14. 

York  code,  which  allows  an  action  3  Illinois  Const.,  1870,  Art.  XI. 

in  equity  for  the    forfeiture    of    the  *  McCartney  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

charter  of  a  corporation,  "where   it  112  111.  611. 

has  suspended  its  ordinary  and  law-  5  Const.  Pa.,  Art.  XVI,  Sec.  1. 

ful  business  for  at  least  one  year,"  it  6  Commonwealth  v.   New  York,  L. 

is  no  ground    for  maintaining  such  E.   &  W.  Coal  &  Railroad  Co.,  (Pa. 

action  that  a  railroad  company  has  Com.  PI.)  10  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  129. 
omitted  for  five  days  to  run  its  trains. 


§  51  CHARTERS.  81 

as  will  operate  as  a  forfeiture  of  its  charter. "'  The  omission 
of  a  railroad  company  for  five  days  to  run  its  trains  has  been 
held  not  to  be  an  "abuse  of  its  powers,"  within  the  meaning 
of  a  statute,1  which  authorizes  an  action  for  dissolution  for 
abuse  of  corporate  powers.8  The  mere  failure  to  observe  some 
of  the  preliminary  requirements,  as  a  failure  to  file  a  map  of 
the  proposed  route  with  the  secretary  of  state  within  a  certain 
time,4  or  the  payment  of  one-half  of  the  capital  stock  in  prop- 
erty whose  value  exceeds  one-half  of  the  par  value  of  the  stock 
where  the  statute  requires  such  half  to  be  paid  in  lawful  money 
of  the  United  States,5  will  not  work  a  forfeiture;  nor  will  any 
specific  act  of  non  feasance,  unintentionally  but  negligently 
committed,  where  it  does  not  have  a  mischievous  tendency.6 
Building  the  road  across  lands  over  which  the  company  has 
not  obtained  the  right  of  way  is  not  a  sufficient  misuser  to 
cause  a  forfeiture.7  Neither  an  unauthorized  attempt  to  change 
the  corporate  name,8  nor  the  use  of  an  abbreviation  instead  of 
proper  name,9  is  sufficient  ground  for  quo  warranto  proceedings . 
Failure  to  run  regular  passenger  trains,  where,  by  reason  of 
the  construction  and  operation  of  a  horse  railroad,  the  income 
from  such  trains  would  not  pay  for  the  expense  of  operating 
them  is  not  a  cause  of  forfeiture,  it  appearing  that  the  company 

1  Commonwealth  v.  New  York,  L.        6Angell  &  Ames,  on  Corporations, 
E.  &  W.  Coal  &  Railroad  Co.,    (Pa.     §776,   note  1.     See,   also,  People  r. 
Com.  PI.)  10  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  129.  Jackson  P.  R.  Co.,  9  Mich.  285;  State 

2  Code  Civil  Proc.,  N.Y.,  §  1798.  v.  Royalton,  etc.,  T.  Co.,  11  Vt.  431 ; 
"Peoples.  Atlantic  Ave.  R.  Co.,  125    People  v.  Hillsdale  T.  Co.,  23  Wend. 

N.  Y.  513,  affirming,  57  Hun.  378.  254. 

*  Harris  v.  Mississippi  Valley,  etc.,R.  7  See  State,  ex  rel.,  v.  Kill  Buck,  etc., 

Co. ,51  Miss.  602.    See  Eastern  Archi-  Co.,  38  Ind.  71;  People  v.  Hillsdale, 

pelago  Co.  v.  Regina,  22  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  etc.,  Co.,  2  Johns.  (N.Y.)  190. 

228,  cited  in  An.  &  Ames,  §  776,  to  the  8  O'Donnell  v.  Johns  &  Co.,  76  Tex. 

effect  that  slight  deviations  from  the  362,  s.  c.  13  S.W.  R.  376.     As  to  effect 

provisions  of  the  charter  are  not  neces-  of  unauthorized  change  of  name,  see 

sarily  either  an  abuse  or  a  misuse  of  it.  Cincinnati   Cooperage    Co.    v.    Bate, 

But  see  People  v.   Montecito  Water  (Ky.)  26  S.W.  R.  538,  s.  c.  10  Lewis' 

Co.,  97  Cal.  276,  s.  c.  32  Pac.  R.  236.  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  653,  and  note. 

5  State  v.  Wood,  84  Mo.  378.    The  9  People  v.  Bogart,  45  Cal.  73. 
soundness  of  this  decision,  however, 
is  questionable. 

CORP.  6 


82 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§52 


is  regularly  engaged  in  the  transportation  of  freight  traffic 
over  its  road,  and  has  carried  all  passengers  who  have  sought 
passage;1  nor  is  the  obtaining  of  a  charter  from  another  state  for 
a  similar  purpose2  and  bringing  a  suit  in  the  federal  court  to 
test  the  constitutionality  of  a  statute  of  its  own  state  incorpo- 
rating another  company  a  cause  of  forfeiture;8  nor  forming  an 
unauthorized  agreement  of  consolidation  with  another  corpora- 
tion;4 nor  issuing  stock  below  par  where  no  interests  are  in- 
juriously affected  thereby.5  And  it  has  been  held  that  quo 
warranto  will  not  lie  to  prevent  the  use  of  a  portion  of  a  rail- 
road which  has  been  completed,  merely  because  the  project  for 
building  other  portions  authorized  by  the  charter  has  been 
abandoned.6 

§52.   Waiver  of  forfeiture  —  Collateral  proceedings. — No 

advantage  can  be  taken  in  any  collateral  proceeding,  of  a  for- 
feiture which  has  not  been  judicially  established;7  and  the 
state  may  waive  any  breach  involving  a  forfeiture  of  charter 


1  Commonwealth  v.    Fitchburg    R. 
Co.,  12  Gray,  (Mass.)  180. 

2  Commonwealth  v.  Pittsburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  58  Pa.  St.  26. 

3  Commonwealth  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  58  Pa.  St.  26.    The  court,  per 
Sharswood,  J.,  intimates  that  the  case 
might  be  different  if  the  suit  were 
brought  in  the  courts  of  a  foreign  sov- 
eignty,  but  holds    that    the    federal 
courts   form  a  part  of  the   courts  of 
each  state,  administering  the  law  as 
construed  by  its  own  tribunals. 

4  State,   ex  rel.,   v.    Crawfordsville, 
etc.,  Co.,   102  Ind.  283;   Crawfords- 
ville, etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  ex  rel.,  102  Ind. 
435.     It  is  held  otherwise,  however, 
where  the  consolidation  is  expressly 
prohibited.     State  v.  Atchison,   etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  24  Neb.  143,  s.  c.  8  Am.  St. 
R.  164. 

5  Howe  v.  Deuel,  43  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
504;    Hastings  v.   Amherst,  etc.,    R. 
Co.,   9  Cush.   (Mass.)   596;    State  v. 


Minnesota,  etc.,  Co.,  40  Minn.  213, 
41  N.  W.  R.  1020. 

6  Attorney- gen.  v.  Birmingham 
Junction  R.  Co.,  8  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  243. 
But  see,  ante,  §  49.  A  sale  of  all  the 
corporate  property  -does  not  neces- 
sarily work  a  forfeiture  of  the  corpor- 
ate franchises,  and  where  it  is  neces- 
sary for  the  protection  of  the  interests 
of  stockholders  or  third  persons,  a 
corporation  which  has  disposed  of  all 
its  property  will  be  held  to  be  still  in 
existence.  Langhorne  v.  Richmond 
City  R.  Co.,  (Va.)  19  S.  E.  R.  122; 
Price  v.  Holcomb,  (Iowa)  56  N.  W. 
407. 

'Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  v.  Clifford,  113 
Ind.  460;  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Conn.  274; 
Danbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  22 
Conn.  435,  449;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Erie,  27  Pa.  St.  380;  Hodges 
v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Md.  603. 


§52 


CHARTERS. 


83 


rights,1  by  implication  as  well8  as  by  express  legislative  enact- 
ment.3 A  waiver  will  not,  however,  revive  a  corporation  after 
it  has  ceased  to  exist,  where  the  constitution  prohibits  the 
granting  of  special  charters,4  though,  possibly,  a  general  act 
for  the  remission  of  all  forfeitures  incurred  under  the  terms  of 
the  incorporating  act  would  be  valid.9  It  has  been  held  that 
the  passage  of  an  act  providing  for  the  issue  of  bonds  to  be 
paid  long  after  a  forfeiture  would,  by  the  terms  of  the  charter, 
have  accrued,  is  a  waiver  of  such  forfeiture,  and  a  repeal  by 
implication  of  the  clause  in  the  charter  providing  for  it.6  So 
a  legislative  recognition  of  a  de  facto  corporation  after  an  ac- 
crued forfeiture  has  become  known  may  constitute  a  waiver,7 
as  well  as  a  long-continued  neglect  on  the  part  of  the  judicial 
department  to  enforce  the  forfeiture.8  But  where  there  has 
been  no  attempt  to  legally  organize  a  corporation,  no  lapse  of 
time  confers  any  rights,9  and  where,  according  to  the  terms  of 

'Hinchman   v.  Philadelphia,   etc.,        6  Foster  v.  Pitch,  36  Conn.  236. 
E.  E.  Co.,  160  Pa.  St.  150,  s.  c.  28  Atl.        7  In  re  New  York  E.  E.  Co.,  70  N.  Y. 

327;  Briggs  v.  Cape  Cod  Ship  Canal 
Co.,  137  Mass.  71;  Baltimore,  etc.,  E. 
Co.  v.  Marshall  Co.,  3  W.Va.  319 ;  Cent- 
ral &  Georgetown  E.  Co.  v.  People,  5 
Colo.  39 ;  Chesapeake,  etc., Canal  Co.  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  4  Gill  &  J. 
(Md.)  1;  Enfleld  Bridge  Co.  v.  Con- 
necticut Eiver  Co.,  7  Conn.  28;  Peo- 
ple v.  Ottawa  Hydraulic  Co.,  115  111. 
281 ;  La  Grange,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Eai- 
ney,  7  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  420,  empower- 
ing another  company  to  buy  the  fran- 
chises of  a  railroad  company  is  a  waiv- 
er of  accrued  forfeiture  for  non-user 


E.  652;  State  v.  Bergen,  etc.,  Ey.  Co., 
53  N.  J.  L.  108,  20  Atl.  E.  762;  Farns- 
worth  v.  Lime,  etc.,  E.  E.  Co.,  83  Me. 
440,  22  Atl.  E.  373 ;  People  v.  Ulster, 
etc.,  E.  E.  Co.,  128  N.  Y.  240;  Beach 
on  Priv.  Corp.,  §59;  Cook  on  Stock 
and  Stockholders,  §  636. 

2  Matter  of  Petition  of  New  York  El. 
E.  Co.,  70  N.  Y.  327 ;  Foster  v.  Pitch, 
36  Conn.  236. 

8  Such  a  statute  may  revive  and  keep 
in  force  the  original  act  of  incorpora- 
tion, and  continue  the  existence  of  the 
corporation  as  it  was  before  the  for- 
feiture. Phillips  v.  Town  of  Albany, 
28  Wis.  340. 

*Oroville,etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Supervisors 
of  Plumas  Co.,  37  Cal.  354;  In  re 
Brooklyn,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  72  N.Y.  245, 
75'N.Y.  335,  19  Hun  314,  55  How. 
Pr.  14. 

5  See  State  of  Maryland  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  How.  (U.  S.)  534;  Wil- 
son i?.  Ohio,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  64  111.  542, 16 
Am.  Eep.  565;  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co. 
«.  Adler,  56  111.  344. 


of  such  franchises,  and  the  new  com- 
pany takes  by  its  purchase  a  right  to 
complete  and  operate  the  purchased 
road  under  its  original  franchise. 
Hinchman  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  160  Pa.  St.  150. 

8  State  v.  Crawfordsville,  etc.,  Turn- 
pike Co.,  102  Ind.  283;  People  v.  Oak- 
land County  Bank,  1  Dougl.  (Mich.) 
282 ;  People  v.  Williamsburg,  etc.,  Co., 
47  N.  Y.  586. 

9  People   v.  Stanford,   77  Cal.  360. 


84  '  THE    CORPORATION.  §  53 

the  charter,  the  franchise  has  been  absolutely  forfeited  by 
failure  to  perform  certain  conditions,  mere  subsequent  recog- 
nition by  the  legislature  will  not  waive  the  forfeiture.1 
Providing  penalties  for  the  acts  which,  by  the  terms  of  the 
charter  would  constitute  a  forfeiture,  has  been  held  to  be  a 
waiver,2  but  it  is  said  that  where  there  is  a  statute8  which 
makes  it  the  duty  of  the  attorney-general,  unless  otherwise  ex- 
pressly directed  by  law,  to  seek  the  forfeiture  of  the  charter  of 
the  corporation  which  has,  by  any  act  or  omission,  misuser  or 
non-user,  forfeited  the  same,  the  right  of  the  state  to  demand 
a  forfeiture  of  the  charter  of  a  railroad  company  which  has 
sold  its  road  and  franchises  to  a  foreign  company  in  violation 
of  the  constitution,  failed  to  keep  up  its  organization,  and  al- 
lowed its  road  to  become  unsafe,  is  not  waived  by  the  provis- 
ions of  a  subsequent  statute,*  providing  for  quo  warranto 
against  a  corporation  carrying  on  business  in  violation  of  a 
constitutional  provision5  forbidding  sale  to  or  consolidation 
with  a  competing  or  foreign  company,  to  enforce  the  penalties 
therefor,  together  with  an  injunction  against  future  violation, 
and  the  appointment  of  a  receiver.6 

§  53.   Proceedings  to  forfeit — Quo  warranto — Parties. — At- 

common  law  it  was  held  that  a  forfeiture  of  charter  franchises 
should  be  enforced  by  scire  facias,"7  while  quo  warranto  was 

Where  the  incorporation  is  merely  ir-  (Mass.)  460;   Baker  v.  Backus,  32  111. 

regular,   a    legislative  recognition   is  79.      But  see    Commercial    Bank  of 

equivalent  to  a  charter.     McAuley  v.  Natchez  v.   State,   6  Smedes  &  M. 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  111.  348;  (Miss.)  599;    State  Bank  v.  State,  1 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ».  St.  Louis,  66  Blackf.  (Ind.)  267. 

Mo.  228;  Mead  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  3  Rev.  Stat.  Tex.,  art.  2805. 

R.  Co.,  45  Conn.  199;  Cowell  v.  Colo-  4  Sayles  Civil  Stat.,  art.  4247a,  §  2. 

rado,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Colo.  82;  Kanawha,  5  Cons.  Tex.,  Art.  X,  §§5,  6. 

etc.,   Co.    v.    Kanawha,   etc.,   Co,   7  6  East  Line  &  R.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  State, 

Blatch.  (U.  S.)  391.  75  Tex.  434,  12  S.  W.  R.  690. 

1  State  v.  Fourth,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.,  15  7  Rex  v.  Pasmore,  3  T.  R.  199,  244  ; 

N.  H.  162.  Amesw.  Kansas,lll  U.  S.  449;  Regents 

8  State  v.   Morris,   73  Tex.   435;  of   University  v.  Williams,  9  Gill  & 

Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  19  J.  (Md.)  365,  31  Am.  Dec.  72,  111; 

Md.  239;   State  v.  Real  Estate  Bank,  State  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Minn. 

5  Ark.  595,   s.  c.  41   Am.  Dec.  109 ;  222. 
Commonwealth  v.   Breed,  4  Pick. 


$53 


CHARTERS. 


85 


the  proper  means  of  inquiring  into  an  unauthorized  assump- 
tion of  corporate  powers.1  But  the  latter  writ,  or,  in  modern 
practice,  an  information  in  the  nature  of  a  quo  warranto,  may 
be  used  for  the  trial  of  abuse  of  powers  as  well  as  for  inquir- 
ing into  the  usurpation  of  franchises.8  When  quo  warranto  is 
employed  for  the  purpose  of  ousting  individuals  who  have  un- 
lawfully usurped  the  franchise  to  be  a  corporation,  it  is  gener- 
ally held  that  it  should  be  directed  against  the"  individuals 
assuming  to  act  as  a  corporation,8  for  "  a  corporation,"  it  is 
said,  "can  not  be  brought  into  court  to  answer  the  allegation 
that  it  is  not  and  never  was  a  corporation;"*  and  bringing  a 
suit  against  the  company  by  its  assumed  corporate  name  is  held 
in  many  jurisdictions  to  be  an  admission  of  its  existence  as  a 
corporation.5  Moreover,  it  is  said  that  the  incorporators  should 
have  their  day  in  court,  in  the  event  that  they  do  not  consti- 


1  Authorities  cited  in  last  note,  su- 
pra. 

z  People  v.  Utica  Ins.  Co.,  15  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  358,  386,  395 ;  People  v.  Trus- 
tees of  Geneva  College,  5  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  211;  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bal- 
timore, etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Gill  &  J.  (Md.) 
1,  121 ;  State  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  45  Wis.  579;  State  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  25  Vt.  433 ;  National  Docks  R. 
Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  5  Stewart  (N.  J.) 
755 ;  Bruffett  ».  Great  Western  R.  Co., 
25  111.  353;  People  v.  Jackson,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  9  Mich.  285 ;  note  to  State  v.  Atch- 
ison,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8  Am.  St.  R. 
164,198 ;  High  on  Extraordinary  Rem., 
§647. 

3  Wolfe  v.  Underwood,  97  Ala.  375; 
Mud  Creek,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  43  Ind. 
236;  Chesshire  v.  People,  ex  rel.,  116 
111.  493,  s.  c.  6  N.  E.  R.  487;  People*. 
Rensselaer,etc.,R.  Co.,  15  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  113,  30  Am.  Dec.  33;  State  v.  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,Co.,  18  Ohio  St.  262 ;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Central   Passenger  R. 
Co.,  52  Pa.  St.  506 ;  People  v.  Stanford, 
77  Gal.  360. 

4  Mud  Creek,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  43 


Ind.  236;  Chesshire  v.  People,  116  111. 
493,  s.  c.  6  N.  E.  R.  487. 

5  People  v.  Stanford,  77  Cal.  300; 
Commercial  Bank  of  Natchez  v.  State, 
6  Smedes  &  M.  (Miss.)  599,  614;  Peo- 
ple v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  113,  s.  c.  30  Am.  Dec. 
33,  38 ;  State  v.  Cincinnati  Gas  Light, 
etc.,  Co.,  18  Ohio  St.  262.  Contra. 
People  v.  Bank  of  Hudson,  6  Cow.  (N. 
Y.)  217.  In  the  note  to  State  v.  Atch- 
ison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Am.  St.  R.  164, 
199,  it  is  said  that  "this  rule  rests 
upon  no  sound  reason,"  and  it  does 
seem  like  sacrificing  the  spirit  to  the 
letter,  for,  where  it  clearly  appears 
from  the  information  that  its  purpose 
is  to  challenge  the  legal  existence  of 
the  corporation,  or,  in  other  words, 
the  right  of  the  incorporators  to  be  a 
corporation,  it  is  very  technical  to 
hold  that  the  use  of  the  corporate 
name  is  an  admission  of  the  corpo- 
rate existence.  It  is  more  in  conso- 
nance with  the  spirit  of  such  proceed- 
ings, although  it  may  not  be  entirely 
logical,  to  treat  the  name  as  descrip- 
tive and  the  information  as  calling 


86 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§54 


tute  a  legal  person  capable  of  appearing  and  answering.1  But 
the  proceedings  should  be  against  the  corporation  itself,  where 
the  purpose  is  to  enforce  a  forfeiture  of  its  charter,  incurred 
by  misuse  or  abuse  of  its  powers,  or  to  oust  it  from  the  exer- 
cise of  unwarranted  rights  and  privileges  under  its  charter.2 

§  54.  Proceedings  must  generally  be  in  court  of  law — 
Statutory  provisions. — A  proceeding  to  enforce  a  forfeiture  or 
to  deprive  a  de  facto  corporation  of  its  usurped  privileges  must 
be  brought  in  a  court  of  law,8  a  court  of  equity  having  no 
jurisdiction  in  such  cases  unless  it  is  conferred  by  statute.* 
In  many  of  the  states  special  provision^  are  made  by  statute 


upon  the  individuals  to  answer  by  what 
authority  they  use  that  name  and  ex- 
ercise the  rights  of  a  corporation. 

1  State  v.  Independent  School  Dis- 
trict, 44  Iowa  227;  King  v.  City  of 
London,  Skin.  293,  310. 

8  State  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 
Neb.  143,  32  A.  &  E.  R.  Cas.  388; 
People  v.  Bank  of  Niagara,  6  Cowen 
(N.  Y.)  196 ;  People  v.  New  York  Cent. 
Underground  R.  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  606, 
66  Hun  633;  State  v.  Taylor,  25  Ohio 
St.  279;  Smith  v.  State,  21  Ark.  294. 
Mr.  Spelling  states  the  rule  as  follows : 
"When  the  purpose  is  to  suppress  a 
usurpation  of  corporate  franchises  by 
individuals,  the  information  should 
name  and  proceed  against  the  defend- 
ants as  individuals,  *  *  *  but  when 
the  purpose  is  to  enforce  a  forfeiture 
of  corporate  franchises  usurped  by  a 
corporation  the  proceeding  should  be 
against  the  incorporated  body  in  its 
corporate  name.  The  rule  is  differ- 
ent, however,  when  the  proceeding  is 
based  upon  a  forfeiture  which  a  cor- 
poration once  legally  formed  is  al- 
leged to  have  incurred.  In  that  case 
it  is  properly  filed  against  the  corpo- 
rate body,  not  the  individual  mem- 
bers." 2  Spelling  Extraord.  Relief, 
§  1843.  See,  also,  State  v.  Barren,  57 


N.  H.  498;  People  v.  Rensselaer,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  15  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  113,  s.  c.  30 
Am.  Dec.  33,  and  note;  also  article  in 
40  Alb.  L.  J.  10. 

8  Attorney-general  v.  Stevens,  1  N. 
J.  Eq.  369,  22  Am.  Dec.  526;  Presi- 
dent, etc.,  v.  Trenton  Bridge  Co.,  13 
N.  J.  Eq.  46;  King  v.  Clarke,  1  East. 
38,  43 ;  Attorney-  general  v.  Utica  Ins. 
Co.,  2  Johns.  Ch.  371.  Whether  a 
corporation  has  been  guilty  of  acts  or 
omissions  sufficient  to  constitute  cause 
for  forfeiture  is  generally  a  judicial 
and  not  a  legislative  question.  Cool- 
ey's  Const  Lim.  *106;  Vermont,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Vermont  Cent.  R.  Co.,  34 
Vt.  2;  Regents  v.  Williams,  9  G.  &  J. 
(Md.)  365,  s.  c.  31  Am.  Dec.  72; 
Mayor  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 
Abb.  U.  S.  9.  See  post,  §§  57,  58. 

*Belmont  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  52  Barb, 
637 ;  Bayless  v.  Orne,  1  Freem.  Ch. 
(Miss.)  161;  States.  Merchants'  Ins., 
etc.,  Co.,  8  Humph.  (Tenn.)  234; 
Western  Pa.  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  104  Pa. 
St.  399 ;  Folger  v.  Columbian  Ins.  Co., 
99  Mass.  267,  96  Am.  Dec.  747.  See 
Heap  v.  Heap  Manufacturing  Co.,  97 
Mich.  147;  note  to  States.  Atchison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Am.  St.  R.  164,  200;  2 
Morawetz  Corp.,  §  1040. 


§55 


CHARTERS. 


87 


for  the  prosecution  of  suits  of  this  nature  in  certain  specified 
courts.1  The  state  may  delegate  the  right  to  bring  the  action 
in  its  name,8  but  it  may  not  authorize  any  person  to  declare  a 
forfeiture  without  first  obtaining  the  judgment  of  a  court.8 

§  55.  Collateral  proceedings — Pleadings  and  judgment  in 
forfeiture  proceedings. — No  private  individual  can  maintain  a 
suit  to  enforce  the  forfeiture  of  a  charter,  unless  specially  au- 
thorized by  the  state  to  do  so,  nor  can  a  mere  ground  or  cause 
for  forfeiture  be  successfully  used  by  him  as  part  of  his  cause 
of  action  in  a  collateral  proceeding,4  nor  can  acts  amount- 


1  In  our  own  country  writs  or  infor- 
mations in  the  nature  of  writs  of  quo 
warranto  are  filed  in  the  highest  courts 
of  ordinary  jurisdiction  in  several  of 
the  states,  either  by  the  attorney-gen- 
eral or  the  prosecutor.  Angell  & 
Ames,  §733,  citing  4  Cowen  (N.  Y.) 
102,  n.  a. ;  People  v.  Richardson,  4 
Cowen,  97,  102,  n.;  Commonwealths. 
Fowler,  10  Mass.  290;  Respublica  r. 
Griffiths,  2  Ball.  (Pa.)  112;  State  v. 
Foster,  2  Halst.  (N.  J.)  101;  State  v. 
Charleston,  1  Const.  R.  (Treadway, 
S.  C.)  36;  State  v.  Merry,  3  Mo.  278. 
See  Denike  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  80 
N.  Y.  599.  In  California,  this  juris- 
diction lies  in  the  district  courts.  In 
Indiana  an  information  may  be  filed 
in  the  circuit  court  by  the  prosecuting 
attorney,  or  by  any  person  claiming 
an  interest  in  the  corporation  which 
has  abused  its  powers.  R.  S.  1894, 
§§1145,  1146;  Board  v.  Hall,  70  Ind. 
469;  Danville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State,  ex 
rel.,  16  Ind.  456.  In  New  York,  Tenn- 
essee, and  Colorado,  the  remedy  is  by 
civil  action  under  the  several  codes, 
N.Y.  Code,  1884,  §1983;  People  v. 
Cook,  8  N.  Y.  (4  Selden)  67 ;  State,  ex 
rel.,  w.Turk,  Mart.  &Yerg.(Tenn.)  287 ; 
Attorney-general  v.  Leaf,  9  Humph. 
(Tenn.)  753;  Code  of  Tenn.,  §3409, 
ft  seq.;  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People, 
5  Colo.  39;  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 


v.  People,  5  Colo.  60,  cited  in  Water- 
man on  Corp.,  §380.  In  Minnesota 
and  Maryland,  the  proceeding  is  by 
complaint  filed  by  the  attorney-gener- 
al in  the  district  court  of  the  proper 
county.  2  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  177. 
A  forfeiture  of  corporate  franchises 
granted  by  a  city  can  be  enforced  on- 
ly by  a  direct  proceeding  by  quo  war- 
ranto under  the  statutes.  Citizens' 
Horse  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Belleville,  47 
111.  App.  388. 

2  State,  ex  rel.,  v.  Smith,  32  Ind.  213 ; 
State,  ex  rel.,  v.  Ireland,  130  Ind.  77; 
Western  Pa.  R.Co.'s  Appeal, 104  Pa.St. 
399.  Where  the  common  law  rule  has 
not  been  changed  by  statute  suit  must 
be  brought  by  the  attorney-general  on 
behalf  of  the  state.  Heap  v.  Heap 
Co.,  97  Mich.  147;  Bass  v.  Roanoke, 
etc.,  Co.,  Ill  N.  C.  439;  State  v.  In- 
ternational Co.,  35  S.  W.  1067. 

8  A  statute  authorizing  the  secretary 
of  state  to  declare  the  charter  of  a 
corporation  forfeited  if  its  taxes  are 
not  paid  is  invalid.  Forfeiture  can 
be  made  only  after  suit  brought  by 
the  state  for  that  purpose.  Green- 
brier,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ward,  36  W.Va. 
573,  15  S. E.  89. 

«  North  v.  State,  107  Ind.  356;  State 
v.  Rio  Grande  R.  Co.,  41  Tex.  217. 
Injunction  will  not  lie  at  the  suit 
of  a  private  -person,  to  enforce  the 


88 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§56 


ing  to  a  forfeiture  be  set  up  by  plea  or  answer  in  any  collateral 
action.1  Proceedings  to  declare  a  forfeiture  must  be  instituted 
in  the  state  or  country  in  which  the  corporation  is  created.2 
The  information  should,  in  most  states,  set  forth  specifically 
the  facts  upon  which  the  claim  of  forfeiture  of  corporate  rights 
is  founded.8  A  judgment  recovered  against  a  corporation  pend- 
ing an  appeal  from  a  judgment  forfeiting  its  franchises  will, 
where  an  appeal  suspends  the  judgment  of  the  trial  court,  bind 
the  property  of  the  corporation,  although  the  judgment  ap- 
pealed from  is  afterward  affirmed.4  But,  after  dissolution,  the 
general  rule  is  that  no  judgment  can  be  entered  against  the 
corporation  even  in  a  suit  which  was  pending  at  the  time  of 
the  dissolution.6 

§56.   Repeal  of  charter  —  Reserved  power. — Where  the 
state,    either   by   constitutional    provision,6  by    general    stat- 


forfeiture  of  a  charter  granted  to 
a  corporation  for  public  purposes. 
Hinchman  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  160  Pa.  St.  150;  Twelfth  St.  Mar- 
ket Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
142  Pa.  St.  580,  s.  c.  21  Atl.  R.  902. 

1  Logan  v.  Vernon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 
Ind.  552 ;  Union  Branch  R.  Co.  v.  East 
Tenn.,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Ga.  327;  Thomp- 
son v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Sand. 
Ch.  (N.  Y.)  625;  Matter  of  N.'  Y.  El. 
R.   Co.,   70  N.  Y.   327;   Connecticut, 
etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Bailey,   24  Vt.   465; 
Hammett  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  Co.,  20 
Ark.  204;  La  Grange,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Rainey,  7   Coldw.  (Tenn.)  420.     See 
Bass  v.  Roanoke  Nav.,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill 
N.  C.  439. 

2  Carey  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5 
Iowa  357, 367 ;  Society  v.  Town  of  New 
Haven,  8  Wheat.  (U.S.)  464;  Import- 
ing, etc.,  Co.  v.  Locke,  50  Ala.  332. 

8  State  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  24 
Tex.  80.  The  state  must  charge  and 
prove  the  abuse  or  misuser  of  its  fran- 
chises relied  on  as  ground  of  forfeit- 
ure. State,  ex  rel.  Walker,  v.  Talbot, 


(Mo.  Sup.)  27  S.  W.  366.  A  full 
treatment  of  the  pleadings  and  prac- 
tice in  such  proceedings  will  be  found 
in  the  note  to  People  v.  Rensselaer, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Am.  Dec.  33,  49-53. 

4  Texas  Trunk  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  85 
Tex.   605;   Giles  v.  Stanton,  86  Tex. 
620;  Giles  v.  East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.)  26  S.  W.  1111. 

5  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Colby,  21  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  609;   Thornton  v.  Marginal, 
etc.,  Railway,  123  Mass.  32;  Terry  v. 
Merchants',  etc.,  Bank,  66  Ga.  177; 
Saltmarsh  v.  Planters',  etc.,  Bank,  17 
Ala.  761.     As  to  form  of  judgment  of 
forfeiture,  see  Slee  v.  Bloom,  5  Johns. 
Ch.  (N.Y.)  366;  People  v.  Rensselaer, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  113,  s. 
c.  30  Am. Dec.  33,  and  note. 

6  See  note  2,  supra,  title,   Amend- 
ment of  Charter.     Chesapeake  &  O. 
Ry.  Co.  v.  Miller,  114  U.  S.  176,  s.  c. 
5  Sup.  Ct.  R.  813.     When  the  consti- 
tution of  a  state  forbids  the  granting 
of    irrevocable  charters,  this  provis- 
ion becomes   a  part  of    all  charters 
granted,  and  under  them  subject  to 


$57 


CHARTERS. 


89 


ute,1  or  by  special  reservation  introduced  into  the  creative  act,  re- 
serves the  power  to  alter,  amend  or  repeal  the  charter  of  a  cor- 
poration, such  charter  is  held  not  to  constitute  a  contract  be- 
tween the  state  and  the  incorporators  within  the  meaning  of 
the  federal  constitution ; 2  though  in  the  absence  of  such  reser- 
vation, the  charter  can  not  be  taken  away  excepting  for  acts  of 
the  corporation  amounting  to  a  forfeiture.8  Where  an  uncon- 
ditional reservation  is  made,  the  power  to  repeal  may  be  exer- 
cised at  the  pleasure  of  the  legislature,4  and  its  exercise  can 
not  be  reviewed  by  the  courts,  unless,  possibly,  where  some 
principle  of  natural  justice  is  violated.5 

§57.   Repeal  where  conditional  power  is  reserved.  —  But 

where  only  a  conditional  power  to  repeal  the  charter  upon  a 
failure  of  the  corporation  to  comply  with  certain  conditions  is 
reserved,  although  the  power  may  be  exercised  at  once  upon 
such  failure,6  and  although  the  presumption  will  be  in  favor 


repeal,  whether  so  expressed  in  the 
act  of  the  legislature  or  not.  Dela- 
ware, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tharp,  5  Harr. 
(Del.)  454. 

1  The  right  tp  alter  and  repeal  may 
be  reserved  in  a  general  statute  so  as 
to  apply  to  charters  subsequently 
granted.  Thornton  v.  Marginal 
Freight  Railway  Co.,  123  Mass.  32; 
State  v.  Brown,  etc.,  Co.,  (R.  I.)  17  L. 
R.  A.  856.  And  an  act  reserving 
power  to  repeal  or  amend  remains  in 
force  until  expressly  repealed.  1  Wa- 
terman on  Corp.,  p.  535.  But  the  leg- 
islature may  enter  into  an  irrepeala- 
ble  contract  with  a  corporation,  not- 
withstanding a  previous  legislature 
has  reserved  the  power  to  alter  or  re- 
peal the  charter.  New  Jersey  0.  Yard, 
95  U.  S.  104. 

2Zabriskie  v.  Hackensack,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  178, 185 ;  Common- 
wealth v.  Fayette  Co.  R.  Co.,  55  Pa. 
St.  452 ;  Cross  v.  Peach  Bottom  R.  Co., 
90  Pa.  St.  392;  Pacific  R.  Co.  v.  Ren- 
shaw,  18  Mo.  210;  Mowrey  v.  Indian- 


apolis, etc.,  R. Co.,  4  Biss.  (U.S.)  78; 
West  Wisconsin  R.  Co.  v .  Trempeal- 
eau  County,  35  Wis.  257;  Wagner 
Free  Inst.  v.  Philadelphia,  132  Pa.  St. 
612,  s.  c.  19  Am.  St.  R.  613. 

3  Miller  v.  State,  15  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
478;   State  v.  Northern  Cent.  R.  Co., 
44  Md.  131,  164;   Campbell  v.  Missis- 
sippi Union  Bank,  6  How.  (Miss.)  625, 
653. 

4  Spring  Valley  Water-works  v. 
Schottler,  110  U.  S.  347;   Thornton  v. 
Marginal  Freight  R.  Co.,  123  Mass.  32 ; 
In  re  Elevated  R.  R.  Co.,  70  N.  Y.  327, 
351 ;  Western  N.  C.  R.  Co.  v.  Rollins, 
82  N.  C.  523;  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
State,  29  Ala.  573 ;  Mayor,  etc.,v.  Pitts., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Abbott  U.  S.  9;  Bruf- 
fett  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  25  111. 
353;  Taylor  on  Priv.  Corp.,  §503;  An- 
gell  and  Ames  on  Corp.,  §  767. 

6Lothrop  v.  Stedman,  13  Blatch. 
(U.  S.)  134,  42  Conn.  583 ;  Sala  v.  New 
Orleans,  2  Woods  (U.  S.)  188. 

6  Oakland  R.  Co.  v.  Oakland,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  45  Cal.  365;  Myrick  v.  Braw- 


90 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§57 


of  the  existence  of  the  facts  on  which  the  validity  of  a  repeal- 
ing statute  depends,1  yet  it  has  been  held  that  the  legislature 
is  not  the  final  judge  as  to  whether  such  a  failure  has  given  it 
authority  to  repeal,  and  that  its  action  may  be  set  aside  by  the 
courts.8  It  seems  to  us,  however,  that  the  legislature,  having 
the  right  to  reserve  the  power  to  repeal  unconditionally,  may 
reserve  the  right  to  repeal  conditionally  with  power  to  deter- 
mine whether  or  not  the  condition^  exists,  for  it  is  a  general 
rule  that  where  the  legislature  is  authorized  to  determine 
whether  a  state  of  facts  exists  authorizing  the  exercise  of  power, 
its  judgment  that  such  a  state  of  facts  does  exist  is  conclu- 
sive.8 As  such  repeal  may  be  regarded  as  only  a  ready  sub- 
stitute for  a  forfeiture  for  abuse  of  corporate  powers  upon  quo 
warranto  proceedings,4  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  corpora- 
tion should  have  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  its  own  defense 
before  some  judicial  tribunal,5  and  not  subjected  to  an  ex  parte 
judgment  pronounced  by  one  of  the  parties  to  the  contract, 


ley,  33  Minn.  377 ;  Miners'  Bank  v. 
United  States,  1  Greene  (Iowa)  553; 
Kennedy  v.  Strong,  14  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 
128;  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Conn.  196.  But  see 
Flint,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Woodhull,  25  Mich. 
99. 

1  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Casey,  26  Pa. 
St.  287;  State  v.  Curran,  7  Eng.(Ark.) 
321. 

8  Commonwealth  v.  Pittsburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  58  Pa.  St.  26 ;  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Casey,  26  Pa.  St.  287.  Some  cases 
hold  that  by  accepting  a  charter  con- 
taining a  reservation  by  the  legisla- 
ture of  power  to  repeal,  upon  the 
happening  of  a  contingency,  the  cor- 
poration is  estopped  to  question  the 
authority  of  the  legislature  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  contingency  has 
happened,  though  the  question  would 
otherwise  be  one  for  judicial  deter- 
mination. Crease  v.  Babcock,  23 
Pick.  (Mass.)  334,  s.  c.  34  Am.  Dec. 
61 ;  Carey  v.  Giles,  9  Ga.  253 ;  Lothrop 


v.  Stedman,  42  Conn.  583;  Miners' 
Bank  v.  United  States,  1  Greene 
(Iowa)  553;  DeCamp  v.  Eveland,  19 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  81,  cited  in  1  Beach 
Private  Corporations,  §39.  This  we 
regard  as  the  better  rule. 

3  Elliott's  Gen.  Practice,  §  148,  and 
authorities  last  above  cited.    See,  al- 
so,   the    more    recent    Pennsylvania 
case  of  Wagner  Free  Inst.  v.  Philadel- 
phia, 132  Pa.  St.  612,  s.  c.  19  Am.  St. 
R.  613. 

4  Legislative  power  to  declare  a  for- 
feiture is  cumulative  to  and  not  a  sub- 
stitute fora  judicial  proceeding  by  quo 
warranto,and  such  proceedings  may  be 
brought    when    the    legislature    has 
failed  to  exercise  its  repealing  power. 
State  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  24  Tex. 
80. 

5  Mayor  of  Baltimore  v.  Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  9.    See  Ver- 
mont, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  34  Vt.  2. 


§  58  CHARTERS.  91 

which  it  is  claimed  has  been  violated.1  But,  since  a  judicial 
finding  establishing  the  misuser  or  abuse  of  corporate  powers 
would  have  the  effect  to  dissolve  the  corporation,  siich  a  pro- 
ceeding would  render  idle  the  reservation  of  the  power  of  re- 
peal.2 This  power  is  of  value  because  it  maybe  exercised  when 
proceedings  by  quo  warranto  might  not  only  prove  ineffectual, 
but  would  involve  risks,  embarrassment  and  delay.3  A  legis- 
lative inquiry  to  ascertain  if  there  has  been  a  violation  of  its 
charter  or  any  other  default  by  a  corporation  chartered  under 
a  general  statute  reserving  to  the  legislature  the  right  to  repeal 
charters  of  corporations  of  its  class  upon  any  such  violation  or 
default,  has  been  held  not  to  be  a  "judicial  act,"  such  as  the 
legislature  is  prohibited  from  performing  by  the  constitutions 
of  many  of  the  states.* 

§  58.  Rule  where  power  to  repeal  is  not  reserved. — Where 
the  power  to  repeal  has  not  been  reserved  a  different  rule  ap- 
plies. In  such  a  case  the  charter  can  only  be  revoked  for 
cause  as  established  by  the  decree  of  a  competent  tribunal 
upon  judicial  inquiry,5  and  is  not  subject  to  legislative  repeal 
for  any  alleged  abuse  of  corporate  franchises,6  at  least  where 
the  legislature  is  prohibited  by  the  state  constitution  from  ex- 
ercising judicial  powers.7 

§  59.  Effect  of  repeal. — The  legislature  may  not,  under  the 
guise  of  authority  to  repeal  the  charter,  invalidate  contracts 
and  vested  rights  of  third  parties;8  nor  will  any  action  on  its 

1  Commonwealth  v.  Proprietors  of  6  State  v.  Noyes,  47  Me.  189 ;  Sturgea 
New  Bedford  Bridge,  2  Gray  (Mass.)  v.  Vanderbilt,  73  N.  Y.  384;  Brooklyn 
339;  Taylor  Private  Corp.,  §  503  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co., 

2  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Casey,  26  Pa.  32  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  358;  Commonwealth 
287;     Crease    v.    Babcock,    23    Pick.  r.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Pa.  St.  26. 
(Mass.)  334;  Miners'  Bank  v.  United  'Bruffett  v.  Great  Western  R.Co., 
States,  1  Greene  (Iowa)  553.  25  111.  353;  University  of  Maryland  v. 

•Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Casey,  26  Pa.  Williams,  9  Gill  &  J.  (Md.)  365.     But 

St.  287.  see  Crease  v.  Babcock,  23  Pick.(Mass.) 

«  Crease  v.  Babcock,  23  Pick.(Mass.)  334,  s.  c.  34  Am.  Dec.  61. 

334,  s.  c.  34  Am.  Dec.  61.    But  see  8  Miller  v.   State,  15  Wall.  (U.   S.) 

post,  §58.  478 ;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Maine,96 U.S.  499; 

8  Ante,  §§  54,  56.  City  of  Detroit  v.  Detroit  Plank  Road 


92  THE    CORPORATION.  §  59 

part  affect  the  ownership  of  personal  and  real  property  acquired 
by  the  corporation  during  its  lawful  existence,  or  of  rights  of 
contract  or  choses  in  action,  so  acquired,  which  do  not  in  their 
nature  depend  upon  the  general  powers  conferred  by  the  char- 
ter.1 The  rights  of  the  share-holders  of  such  a  corporation  to 
their  interests  in  such  property  are  not,  as  a  rule,  annihilated 
by  such  a  repeal,*  and  where  the  legislature  does  not  provide  a 
special  remedy,  the  courts  may  enforce  those  rights  by  the 
means  within  their  power.8  The  repeal  by  the  legislature 
of  the  charter  of  a  corporation,  however,  destroys  its  ability 
to  originate  new  transactions  dependent  on  the  power  con- 
ferred by  the  charter,  and  leaves  the  incorporators  with  only 
such  powers  as  may  be  exercised  by  unincorporated  private 
persons  under  the  general  laws  of  the  state.4  But  the  legisla- 
ture may  charter  a  new  corporation  with  authority  to  take  so 
much  of  the  property  and  franchises  of  the  corporation  whose 
charter  is  revoked  as  may  be  necessary  to  the  public  use,  upon 
making  compensation  therefor;5  and  it  has  been  held  that  the 
repeal  of  a  corporation's  charter  vests  in  the  state  the  right  to 
all  public  works  built  by  it  for  public  use  on  lands  taken  in  the 
name  of  the  state  ( subject  to  the  proprietary  right  of  the  share- 
holders to  the  assets),  together  with  the  right  to  manage  them 
or  regrant  them  at  its  election.6 

Co. ,43  Mich.  140;  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Co.,  43  Mich.   140.      Some  of  these 

v.  Brownell,  24  N.  Y.  345;  Common-  cases,   notably    the    New  York    and 

wealth  v.  Essex  Co.,  13  Gray  (Mass.)  Maine  cases,  go  still  further  and  ap- 

239,  253.     But  see  Macon,  etc.,  R.  R.  ply  this  rule  to  franchises. 

Co.  v.  Gibson,  85  Ga.  1,  s.  c.  21  Am.  St.  2  Greenwood   v.    Marginal    Freight 

R.  135.  R.  Company,  105  U.  S.  14;  Thornton 

1  Greenwood  v.  Marginal  Freight  R.  v.   Marginal    Freight,  etc.,   Co.,    123 

Company,  105  U.  S.  14,  per  Miller,  J. ;  Mass.  32. 

New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dela-  8  Greenwood    v.    Marginal   Freight 

more,  114  U.  S.  501.  See,  also,  People  R.  Company,  105  U.  S.  14. 

v.  O'Brien,  45  Hun  (N.  Y.)  519,  s.  c.  *  Greenwood    v.   Marginal    Freight 

111  N.  Y.   1,7  Am.   St.  R.  684,  and  R.  Company,  105  U.  S.  14. 

note ;   Orr  v.  Bracken  County,  81  Ky.  6  Greenwood  v.    Marginal   Freight 

593 ;  County  of  San  Mateo  v.  South-  R.  Company,  105  U.  S.  14. 

ern  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  8  Sawy.  (U.  S.)  6Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Casey,  26  Pa. 

238,  279;  State  v.  Noyes,  47  Me.  189;  St.  287. 
City  of  Detroit®.  Detroit  Plank  Road 


§  60  CHARTERS.  93 

§  60.  Repeal  of  by  general  laws. — Where  power  to  re- 
peal is  reserved,  a  special  charter  may  be  repealed  by  a  general 
law,1  even,  it  has  been  held,  where  no  reference  is  made  to  the 
charter  repealed,2  but  a  general  law  can  have  such  an  effect 
only  where  it  is  so  opposed  to  the  provisions  of  the  charter 
that  both  acts  may  not  stand  together.8  The  repeal  of  a  gen- 
eral incorporating  act  does  not,  however,  affect  the  charter 
rights  of  a  corporation  previously  organized  under  its  provis- 
ions,* unless  such  is  the  intention  of  the  legislature.5 

§  61 .  Charter  is  subject  to  general  laws  reserving  power 
to  repeal. — A  charter,  unless  otherwise  provided,  is  subject  to 
the  general  laws  in  force  when  it  was  granted,6  and,  therefore, 
a  general  law  reserving  the  power  to  alter,  amend  or  repeal 
corporate  charters  generally  is  taken  as  forming  part  of  all 
charters  afterward  granted.7  For  this  reason,  as  already  stated,8 
the  amendment  or  repeal  of  the  charter  where  such  a  general 
law  existed  at  the  time  it  was  granted  is  not,  ordinarily,  a  vio- 
lation of  the  provision  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States 
forbidding  the  impairment  of  the  obligation  of  contracts.  And 
the  fact  that  part  of  such  a  general  statute  is  incorporated  into 

1  State  v.  Commissioners,  etc.,  37  N.  Iowa  300;   Freehold  Mut.  Loan  Ass'n 
J.L.  228;  Mechanics  and  Traders  Bank  v.  Brown,  29  N.  J.  Eq.  121;   Union 
v.  Bridges,  30  N.  J.  Law  112.  That  Hebrew  Ass'n  v.  Benshimol,  130  Mass, 
the  charter  may  be  revoked  by  a  325;  Bibb  v.  Hall,  101  Ala.  79,  59  Am. 
change  in  the  constitution  of  the  state,  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  62. 

as  well  as  by  statute,  where  power  5  See  Wilson  v.  Tesson,  12  Ind.  285 ; 

to  repeal  has  been  reserved,  see  Mat-  2  Spel.  Priv.  Corp.,  §  1066. 

ter  of  Lee  &  Co.'s  Bank,  21  N.  Y.  9.  6  Pratt  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Me. 

2  State  v.  Commissioners,  etc.,  37  N.  579. 

J.  L.  228.    But  see  City  of  Grand  Bap-  ''  Massachusetts    Genl.  Hospital  r. 

ids  v.  Grand  Rapids  Hydraulic  Co.,  State  Mut.  L.  A.  Co.,  4  Gray  (Mass.) 

66  Mich.  606,  33  N.W.  R.  749;  New  227;  Suydam  v.  Moore,  8  Barb.  (N.Y.) 

Jersey  v.  Yard,  95  TJ.   S.  104,  same  358;    Tomlinson  v.  Branch,  15  Wall, 

ease  as  above.  (U.  S.)  460 ;  Griffin  v.  Kentucky  Ins. 

8  State  v.  Commissioners,  etc.,  37  N.  Co.,  3  Bush  (Ky.)  592;   State  v.  Per- 

J.  L.  228.     See,  also,  Bangor  R.  Co.  v.  son,  32  N.  J.  L.  134 ;  In  re  Lee's  Bank, 

Smith,  47  Me.  34 ;  Union  Imp.  Co.  v.  29  N.Y.  9 ;  Commissioners  v.  Holyoke, 

Commonwealth.  69  Pa.  St.  140.  etc.,  Co.,  104  Mass.  446. 

•Bewick  v.  Alpena  Harbor  Co.,  39  'Ante,  §56. 
Mich.  700;  Donworth  v.  Coolbaugh,  5 


94  THE    CORPORATION.  §  62 

a  charter,  does   not,  by   implication,  repeal  the   rest  of  the 
statute.1 

§  62.  Expiration  of  charter. — The  existence  of  railroad 
companies  incorporated  by  special  charter,2  as  that  of  other 
business  corporations,8  is  frequently  limited  to  a  term  of  years; 
and  some  of  the  states  having  general  laws  for  the  formation 
of  such  corporations  limit  the  time  for  which  a  corporation 
may  be  formed  under  them.4  Where  there  are  110  provisions 
for  renewal  of  the  corporation5  or  where  no  advantage  is  taken 
of  such  provisions,  the  corporation  is  ipso  facto  dissolved  upon 
the  expiration  of  the  time  for  which  it  was  chartered.6  It  is 
not  necessary  that  a  dissolution  should  be  judicially  decreed,7 
but  the  plea  of  nul  tiel  corporation  may  be  interposed  to  any 
suits  which  it  may  bring,8  and  any  member  may,  in  a  proper 
case,  insist  upon  a  distribution  of  its  assets.9  If  the  charter  is 
to  continue  until  a  certain  day,  the  corporation  expires  at  the 
close  of  the  preceding  day.10  But  it  has  been  held  that  a  gen- 
eral statute  limiting  the  life  of  corporations  will  not  affect  a 
corporation  organized  under  a  special  charter,  to  which  no  par- 
ticular reference  is  made  in  the  general  act.11  If  the  charter  of 
a  company  be  suffered  to  expire  the  legislature  can  not  then 

1  Angell  &  Ames  on  Corp.,  §767,  cit-  R.  Co.  v.  Rainey,  7  Coldw.  (Tenn.) 

ing  Pratt  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  420 ;  Bank  of  Gallipolis  v.  Trimble,  6 

Me.  579.  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  599. 

8  For  instances  of  such  charters  of  8  In  re  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72N.Y. 

limited  duration,  see  Charter  of  the  245;    Krutz  v.  Paola    Town    Co.,   20 

Union  Railroad  Co.,  Local  Laws  Ind.,  Kan.  397.  But  see  St.  Louis  Gas  Light 

1838,  p.  131;  of  Newburgh  and  Van-  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  11  Mo.  App.  55,  84 

derburgh  Railroad  Co.,  Local  Laws  Mo.  202. 

Ind.,  1850,  p.  308.  9  Mann  v.  Butler,  2  Barb.  Ch.  (N.Y.) 

8  Beach  on  Railways,  §577.  362;    Sturges  v.  Vanderbilt,  73  N.Y. 

4  R.  S.  111.  Ch.  114,  §  1 ;  Rev.  L.(1884)  384 ;  Greely  v.  Smith,  3  Story  (U.  S.) 

La.,  §  684.  See  R.  S.  Mo.,  §  926.  657 ;  Bank  of  Mississippi  v.  Wrenn,  11 

6  For  examples  of  such  provisions,  Miss.  791 ;  Eagle  Chair  Co.  v.  Kelsey, 
see  R.  S.  111.  Ch.  114,  §5;   N.Y.  Laws,  23   Kan.  632;    Burns  v.  Metropolitan 
1890,  Ch.  563,  §22.  Bid.  Assn.,  2  Mackey  (D.  C.)  7. 

6 Oakland  R.   Co.  v.  The  Oakland,  "People  v.  Walker,  17  N.  Y.  502. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Cal.  365.  "  Steadman  ^.Merchants', etc., Bank, 

7  Merrill  v.  Suffolk  Bank,  31  Me.  57,  69  Tex.  50;  State  v.  Ladies  of  the  Sa- 
50  Am.  Dec.  649 ;  Sturges  v.  Vander-  cred  Heart,  99  Mo.  533. 

bilt,  73  N.  Y.  384,  390;  LaGrange,  etc., 


§  62  CHARTERS.  95 

renew  its  charter  so  as  to  continue  its  existence  as  a  corporate 
body,  except  by  the  consent  of  all  the  corporators.1  This  is 
intimated,  rather  than  decided,  in  the  case  to  which  we  have 
referred ;  but  where  one  becomes  a  stockholder  under  a  char- 
ter expressly  limiting  the  duration  of  the  corporation,  and 
there  is  no  reserved  power  of  amendment  or  repeal,  it  seems 
clear  to  us  that  he  can  not  be  compelled  to  remain  or  become  a 
stockholder  in  what  is  virtually  a  new  corporation  by  a  renewal 
of  the  charter  after  the  corporation  had  ceased  to  exist  by  rea- 
son of  the  expiration  of  the  original  charter. 

Bailey  v.  Hollister,  26  N.  Y.  112.  R.  Co.  v.  Laurence,  (Kan.)  45  Pac.  R. 

See,   generally,   upon  the  subject  of  125;  Detroit,  etc.,  Co.  v.  MacombCir- 

rights  after  charters    expire,  Union  cuit  Judge,  (Mich.)  67  N.  W.  R.  531. 

Pacific  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  As  to  the  effect  of  laws  passed  after 

51  Fed.  309;  Union  Pacific  R.  Co.  v.  the  enactment  of  the  charter  but  prior 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163  U.  S.  564,  s.  to  acceptance,  see,  Planters,  etc.,  Co. 

c.  16  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1173;  Kansas,  etc.,  v.  Tennessee,  161  U.  S.  193,  16  Sup. 

Railway  Co.  i.  Smith,  40  Kan.  192,  s.  Ct.  R.  466. 
c.  19  Pac.  R.  636;  Council  Grove,  etc., 


CHAPTER  V. 


FRANCHISES. 


§63.   Definition. 

64.  Charter  and    franchise  distin- 

guished. 

65.  Grant  of  corporate  franchises. 

66.  Consideration  for  the  grant  of 

a  franchise. 

67.  Nature  of  a   franchise  further 

considered. 

68.  Franchise   of  being  a  corpora- 

tion. 

69.  Difference  between  a  franchise 

and  a  license. 


§  70.  Sale  of  corporate  property  essen- 
tial to  exercise  of  franchises 
— Limitation  of  right  to  sell. 

71.  Effect  of  attempt  to  sell  fran- 

chise. 

72.  Judicial  sale  of  franchises. 

73.  Sequestration. 

74.  Seizure  of  corporate  franchise 

under  power  of  eminent  do- 
main. 

75.  Dissolution  effected  by  author- 

ized sale  of  franchises. 


§  63.  Definition. — In  its  broad  signification  the  term  "fran- 
chises" means  "special  privileges  conferred  by  government 
on  individuals,  and  which  do  not  belong  to  the  citizens  of  the 
country  generally  by  common  right,"1  but  the  meaning  of 
the  term  "corporate  franchises"  is  not  so  comprehensive.  We 
suppose  that  the  term  "corporate  franchises"  means  such  spe- 
cial rights  and  privileges  as  are  conferred  upon  corporations 
by  the  legislative  power.  We  do  not  include  in  our  definition 
corporate  immunities  because  immunities  are  not  always  fran- 
chises,2 although  they  may  sometimes  be  properly  considered 


1  Angell  &  Ames  Corp.,  §  4. 

1  In  the  case  of  Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Missouri,  152  U.  S.  301,  s.  c.  14  Sup.  Ct. 
R.  592,  attention  is  directed  to  an  ap- 
parent conflict  in  the  decisions.  We 
quote  the  following  from  the  opinion 
in  that  case:  "In  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Ry. 
Co.  v.  Miller,  114  U.  S.  176, 5  Sup.  Ct.  R. 
813,  it  was  held  that  an  immunity  from 
taxation  enjoyed  by  the  Covington  and 


Ohio  Railway  Company  did  not  pass 
to  a  purchaser  of  such  road  under 
foreclosure  of  a  mortgage,  although 
the  act  provided  that  'said  purchaser 
shall  forthwith  be  a  corporation,'  and 
'shall  succeed  to  all  such  franchises, 
rights  and  privileges  *  *  *  as  would 
have  been  had  *  *  *  by  the  first 
company  but  for  such  sale  and  con- 
veyance.' It  was  held, following  in  this 


(96) 


§64 


FRANCHISES. 


97 


as  such  under  the  statute  applicable  to  the  particular  instance. 
The  franchises  of  a  railroad  corporation  are  such  rights  and 
privileges  as  are  essential  to  the  proper  operation  of  a  railroad 
and  necessary  to  the  conduct  of  the  business  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany.1 Merely  transient  or  personal  immunities  do  not,  as  we 
believe,  fall  within  the  legal  meaning  of  the  term.  The  dis- 
tinction between  transient  immunities  and  permanent  rights 
and  privileges  which  constitute  franchises  is  one  of  importance 
since  some  franchises  may  be  transferable  while  mere  immuni- 
ties are  not. 

§  64.  Charter  and  franchise  distinguished. — A  charter  con- 
tains the  grant  of  a  franchise,  but  is  not  the  franchise  itself. 
The  charter  is  the  evidence  that  a  franchise  has  been  granted 
rather  than  the  franchise,  for  that  is  the  thing  the  charter 
grants.  The  constitutional  inhibition  against  impairing  the 


particular  Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  U. 
S.  217,  that  the  words  'franchises, 
rights  and  privileges'  did  not  necessa- 
rily embrace  a  grant  of  an  exemption 
or  immunity.  See,  also,  Picard  v. 
East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  637, 
9  Sup.  Ct.  640.  Upon  the  other  hand, 
it  was  held  in  Tennessee  a.Whitworth, 
117  U.  S.  139,  6  Sup.  Ct.  649,  that  the 
right  to  have  shares  in  its  capital  stock 
exempted  from  taxation  within  the 
state  is  conferred  upon  a  railroad  cor- 
poration by  state  statutes  granting  to  it 
'all  the  rights,  powers  and  privileges' 
conferred  upon  another  corporation 
named,  if  the  latter  corporation  pos- 
sesses by  law  such  right  of  exemption ; 
citing  in  support  of  this  principle  a 
number  of  prior  cases.  See,  also, 
Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alsbrook, 
146  U.  S.  279,  297,  13  Sup.  Ct.  72." 

1  In  the  case  of  Morgan  v.  Louisi- 
ana, 93  U.  S.  217,  233,  it  was  said : 
"Much  confusion  of  thought  has 
arisen  in  this  case,  and  in  similar 
cases,  from  attaching  a  vague  and  un- 
CORP.  7 


defined  meaning  to  the  term  'fran- 
chises.' It  is  often  used  as  synony- 
mous with  rights,  privileges  and 
immunities,  though  of  a  personal  and 
temporary  character;  so  that,  if  any 
one  of  these  exists,  it  is  loosely  termed 
a  'franchise,'  and  is  supposed  to  pass 
upon  a  transfer  of  the  franchises  of  the 
company.  But  the  term  must  always 
be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
corporation  or  property  to  which  it  is 
alleged  to  appertain.  The  franchises 
of  a  railroad  corporation  are  rights 
or  privileges  which  are  essential  to 
the  operations  of  the  corporation,  and 
without  which  its  road  and  works 
would  be  of  little  value ;  such  as  the 
franchise  to  run  cars,  to  take  tolls,  to 
appropriate  earth  and  gravel  for  the 
bed  of  its  road,  or  water  for  its  en- 
gines, and  the  like.  They  are  posi- 
tive rights  or  privileges,  without  the 
possession  of  which  the  road  of  the 
company  could  not  be  successfully 
worked." 


98  THE    CORPORATION.  §  65 

obligation  of  contracts  is  not  operative  upon  the  charter  but 
upon  the  contract  which  the  charter  contains,  and  protects 
franchises  because  they  are  valuable  property  or  contract 
rights.1 

§  65.  Grant  of  corporate  franchises. — A  corporate  franchise 
can  only  be  granted  by  the  sovereign.  Privileges  or  rights 
that  are  often  called  franchises  may  be  granted  by  municipal 
corporations  to  railroad  companies,  but  that  which  is  a  corpo- 
rate franchise  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term  can  only  be  granted 
by  the  state.  A  license  to  place  a  railroad  track  in  a  street  is 
sometimes  called  a  franchise,  but  this  is  an  erroneous  use  of 
the  term.  The  right  to  use  the  street  is  a  privilege  or  license, 
not  a  corporate  franchise,  except  where  it  is  conferred  as  a 
franchise  by  the  charter  or  statute.8 

§  66.  Consideration  for  the  grant  of  a  franchise. — A  fran- 
chise, using  the  term  "franchise"  as  meaning  a  property  right 
vested  in  a  corporation,  is  always  supported  by  a  consideration. 
This  consideration  may  be  the  implied  undertaking  to  perform 
corporate  duties  beneficial  to  the  public,  or  it  may  be  an  express 
agreement  to  do  or  not  to  do  a  designated  act.  In  this  respect 
a  franchise  differs  essentially  from  a  bare  license,  for  a  bare 
license  is  not  supported  by  any  consideration.  It  is,  there- 
fore, entirely  consistent  with  principle  to  hold  that  a  bare  or 
naked  license  is  revocable  and  is  not  protected  as  a  franchise. 
The  license  does  not  become  a  contract  until  it  is  accepted  and 
acts  are  performed  under  it  which  vest  the  rights  of  the  par- 
ties, while  a  franchise  becomes  effective  upon  the  acceptance 
of  the  charter  or  the  performance  of  such  acts  as  are  required 
to  be  performed  as  conditions  precedent  to  the  vesting  of  the 
rights  granted.3 

1  Oakland  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Oakland,  etc.,  City  of  Saginaw,  28  Fed.  R.  529 ;   Jer- 
Co.t  45  Cal.  365.  sey  City  v.  Jersey  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

2  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  People,  73  111.  N.  J.  Eq.  360;   Redfield  on  Railways 
541;  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chica-  (3d  ed.),  317;  2  Dillon  Municipal  Corp. 
go,  etc.,  Co.,  87  111.  317.     See,  gener-  (4th  ed.)  792;  Elliott  Roads  and  Streets 
ally,  State  v.  Hilbert,  72  Wis.  184,  s.  c.  563. 

39 N.  W.  R.  326;  Saginaw,  etc.,  Co.  v.    ^Philadelphia,  etc.,   Co.'s  Appeal, 


67  FRANCHISEE.  99 


§  67.  Nature  of  a  franchise  further  considered.  —Ta 

to  exist  as  a  corporation  ,  that  is  as  a  legal  entity  composed  01 
individuals  united  under  a  common  name,  with  the  capacity 
both  of  self-perpetuation  and  of  exercising  certain  of  the 
powers  and  privileges  of  a  natural  person,  such  as  the  power 
to  sue  and  be  sued,  to  hold  and  convey  property,  to  make  by- 
laws for  the  control  of  its  business  and  to  enter  into  contracts 
in  the  corporate  name,  is  often  spoken  of  as  the  company's 
franchise.1  On  the  other  hand,  the  word  "franchises"  is  fre- 
quently used  to  designate  those  special  privileges  and  powers 
conferred  upon  a  corporation  for  the  furtherance  of  some  pub- 
lic work,  such  as  the  right  to  construct  a  railroad  upon  lands 
taken  by  the  right  of  eminent  domain,  and  '''those  rights  or 
privileges  which  are  essential  to  the  operations  of  the  corpora- 
tion, and  without  which  its  roads  and  works  would  be  of  little 
value,  such  as  the  franchise  to  run  cars,  to  take  tolls,  to  appro- 
priate earth  and  gravel  for  the  bed  of  its  road,  or  water  for  its 
engines,  and  the  like."8  In  so  far  as  the  word  is  used  to  desig- 
nate powers  which  an  individual  may  not  exercise  without  a 

102  Pa.  St.  123.    See,  generally,  Hen-  for  the  debts  and  liabilities  contracted 

derson  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Fed.  by  it,  with  such  other  rights  as  enable 

R.  358;  Western,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Citizens',  the  corporation  to  act  as  a  person  or 

etc.,  Co.,  128  Ind.  525;  Indianapolis,  legal  entity,  are  called  ordinary  fran- 

etc.,  Co.  v.  Citizens'  Co.,  127  Ind.  369;  chises  and  may  be  exercised  in  any 

People,  ex  rel.  Maybury,  v.  Mutual,  jurisdiction  where  such  exercise  is  not 

etc.,  Co.,  38  Mich.  154;  Atchison  St.  expressly     prohibited.      Prerogative 

R.  Co.  v.  Nave,  38  Kan.  744  ;  Galveston  franchises,  such  as  the  exercise  of  the 

City,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Galveston  City  St.  right  of  eminent  domain,  arise  from  a 

R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  529  ;   Great  Central  special  grant,  and  can  only  be  exer- 

R.  Co.  v.  Gulfv  Colorado  &  Santa  Fe  cised  by  either  an  individual  or  acor- 

R.  Co.,  26  Am.  &  Eng.  Ry.  Cases  114;  poration  by  authority  of  such  a  grant 

City  of  Detroit  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  Co.,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state 

37  Mich.  558;   Gulf  City,  etc.,  Co.  v.  by  which  the  grant  is  made.    Wood 

Galveston,  65  Tex.  502;  People's  Rail-  Ry.  Law,  §14;    Rorer  on  Railroads, 

road  v.  Memphis  Railroad,  10  Wall.  38.  74. 

1  2  Blackstone's  Com.  37.    The  right  2  Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  TJ.  S.  217; 

to  carry  on  business  in  the  corporate  Lawrence  v.  Morgan's  Louisiana,  etc., 

name,  to  make  contracts,  to  sue  and  Co.,  39  La.  Ann.  427,  s.  c.  2  So.  R.  69; 

be   sued,   and  to  acquire  and    hold  State  of  Vermont  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 

property  as  a  corporate  body,  and  to  Co.,   25  Vt.  433.    The  right  to  take 

be  exempt  from  liability  for  the  debts  tolls  is  a  special  franchise.    Beekman 

of  its  stockholders,  and  solely  liable  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Paige  45. 


roo 


THE    OO&PO RATION. 


§67 


special  gcauf  ot'  authority  from  the  legislature1  (for  example, 
eminent  domain),  a  franchise  has,  ordinarily,  no  transferable 
value,8  and,  though  it  may  be  valued  for  taxation  separately 
from  the  capital  stock  and  property,3  it  can  not,  as  a  rule,  be 
transferred  by  sale,4  mortgage,5  or  assignment,6  nor  can  it  be 
sold  on  execution,7  unless  the  legislature  has  provided  for  such 


1To  the  effect  that  franchises  to 
build,  own  and  manage  a  railroad  are 
not  necessarily  corporate  nor  un- 
assignable, see  Ragan  v.  Aiken,  9  Lea 
(Tenn.)  609;  Bank  of  Middlebury  v. 
Edgerton,  30  Vt.  182. 

2  Morawetz  on  Priv.  Corp.,  §929. 

8  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board, 
etc.,  72  N.  C.  10;  Corporate  taxation, 
23  Am.  &  Eng.  Enc.  of  Law. 

4  Beach  on  Priv.  Corp.,  §  361,  and 
cases  cited.  No  transfer  of  the  prop- 
erty and  franchises  of  a  corporation 
will  invest  the  purchasers  with  cor- 
porate existence.  New  Orleans,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Delamore,  114  U.  S.  501; 
Chaffe  v.  Ludeling,  27  La.  Ann.  607 ; 
Black  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  24  N.  J. 
Eq.  455;  Fietsam  v.  Hay,  122  111.  293; 
Atkinson  v.  Marietta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 
Ohio  St.  21,  35 ;  Oregon  R.  Co.  v.  Ore- 
gonian  R.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  1 ;  Gulf , etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Morris,  67  Tex.  692;  Middlesex 
R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 
Mass.  347;  Coe  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  Co., 
10  Ohio  St.  372;  Memphis,  etc.,  Co.??. 
Railroad  Commissioners, 112  U.  S.  609 ; 
Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  10  Allen 
448,  s.  c.  87  Am.  Dec.  672;  Rollins  v. 
Clay,  33  Me.  132. 

6  Richardson  v.  Sibley,  11  Allen 
(Mass.)  65 ;  Daniels  v.  Hart,  118  Mass. 
543 ;  Black  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  22  N. 
J.  Eq.  130,  396;  Lauman  v.  Lebanon 
Val.  R.  Co.,  30  Pa.  St.  42;  Woodruff  «. 
Erie  R.  Co.,  25  Hun  (N. Y.)  246 ;  Fraz- 
ier  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 
Tenn.  138.  Contra,  Shepley  v.  Atlantic, 


etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Me.  395;  Meyer  v. 
Johnston,  53  Ala.  237.  The  franchise 
of  being  a  corporation  is  not  included 
in  a  mortgage  of  all  the  property  and 
franchises  of  a  railroad,  unless  by  posi- 
tive provision  of  law.  Memphis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Commissioners,  112 
U.  S.  609;  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Delamore,  114  U.  S.  501 ;  Beach  on 
Ry.  Law,  §  616,  See  Snell  v.  City  of 
Chicago,  133  111.  413,  s.  c.  24  N.  E.  R. 
532;  Pumphrey  v.  Threadgill  (Tex.) 
30  S.  W.  R.  356. 

6  Beach  on  Priv.  Corp.,  §361;  An- 
gell  &  Ames,  §  191 ;  Hurlbut  v.  Car- 
ter,  21   Barb.  221;    Frazier   v.   East 
Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Tenn.  138,  40 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  358;  Richardson 
v.  Sibley,  11  Allen  (Mass.)  65;  Bowen 
v.  Lease,  5   Hill   (N.  Y.)   221 ;   Mem- 
phis, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners, 112  U.  S.  609,  619. 

7  Randolph  v.  Larned,  27  N.  J.  Eq. 
557.     But  see  State  v.  Rives,  5  Ired. 
L.  (N.  C.)  297;  Lawrence  v.  Morgan's, 
etc.,  Co.,  39  La.  Ann.  427.    Property 
essential  to  the  exercise  of  a  franchise 
may  not  be  separated  from  it  and  sold 
on  execution.    East  Alabama  R.  Co. 
v.  Doe,  114  U.  S.  340;  Youngman  v. 
Elmira,   etc.,   R.  Co.,  65  Pa.  St.  278; 
Baxters.  Nashville,  etc., Turnpike  Co., 
10  Lea  (Tenn.)  488 ;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.fl.  Boney,  117  Ind.501;  Indianapo- 
lis, etc.,  G.  R.  Co.  v.  State,  105  Ind. 
37 ;  East  Alabama  R.  Co. ».  Doe,  114  U. 
S.  340. 


§  68  FRANCHISES.  101 

a  transfer  in  the  charter  or  in  some  general  statute.1  Where 
such  provision  is  made,  the  grantee  receives  the  franchise  in- 
directly from  the  legislature  by  virtue  of  the  power  given  to 
the  corporation.* 

§  68.  Franchise  of  being  a  corporation. — Confusion  often 
results  from  the  failure  to  discriminate  between  the  franchise 
of  being  a  corporation  and  the  franchise  of  acquiring  rights 
and  exercising  corporate  functions  as  a  corporation.  The 
difference  between  the  franchise  of  being  a  corporation  and 
the  franchise  of  exercising  rights  as  a  corporation  is  impor- 
tant. A  corporation  may  be  invested  with  the  franchise 
of  existing  as  a  corporation  and  yet  not  endowed  with  the 
right  to  do  acts  it  claims  power  to  do.  Thus,  a  water  com- 
pany may  be  invested  with  the  franchise  of  being  a  corpora- 
tion and  yet  not  possess  the  franchise  of  furnishing  a  city  with 
water.8  In  another  case  the  question  was  as  to  the  rigTit  to 
acquire  and  hold  property,  and  the  distinction  between  the  ca- 
pacity to  acquire  property  and  the  franchise  to  be  a  corpora- 
tion was  clearly  drawn.4  The  question  received  very  full  con- 

1  East  Boston  Freight  R.  Co.  v.  opinion  in  tfiat  case  it  was  said :  "By 

Eastern  R.  Co.,  13  Allen  (Mass.)  422;  its  act  of  incorporation,  the  Oconto 

State  v.  Sherman,  22  Ohio  St.  411, 428;  Water  Company  came  into  being,  en- 

Mahaska,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Des  Moines  dowed  not  with  the  right  to  establish 

Valley  R.  Co.,  28  Iowa  437 ;  State  v.  and  maintain  water-works  in  Oconto, 

Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  N.  C.  634.  but  with  capacity  to  receive  and  exer- 

Where  such  acts  are  done  without  cise  that  right."  This  illustrates  the 

authority,  the  legislature  may,  by  doctrine  we  are  endeavoring  to  make 

ratifying  and  confirming  them,  render  clear,  namely,  that  the  franchise  of 

them  valid.  Shaw  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  being  a  corporation  is  essentially  dif- 

Co.,  5  Gray  (Mass.)  162, 179 ;  Richards  ferent  from  a  right  to  receive  property 

v.  Merrimack,  etc.,  Co.,  44  N.  H.  127,  or  the  capacity  to  perform  duties. 

136;  Branch  v.  Jessup,  106  U.  S.  468;  Doubtless  the  power  and  capacity 

Shaw  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Gray  may  often  be  implied  from  the  char- 

(Mass.)  162;  Hall  v.  Sullivan  R.  Co.,  ter  or  statute  creating  the  corporation, 

21  Law  Reporter  138 ;  Pollard  v.  Mad-  but  they  are  not  to  be  implied  from 

dox,  28  Ala.  321 ;  Waterman  on  Corp.,  the  bare  franchise  of  being  a  corpora- 

§159.  tion. 

•Taylor  on  Priv.  Corp.,  (2d  ed.)  *  Southern,  etc.,  Co.  t?.  Orton,  32 

$  131.  Fed.  R.  457,  473.  Judge  Sawyer,  in 

3  Andrews  v.  National  Foundry  and  the  course  of  his  very  able  opinion, 

Pipe  Works,  61  Fed.  R.  782.  In  the  said:  "The  creative  act  necessarily 


102 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§68 


sideration  in  still  another  case,  and  the  rule  was  well  stated  by 
the  court  and  its  position  enforced  with  great  strength.1 


extends  only  to  the  bringing  into  be- 
ing of  an  artificial  person,  with  the 
capacities  stated,  among  which  is,  'a 
capacity  to  receive  and  enjoy  in  com- 
mon grants  and  privileges  and  immu- 
nities;' that  is  to  say,  a  capacity  to 
receive  and  enjoy  such  grants,  privi- 
leges and  immunities  as  may  be  made 
either  at  the  time  of  the  creation  or 
any  other  time.  The  creation  of  the 
being,  with  the  capacity  to  receive 
grants,  is  one  thing ;  the  granting  of 
other  privileges  and  immunities, which 
it  has  the  capacity  to  receive  when 
created,  is  another.  When  such  a  be- 
ing is  brought  into  existence,  a  corpo- 
ration has  been  created.  A  legal  en- 
tity, a' person,  has  been  created,  with 
a  capacity  to  do,  by  its  corporate 
name,  such  things  as  the  legislative 
power  may  permit,  and  receive  such 
grants  of  such  rights  and  privileges, 
and  of  such  property,  as  the  legisla- 
ture itself,  or  private  persons  with  the 
legislative  permission,  may  give.  But 
I  do  not  understand  that  every  right, 
privilege  or  grant  that  can  be  con- 
ferred upon  a  corporation  must  be 
given  simultaneously  with  the  crea- 
tive act  of  incorporation.  On  the  con- 
trary, I  suppose  the  artificial  being 
must  be  created  with  a  capacity  to  re- 
ceive before  any  thing  can  be  received. 
The  right  to  be  a  corporation  is  itself 
a  separate,  distinct  and  independent 
franchise,  complete  within  itself,  and 
a  corporation  having  been  created, 
enjoying  this  franchise,  may  re- 
ceive a  grant  and  enjoy  other  distinct 
and  independent  franchises,  such  as 
may  be  granted  to  and  enjoyed  by 
natural  persons.  But  because  it  en- 
joys the  latter  franchises,  they  do  not, 
therefore,  constitute  a  part  of  the  dis- 
tinct and  independent  essential  fran- 


chise—the right  to  be  a  corporation. 
They  are  additional  franchises  given 
to  the  corporation,  and  not  parts  of 
the  corporation  itself, — not  of  the  es- 
sence of  the  corporation." 

1  In  the  case  of  Coe  v.  Columbus, 
etc.,  Co.,  10  Ohio  St.  372,  s.  c.  75  Am. 
Dec.  518,  speaking  of  the  distinction 
referred  to  in  the  text,  the  court  said : 
"This  distinction  has  been  clearly 
pointed  out  in  a  recent  case,  in  which 
it  is  said:  'Among  the  franchises  of 
the  company  is  that  of  being  a  body 
politic,  with  rights  of  succession  of 
members,  and  of  acquiring,  holding 
and  conveying  property,  and  suing 
and  being  sued,  by  a  certain  name. 
Such  an  artificial  being  only  the  law 
can  create ;  and  when  created  it  can 
not  transfer  its  own  existence  into  an- 
other body,  nor  can  it  enable  natural 
persons  to  act  in  its  name,  save  as  its 
agents  or  as  members  of  the  corpora- 
tion, acting  in  conformity  with  the 
modes  required  or  allowed  by  its  char- 
ter. The  franchise  to  be  a  corpora- 
tion, is,  therefore,  not  a  subject  of  sale 
and  transfer,  unless  the  law,  by  some 
positive  provision,  has  made  it  so,  and 
pointed  out  the  modes  in  which  such 
sale  and  transfer  may  be  effected. 
But  the  franchises  to  build,  own  and 
manage  a  railroad,  and  to  take  tolls 
thereon,  are  not  necessarily  corporate 
rights ;  they  are  capable  of  existing  in 
and  being  enjoyed  by  natural  persons ; 
and  there  is  nothing  in  their  nature  in- 
consistent with  their  being  assignable'. 
Hall  v.  Sullivan  Railroad  Co.,  21  Law 
Reporter  138, 140,  s.  c.  1  Brun.  Col.  Gas. 
613,  Curtis,  J.  Very  similar  language 
is  used  in  a  recent  case  in  Vermont. 
Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  Edgerton,  30 
Vt.  182-190."  The  same  general  doc- 
trine is  asserted  in  Grand  Rapids, 


§  69  FRANCHISES.  103 

§  69.  Difference  between  a  franchise  and  a  license. — A  dis- 
tinction must  be  kept  in  mind  between  a  charter  franchise 
constituting  a  contract  on  the  part  of  the  state  in  consideration 
of  certain  duties  which,  by  accepting  the  charter,  the  corpora- 
tion undertakes  to  perform,  and  a  mere  legislative  permission 
or  license,  which  is  revocable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  grantor. 
A  supplement  to  a  charter,1  or  a  general  statute  or  ordinance,2 
which  confers  new  rights  or  privileges  for  an  indefinite  time 
without  the  imposition  of  any  new  burdens,  amounts  to  a  mere 
license.  A  mere  naked  license  is  revocable  at  the  pleasure  of 
the  legislature,  but  where  there  is  money  expended  upon  the 
faith  that  a  permanent  right  is  granted,  it  seems  to  us  that 
the  license  is  not  revocable.  This  opinion  is,  we  know,  op- 
posed by  eminent  judges  and  authors,  but  it  seems  to  us  to  rest 
on  sound  and  solid  principle.8  Of  course,  the  doctrine  we 
favor  can  not  prevail  where  there  is  no  grant  of  a  permanent 
right  and  the  parties  understand,  or  are  bound  to  know,  that 
a  mere  temporary  privilege  is  granted,  but  where  the  privilege 
is  in  its  nature  permanent  and  is  acted  upon  as  such  by  the 
parties  in  good  faith,  and  money  is  expended  in  the  just  belief 
that  the  right  is  of  a  permanent  nature,  the  party  making  the 
expenditure  is  entitled  to  protection.4 

etc.,  Co.  v.  Prange,  35  Mich.  400;  Fort  drawn  where  the  state  or  city  is  deal- 
Worth,  etc.,  Co.v.  Rosedale,  etc.,  Co.,  ing  with  a,  highway,  and  ought  to  re- 
68  Tex.  169, 176.  tain  the  power  of  supervision  and 

1  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co. 's  Appeal,  control."     1  Hare's  Am.  Const.  Law, 

102  Pa.  St.  123.     See  Johnson  v.  Crow,  666. 

87  Pa.  St.  184 ;  Christ  Church  v.  County        *  Some  of  the  cases  hold  that  such  a 

of  Philadelphia,  24  How.  (U.  S.)  300.  license    is   revocable,    although    the 

2Southwark  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Phila-  grantee  has  made  valuable  improve- 

delphia,  47  Pa.   St.   314 ;  Branson  v.  ments  in  the  belief  that  the  privilege 

City  of  Philadelphia,  47  Pa.  St.  329.  will  not  be  recalled.    Branson  v.  City 

•Professor  Hare,  referring  to  the  of  Philadelphia,  47  Pa.  St.  329;  Mo- 
Pennsylvania  cases  cited  in  the  fol-  nongahela,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Coons,  6  Watts 
lowing  note,  says:  "These  de-  &  S.  101 ;  Southwark  R.  Co.  v.  City  of 
cisions  are  obviously  sound.  An  in-  Philadelphia,  47  Pa.  St.  314;  Beach 
dividual  who  gives  a  license  which  Priv.  Corp.,  §  21.  But  there  is  con- 
can  not  be  enjoyed  without  the  ex-  flict  on  this  point.  Campbell  v.  In- 
penditure  of  money  may  fairly  be  pre-  dianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  Ind.  490. 
sumed  to  intend  that  it  shall  be  irre-  People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  18  111. 
vocable,  but  no  such  inference  can  be  App.  125;  People  v.  O'Brien,  111  N. 


104  THE    CORPORATION.  §  70 

§  70.  Sale  of  corporate  property  essential  to  exercise  of 
franchises  —  Limitation  of  right  to  sell.  —  According  to  the 
greater  weight  of  authority,  a  railroad  corporation  may  not 
transfer  any  of  its  property  or  privileges  which  are  essential  to 
a  fulfillment  of  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  chartered,  except 
by  legislative  authority.  Property  not  held  for  strictly  corpo- 
rate purposes,  that  is  property  not  necessary  to  enable  the  cor- 
poration to  exercise  its  corporate  functions  and  perform  its 
corporate  duties  may  be  sold;  but  property  necessary  for  cor- 
perate  use  can  not  be  sold  or  transferred  where  its  sale  would 
render  the  corporation  unable  to  perform  its  corporate  duties. 
In  other  words,  a  corporation  can  not  sell  or  transfer  its  prop- 
erty in  cases  where  such  a  sale  or  transfer  would  disable  it 
from  performing  its  corporate  duties  and  exercising  its  corpo- 
rate functions  except  in  cases  where  there  is  legislative  authori- 
ty to  make  such  sales  or  transfers.1 

§  71.  Effect  of  attempt  to  sell  franchise. — Though  all  of 
the  property  of  the  corporation  should  pass  into  the  hands  of 
a  purchaser,  he  would  not  by  such  purchase,  necessarily,  be- 
come entitled  to  the  franchises,8  in  the  absence  of  any  law  giv- 
ing authority  to  dispose  of  the  corporate  rights  and  privileges; 

Y.  1,  s.  c.  7  Am.  St.  R.  684;  State  r.  J.  Eq.  130;  Stewart's  Appeal,  56  Pa. 
Noyes,  47  Me.  189;  Com.  v  .  Proprie-  St.  413;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Alle- 
tors,  etc.,  2  Gray  339;  Elliott's  Roads  gheny  County,  63  Pa.  St.  126;  Hays 
and  Streets,  563,  564.  r.  Ottawa,  etc.,  Co.,  61  111.  422;  At- 
1  Thomas  v.  West  Jersey  Co.,  101  lantic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Union  Pacific,  etc., 
TJ.  S.  71;  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  St.  Co.,  1  Fed.  R.  745.  The  general  doc- 
Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  118  U.  S.  290,  s.  c.  trine  was  thus  stated  in  Black  v.  Del- 
6  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1094;  Oregon  v.  Oregon-  aware,  etc.,  Co.,  supra.  "It  may  be 
ian,  etc.,  Co.,  130  U.  S.  1,  s.  c.  9  Sup.  considered  as  settled  that  a  corporation 
Ct.  R.  409;  Central  Transportation  can  not  lease  or  alienate  any  franchise, 
Co.  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  139U.  S.  24,  or  any  property  necessary  to  perform 
s.  c.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  478;  York,  etc.,  its  obligations  and  duties  to  the  state, 
Co.  v.  Winans,  17  How.  (U.  S.)  30;  without  legislative  authority." 
Pearce  v.  Madison,  etc.,  Co.,  21  How.  z  Pierce  v.  Emery,  32  N.  H.  484; 
(U.  S.)  441;  Pullan  v.  Cincinnati,  Bruffett  r.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  25 
etc.,  Co.,  4  Biss.  35;  Richardson  v.  111.  353,  357;  Clarke  v.  Omaha,  etc., 
Sibley,  11  Allen  65;  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co. ,4  Neb.  458;  Atkinson  v.  Mari- 
Co.  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Vt.  1;  etta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Ohio  St.  21. 
Black  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  22  N. 


§  72  FRANCHISES.  105 

for  an  authority  to  mortgage  or  otherwise  transfer  the  property 
will  not  confer  power  to  dispose  of  the  franchises.1  It  is,  of 
course,  competent  for  the  legislature  to  confer  power  to  sell 
and  convey  corporate  franchises,  but  the  power  is  not  an  inci- 
dental one  and  can  not  exist  in  the  absence  of  a  statute  confer- 
ring it.  The  attempt  to  sell  a  corporate  franchise  without  stat- 
utory authority  would  be  ineffective,  and  would  pass  no  title, 
but  the  question  as  to  who  may  take  advantage  of  the  attempt 
to  sell  where  the  power  does  not  exist  is  one  upon  which  there 
is  some  diversity  of  opinion.  But,  in  most  of  the  states,  rail- 
road corporations  are  given  power  by  statute  to  mortgage,  or 
sell,  their  franchises  as  well  as  their  tangible  property,  subject 
to  certain  restrictions.  * 

§  72.  Judicial  sale  of  franchises. — As  a  general  rule  corpo- 
rate franchises  can  not  be  sold  on  a  judgment  or  decree  unless 
the  statute  authorizes  a  sale.8  Where  power  is  conferred  upon 
a  corporation  to  mortgage  all  its  property  and  franchises  a  sale 
upon  a  decree  foreclosing  such  a  mortgage  will  convey  to  the 
purchaser  all  such  franchises  as  are  necessary  to  the  use  and  en- 
joyment of  the  property  bought  by  him  at  such  sale.4  The 

1  McAllister  v.  Plant,  54  Miss.  106 ;  St.  278.    See  State  v.  Rives,  5  Ired.  297 ; 
Pullan  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Coe  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Ohio 
Biss.  (U.  S.)  35.     See  City  of  Phila-  St.  372,  s.  c.  75  Am.  Dec.  518;  Coe  v. 
•delphia  v.  Western  U.  Tel.   Co.,  11  Peacock,  14  Ohio  St.  187;  Stewart  v. 
Phila.  327.    But  compare  Pumphrey  Jones,  40  Mo.  140;  Railroad  v.  James, 
v.  Threadgill,  (Tex.)  30  S.  W.  R.  356.  6  Wall.  750;  Foster  v.  Fowler,  60  Pa. 

2  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8642.  St.  27 ;  Richardson  v.  Sibley,  11  Allen 
In  the  United  States  it  would  be  dif-  65,  s.  c.  87  Am.  Dec.  700. 

ficult  to  find  a  railroad  that  has  not  *  In  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dela- 
mortgaged  its  road  and  franchise,  and  more,  114  II.  S.  501,  s.  c.  5  Sup.  Ct.  R. 
in  most  instances  under  express  legis-  1009,  the  court  said:  "When  there 
lative  authority.  Taylor  on  Priv.  has  been  a  judicial  sale  of  railroad 
Corp.  (2d  ed.),  §305.  property  under  a  mortgage  authorized 
8  Wellsborough  v.  Griffin,  57  Pa.  St.  by  law,  covering  its  franchise,  it  is 
417;  Ammant».President,etc.,13Serg.  now  well  settled  that  the  franchises 
&  R.  212;  Leedom  v.  Plymouth,  etc.,  necessary  to  the  use  and  enjoyment  of 
Co.,  5Watts  &  S.  265 ;  Wood  v.  Truckee,  the  railroad  passes  to  the  purchaser." 
etc.,  Co.,  24  Cal.  474;  Gue  v.  Tide-  Memphis,  etc.,  Co.  t?.  Railroad  Corn- 
water,  etc.,  Co.,  24  How.  U.  S.  257;  missioners,  112  U.  S.  609;  Chaffe  v. 
Plymouth,  etc.,Co.t7.Colwell,  39  Pa.  St.  Ludeling,  27  La.  Ann.  607;  Metz  v. 
337 ;  Youngman  v.  Railroad  Co.,  65  Pa.  Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.,  58  N.  Y.  61,  s.  c.  17 


106  THE    CORPORATION.  §  73 

franchise  to  be  a  corporation  does  not  pass  to  the  purchaser 
unless  a  clear  provision  of  positive  law  makes  it  transferable. 
The  franchise  of  being  a  corporation  is  a  peculiar  one,  and,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  essentially  different  from  other  corporate  fran- 
chises; so  peculiar  is  it  that  ordinarily  it  is  not  assignable  and, 
indeed,  is  never  assignable  except  when  made  so  by  statute.1 
The  right  to  sell  corporate  franchises  being  statutory  the  general 
rule  is  that  the  sale  must  be  conducted  in  substantial  conform- 
ity to  the  requirements  of  the  statute,  and  where  a  mode  is 
provided  for  making  the  sale  it  is  exclusive  and  must  be  pur- 
sued.2 The  purchaser  at  a  valid  judicial  sale  takes  all  the 
property  and  franchises  of  the  corporation  in  cases  where 
the  sale  of  such  property  and  franchises  is  authorized  by 
statute,  but  is  not  bound  for  the  debts  of  the  corporation.' 
The  franchises  which  pass  by  the  sale  are,  however,  such 
only  as  by  law  can  be  sold  and  transferred.  Purchasers 
at  such  a  sale  may  organize  a  new  corporation,  and  gen- 
erally the  new  corporation  will  succeed  to  the  franchises 
of  the  old  (provided,  of  course,  there  was  authority  to  sell  the 
franchises)  except  the  franchise  to  be  a  corporation.  That 
franchise  does  not  come  from  the  sale  but  from  the  sovereign. 

§  73.  Sequestration. — The  process  of  sequestration  is  a  writ 
OB  commission  issued  to  some  officer  or  person  empowering  him 
to  enter  into  possession  of  property  and  receive  the  rents,  rev- 
enues on  profits  thereof,  and  to  apply  them  as  the  court  may 
OBder  or  adjudge.*  The  statutes  in  most  of  the  states  have 

Am.  R.  201;  People  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  35  Mich.  400;  Eldridge  v.  Smith,  34 

Co.,  89  N.  Y.  75;  Atkinson,  etc.,  Co.  Vt.  484. 

c.  Marietta,  etc.,  Co.,  15  Ohio  St.  21.  2  James  v.  Pontiac,  etc.,  Co.  8  Mich. 

1  Memphis. etc., Co.  v.  Railroad  Com-  91.    See,  generally,  Titcomb  v.  Union 

missioners,  112  U.  S.  609 ;  Willamette,  Marine,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Mass.  326 ;   Howe 

etc.,  Co.  v.  Bank,  119  U.  S.  191 ;  Hall  a.  v.  Starkweather,  17  Mass.  240;  Stam- 

Sullivan,  etc.,  Co.,   1  Brunner  C.  C.  ford  Bank  v.  Ferris,  17  Conn.  259. 

613;  Com.  v.  Smith,  10  Allen  448,  s.  c.  3  Vilas  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  17 

87  Am.  Dec.672 ;  Adams  v.  Boston, etc.,  Wis.  497 ;  Smith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co., 

Co.,  4  Nat.  Bank  Reg.  (314)99;  Sweatt  18  Wis.  17;    Stewart,  etc.,  Co.'s  Ap- 

v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Nat.  Bank  Reg.  peal,  72  Pa.  St.  291. 

234;  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  Co.  e.Prange,  *  Hinde's  Ch.  Pr.   127;    Angell    & 

Ames  on  Corp.,  §§  670,  671. 


§73 


FRANCHISES. 


107 


supplanted  the  old  chancery  doctrine,  in  others  its  existence 
has  been  denied  upon  the  ground  that  the  courts  did  not 
possess  inherent  equity  powers,  in  others  the  dootrine  has  been 
modified,  and  in  some  others  prevails  without  substantial 
change.1  In  many  respects  decrees  appointing  receivers  for 
railroad  corporations  accomplish  essentially  the  same  results 
as  those  accomplished  by  sequestration,  and  the  process  of  se- 
questration is  seldom  employed  in  jurisdictions  where  the 
authority  to  appoint  receivers  is  broad  and  comprehensive.* 
As  is  the  case  where  receivers  are  appointed  the  appointment 
of  a  sequestrator  does  not,  as  a  general  rule,  end  the  corpo- 
rate existence,  but  the  sequestrator  takes  possession  of  the 
corporate  property  and  employs  the  corporate  franchises  in 
conducting  business.  If  the  debts  are  discharged  in  full  the 
property  and  franchises,  as  a  rule,  revert  to  the  corporation.' 
The  money  received  by  the  sequestrator  of  a  corporation  is  to 


1  Earl  of  Kildare  v.  Eustace,  1  Vern. 
419;  Lowten  v.  Mayor,  2  Merivale 
393;  McKim  v.  Odom,  3  Bland  Ch. 
407 ;  Grew  v.  Breed,  12  Met.  (Mass.) 
363 ;  Johnson  v.  Chippendall,  2  Sim. 
55;  Francklyn  v.  Colhoun,  3  Swanst. 
276;  Ammantt?.  New  Alexandria,  etc., 
Co.,  13  Serg.  &  R.  210;  Clarkson  v. 
DePeyster,  3  Paige,  320;  Devoe  v. 
Ithaca,  etc.,  Co., 5Paige 521 ;  Judsonr. 
Rossie  Galena  R. Co., 9  Paige  598;  Cook 
v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Mich.  453; 
Jones  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Pick.  507 ; 
Bangs  v.  Mclntosh,  23  Barb.  591; 
Reid  v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.,  32 
Pa.  St.  257;  Germantown,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Fitler,  60  Pa.  St.  124,  s.  c.  100  Am. 
Dec.  546;  Mann  v.  Pentz,  3  N.  Y. 
415 ;  Foster  v.  Fowler,  60  Pa.  St.  27 ; 
Steiner's  Appeal,  27  Pa.  St.  313;  Pen- 
rose  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  56  Pa.  St.  46,  s. 
c.  93  Am.  Dec.  778 ;  McKusick  v.  Sey- 
mour, 48  Minn.  172,  50  N.  W.  R.  1114; 
Muncy  Creek,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hill,  84 
Pa.  St.  459;  Hospes  v.  Northwestern, 
etc.,  Co.,  48  Minn.  174,  s.  c.  SON.  W.  R. 


1117;  Cypress  Shingle  Co.  v.  Lorio, 
46  La.  Ann.  441,  s.  c.  15  So.  R.  95. 

2  In  addition  to  those  cases  cited  in 
preceding  note  relative  to  process  of 
sequestration  we  cite,  Ford  v.  Plank- 
inton  Bank,  87  Wis.  363,  s.  c.  58  N. 
W.  R.  766;  Morgan  v.  Turner,  4  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  192',  s.  c.  23  S.  W.  R.  284  j 
Blooms.  Burdick,  1  Hill  130;  Rank- 
ine  v.  Elliott,  16  N.  Y.  377 ;  Foster  v. 
Townshend,  68  N.  Y.  203;  Donnelly 
v.  West,  17  Hun  (N.  Y.)  564;  London, 
etc.,  Co.r.  Morphy,  10Ont.86,  s.  c.  12 
Am.&  Eng.  Corp.Cas.53 ;  Neall  v.  Hill, 
16  Cal.  145,  150;  'Craddocks  v.  Ins. 
Co.,  5  Phila.  249;  Rodbourn  «.  Utica, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 Hun  369;  Mott  w.Union 
Bank,  38  N.  Y.  18;  Loder  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Hun  22. 

8  Mann  v.  Pentz,  3  N.  Y.  415;  Kin- 
caid  v.  Dwinelle,  59  N.  Y.  548;  Hol- 
lingshead  v.  Woodward,  35  Hun  410; 
Parry  v.  American  Opera  Co.,  12  Civ. 
Pro.  R.  (N.  Y.)  194;  Angell  v.  Sils- 
bury,  19  How.  Pr.  48. 


108  THE    CORPORATION.  §  74 

be  distributed  among  the  creditors  in  substantially  the  same 
manner  as  in  the  case  of  the  insolvency  of  a  natural  person.1 

§  74.  Seizure  of  corporate  franchise  under  power  of  emi- 
nent domain. — The  corporation  has  a  property  interest  in  its 
franchises,  and  they  may  not  be  taken  from  it  by  the  legisla- 
ture and  conferred  upon  another  company  without  compensa- 
tion;2 but  they  are  subject  to  the  power  of  eminent  domain  and 
may  be  taken  under  that  power  whenever  the  interests  of  the 
public  require  it.8  Property  of  this  kind,  however,  is  so  far 
favored  in  law  that  authority  to  take  the  franchise  of  a  corpo- 
ration will  not  be  implied  from  a  grant  of  power  to  take  prop- 
erty, conferred  in  general  terms,*  unless  the  taking  be  neces- 
sary to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  the  charter  containing  such 
a  grant.5  The  intention  to  grant  such  power  must  appear  by 
express  words,6  or  by  necessary  implication.7 

§  75.   Dissolution  effected  by  authorized  sale  of  franchises. 

— The  power  of  the  legislature  to  authorize  the  sale  of  all  cor- 
porate franchises  is,  as  we  have  seen,  undoubted,  and  when  a 
sale  is  made  pursuant  to  a  valid  statute  of  all  franchises  the 

1  Steiner's  Appeal,  27  Pa.  St.  313.  5  Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Day- 
The  sequestrator  may  be  empowered  ton,  23  Ohio  St.  510;  In  re  Boston,  etc., 
to  sell  the  corporate  property,  or  he  R.  Co.,  53  N.  Y.  574;  Milwaukee,  etc., 
may  be  authorized  to  use  the  proper-  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Faribault,  23  Minn, 
ty  and  franchises  until  enough  money  167;  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alabama 
is  earned  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  cred-  Midland  R.  Co.,  87  Ala.  501. 

itors.  6  Clarence  R.  Co.  v.  Great  North  of 

2  Boston  "Water  Power  Co.  v.  Boston,    England  Junction  R.  Co.,  4  Q.  B.  46. 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Pick.  (Mass.)  360.  7  Hickok  v.  Hine,  23  Ohio  St.  523. 

8  Newcastle  R.  Co.  v.  Peru  R.  Co.,  3  To  justify  such  a  taking  there  must  be 

Ind.  464;  Richmond  R.  Co.  v.  Louisa  a  necessity  so  absolute  that,  without 

R.  Co.,  13  How.  (II.  S.)  71;  Jersey  it,  the  grant  itself  will  be  defeated. 

City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jersey  City,  etc.,  It  must  also  be  a  necessity  that  arises 

R.  Co.,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  61;  Northern  R.  from  the  very  nature  of  things  over 

Co.  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  N.  H.  which  the  corporation  has  no  control; 

183 ;  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  it  must  not  be  created  by  the  company 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Conn.  196;  Beekman  itself  for  its  own  convenience  or  for 

v.  Saratoga  R.  Co.,  3  Paige  Ch.  (N.Y.)  economy.  Appeal  of  Sharon  R.  Co., 

45.  122  Pa.  St.  533 ;  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.'a 

4  Matter  of  Buffalo,  68  N.  Y.  167.  Appeal,  93  Pa.  St.  150. 


§  75 


FRANCHISES. 


109 


corporate  existence  necessarily  terminates.1  We  suppose  that 
the  authorized  sale  of  part  of  the  corporate  franchises  would 
not  necessarily  and  of  itself  work  a  dissolution  of  the  corpo- 
ration, but  each  case  must,  as  we  believe,  be  determined  upon 
the  statute  authorizing  the  sale.  If  the  franchise  of  being  a 
corporation  is  authorized  to  be  sold  then  a  sale  pursuant  to  the 
statute  would  terminate  the  corporate  existence,  but  an  author- 
ized sale  of  the  franchise  to  do  certain  acts  not  constituting  the 
whole  of  the  corporate  franchises  would  not  have  that  effect. 


1  Snell  v.  City  of  Chicago,  133  111.413, 
B.  c.  24  N.  E.  B.  532,  citing  State  v. 
Sherman,  22  Ohio  St.  411 ;  Memphis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  112  U. 


S.  609,  s.  c.  5  Sup.  Ct.  R.  299 ;  Thomas 
v.  Dakin,  22  Wend.  9,  71 ;  Pierce  v. 
Emery,  32  N.  H.  484;  Turnpike  Co.  v. 
Illinois,  96  U.  S.  63. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


STOCK. 


§76.  Definition. 

77.  Classes  of  stock. 

78.  Shares  of  Stock  —  Certificates. 

79.  Certificates  —  How  far  negoti- 

able  —  Shares  are  personal 
property. 

80.  New  certificates  in  place  of  lost 

—  Fraud. 

81.  Preferred  stock. 

82.  When  preferred  stock  may  be 

issued  —  Rights  and  remedies 
of  dissenting  stockholders. 

83.  Holder  of  preferred  stock  not  a 

creditor  —  His  rights  and  rem- 
edies. 

84.  Rights  of  preferred  stockhold- 

ers after  payment  of  guaran- 
teed  dividend  —  Future  divi- 
dend. 

85.  Rights  of  preferred  stockhold- 

ers  on  dissolution. 

86.  Guaranteed,    interest  -  bearing, 

income  and  debenture  stock. 

87.  Increase  and  reduction  of  capi- 

tal stock. 


§88.  Watered  stock. 

89.  Watered  stock  not  absolutely 

void. 

90.  Rights  of  creditors  and  liabili- 

ties of   holders  of  watered 
stock. 

91.  Stock  paid  for  by  overvalued 

property — Sale  of  stock  on 
market. 

92.  Sale  and  transfer  of  stock. 

93.  Who  may  own  and  transfer 

shares. 

94.  Purchase  and  sale  by  trustees 

and  fiduciaries. 

95.  Right  of    corporation  to  buy 

and  sell  stock. 

96.  Gifts  and  bequests  of  stock. 

97.  Formalities  of  transfer. 

98.  Registry  of  transfer. 

99.  Lien  of  corporation  on  stock. 

100.  When  and  to  what  the  lien  at- 

taches. 

101.  Waiver  of  lien — Enforcement 

of  lien. 


§76.  Definition.  —  Capital  stock  has  been  defined  as  "the 
sum  fixed  by  the  corporate  charter  as  the  amount  paid  in  or  to  be 
paid  in  by  the  stockholders  for  the  prosecution  of  the  business 
of  the  corporation  and  for  the  benefit  of  corporate  creditors."1 
The  term  is  often  used  to  denote  the  capital  or  property  of  the 

1 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  §  9. 

(110) 


§  76 


STOCK. 


Ill 


corporation,1  but,  strictly  speaking,  the  capital  stock  is  not 
identical  with  the  corporate  property  or  capital.2  It  represents, 
rather,  the  capital  or  property  of  the  corporation  to  the  extent 
required  by  its  charter,3  and  may  be  said,  in  one  sense  at  least, 
to  describe  or  evidence  the  interest  of  the  stockholders  in  the 
corporation  and  to  consist  of  the  sum  of  all  the  shares.4  It  re- 
mains fixed  and  can  not  exceed  the  amount  authorized  by  the 
charter  or  statute  and  articles  of  incorporation,  while  the  capital 
or  property  may  vary  greatly  in  value  from  time  to  time  and 
may  exceed  the  amount  of  capital  stock  authorized  by  the 
charter.8  This  excess  over  and  above  the  amount  of  the  re- 
quired and  authorized  capital  stock,  arising  generally  out  of 
the  transaction  of  the  corporate  business  and  consisting  of 
profits,  may  be  divided  among  the  stockholders  by  way  of  div- 
idends in  the  discretion  of  the  directors,  and  does  not  constitute 
part  of  the  capital  stock,6  although,  until  a  division  is  made, 
or,  at  least,  until  a  dividend  is  declared,  it  remains  the  prop- 
erty of  the  corporation.7  For  these  reasons  it  seems  clear  that 


1  So  used  in  Wood  on  Railroads, 
§15;    State  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  30  Conn.  290;  New  Haven  v.  City 
Bank,  31  Conn.  106;  People  v.  Com- 
missioners,  23  N.   Y.   192,  220,  222, 
opinion  of  Comstock,  C.  J. ;   People 
v.  Coleman,  126  N.  Y.  433. 

2  Stock  dividends  and  their  restraint, 
7  Am.  Bar  Assn.  R.  257 ;  State  Bank  v. 
Milwaukee,  18  Wis.  281,  295;  State  v. 
Morristown  Fire  Ass'n,  23  N.  J.  L. 
195 ;  Tennessee  v.  Whitworth,  117  IT. 
S.  129,  s.  c.  6  Sup.  Ct.  R.  645,  648. 

3  See  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Shacklett,  30  Mo.  550;   Williams  v~ 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  93  N.  Y.  162, 
188. 

*  See  People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co. 
130  111.  268,  22  N.  E.  R.  798 ;  Trades- 
man, etc.,  Co.  v.  Knoxville,  etc.,  Co., 
(Tenn.)  32  S.  W.  R.  1097;  Lowell 
Transfer  of  Stock,  §4 ; ' '  Stock  dividends 
and  their  restraint,"  7  Am.  Bar  Ass'n 
R.  263 ;  Tennessee  v.Whitworth,  117  U. 


S.  129,  s.  c.  6  Sup.  Ct.  R.  645.  But  see 
Wilkes-Barre,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Wilkes- 
Barre,  148  Pa.  St.  601,  24  Atl.  R.  111. 

5  Barry  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Co.,  1 
Sandf.  ch.  (N.  Y.)  280. 

6  Farrington  v.  Tennessee,  95  U.  S. 
679;   Hightower  v.  Thornton,  8  Ga. 
486,   s.   c.   52   Am.    Dec.  412;    State 
Bank    v,    Milwaukee,    18  Wis.    281 ; 
Williams  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 
93  N.  Y.  162;  People  v.  Coleman,  126 
N.  Y.  433.    But  see  Phelps  -n.  Farm- 
ers', etc.,  Bank,  26  Conn.  269. 

7  The  interest  of  a  stockholder  may, 
however,  exceed  in  value  the  nominal 
or  par  value  of  his  shares.   In  a  sense, 
therefore,  his  actual  interest  may  not 
depend  entirely  upon  the  amount  of 
stock  or  capital  stock  authorized.  The 
real     value     of    his    shares,    which 
measures  his  interest,  is  more  often 
determined     by     the    actual     value 
of   all    the    property    of   the    corpo- 
ration.   Jones  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc., 


112  THE    CORPORATION.  §  77 

the  terms  "capital  "  and  "capital  stock"  are  not  synonymous, 
yet  they  are  frequently  so  used,  and  the  term  "capital  stock " 
has  often  been  held  to  embrace  all  the  property  or  capital  of  the 
corporation,  particularly  when  found  in  a  statute  clearly  evinc- 
ing an  intention  upon  the  part  of  the  legislature  to  include  all 
corporate  property  within  the  meaning  of  the  term.1 

§  77.  Classes  of  stock. — Corporate  stock — using  that  term 
in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  generally  used  in  this  connection — 
may  be  divided  into  two  principal  classes,  common  and  pre- 
ferred, the  common  stock  being  subject  to  a  priority  as  to  the 
payment  of  dividends  in  favor  of  the  preferred  stock.  Other 
kinds  of  stock,  mostly  in  the  nature  of  preferred  stock,  are  al- 
so frequently  issued,  such  as  guaranteed,  interest-bearing,  in- 
come, or  debenture  stock.  And  "special  stock,"  having  cer- 
tain peculiarities  distinguishing  it  from  ordinary  stock,  is  also 
authorized  in  some  cases.  The  different  kinds  of  stock  and  the 
distinctions  between  them  will,  however,  be  considered  in  sub- 
sequent sections. 

§  78.  Shares  of  stock — Certificates. — The  common  stock  is 
divided  into  shares,  each  of  which  gives  to  the  owner  a  pro- 
portional part  of  certain  rights  in  the  management  and  profits 
of  the  corporation  during  its  existence,  and  in  the  assets  upon 
dissolution.2  The  ownership  of  these  shares  is  usually  evi- 
denced by  certificates  which  set  forth  the  number  owned  and 

R.    R.    Co.,  57    N.  Y.   196,   and   in  three  in  their  totality."     People  v. 

the  recent  case  of  People  v.  Coleman,  Coleman,  126  N.  Y.  433,  438. 

it  is  said  that  the  capital  stock  of  the  1  Ohio  &  M.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Weber,  96 

company   and  the  capital   stock  (or,  111.  443 ;  Security  Co.  v.  Hartford,  61 

more  properly,  the  share  stock)  of  the  Conn.  89, 23  Atl.  R.  699 ;  City  of  Phila- 

shareholders  are  two  different  things;  delphia  v.  Ridge  Ave.  R.  R.  Co.,  102 

that  the  property  of  the  corporation  Pa.  St.  190. 

may  consist  of  capital  stock,  which  is  2Oakbank  Oil  Co.  v.  Crum,  L.  R.  8 

the  fund  required  to  be  paid  in  and  App.  Cas.  65 ;  Fisher  v.  Essex  Bank, 

kept  intact  as  the  basis  of  the  business  5  Gray  (Mass.)  373.    See,  also,  Plimp- 

enterprise,  its  surplus,  and  its  fran-  ton  v.   Bigelow,  93  N.  Y.   592,   599 ; 

chise,  neither  of  which  is  part  of  its  Field  v.  Pierce,  102  Mass.  253,  261 ; 

capital  stock;    and   that  the  capital  Bent  v.  Hart,  10  Mo.  App.  143;  Harri- 

stock,  or  share  stock,  of  the  stockhold-  son  v.  Vines,  46  Tex.  15,  21 ;  Bradley 

ers  "covers,  embraces,  represents,  all  v.  Bauder,  36  Ohio  St.  28,  35;  Bright- 


§78 


STOCK. 


113- 


the  amount  actually  paid  thereon,  or  that  they  are  paid  up,  if 
such  is  the  case.1  The  possession  of  such  a  certificate,  how- 
ever, does  not  necessarily  constitute  the  holder  an  owner  of  the 
shares  it  represents;8  and  a  person  whose  name  appears  in  the 
list  of  stockholders  in  the  company's  books*  will  usually  be 
entitled  to  transfer  his  stock,4  to  receive  dividends,5  and  to  vote 
in  corporation  meetings,6  and  may  be  held  liable  as  a  stock- 
holder7 even  though  a  certificate  has  not  been  issued  to  him,8 
or  he  has  pledged9  or  assigned  it.  But  possession  of  a  certifi- 
cate, made  out  in  the  holder's  name,  or  indorsed  with  a  power 
of  attorney  to  transfer  the  stock  on  the  company's  books,10  is 
prima  facie  evidence  of  the  holder's  title  to  the  shares  it  repre- 
sents.11 And  the  owner  of  stock  has  a  right  to  receive  a  certifi- 
cate as  a  voucher  for  his  title,  if  he  asks  for  it."  But  the  books 


well  v.  Mallory,  10  Yerg.  (Term.)  196 ; 
Gibbons  v.  Mahon,  132  U.  S.  549. 

1  Morawetz  on  Priv.  Corp.,  (2d  ed.) 
§  472 ;  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockhold- 
ers (3d  ed.),  §  14. 

2  Baker  v.  Woolston,  27;Kan.  185. 

3  Vail  v.  Hamilton,  85  N.  Y.  453,  20 
Hun  355.     See  Hawley  v.  Upton,  102 
U.  S.  314 ;  New  Hampshire  Central  R. 
Co.  v.  Johnson,  30  N.  H.  390. 

4  National     Bank    v.    Watsontown 
Bank,  105  U.  S.  217;  First  Nat.  Bank 
v.  Gifford,  47  Iowa  575 ;  Butterfield  v. 
Spencer,  1  Bosw.(N.  Y.)l ;  Cincinnati, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pearce,  28  Ind.  502. 

6  McNeil  v.  Tenth  National  Bank,  46 
N.  Y.  325;  Ellis  v.  Proprietors,  2  Pick. 
(Mass.)  243. 

6  Beckett  v.  Houston,  32  Ind.  393; 
Evans  v.  Bailey,  66  Cal.  112;  State  v. 
Ferris,  42  Conn.  560. 

'Mitchell  v.  Beckman,  64  Cal.  117; 
Agricultural  Bank  v.  Wilson,  24  Me. 
273.  See  Henkle  v.  Salem  Manf.  Co., 
39  Ohio  St.  547. 

'Mitchell  v.  Beckman,  64  Cal.  117; 
Mathis  v.  Pridham,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
58,  20  S.W.  R.  1015 ;  Fulgam  v.  Macon, 
CORP.  8 


etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Ga.  597;  Crumlish  v. 
Shenandoah  Valley  R.  Co.,  (W.  Va.) 
22  S.  E.  R.  90. 

9  Vail  v.  Upton,  85  N.  Y.  453, 20  Hun 
355. 

10  As  to  the  effect  of  such  a  blank  in- 
dorsement, see  Fraser  v.  Charleston, 
11  S.  C.  486;  Leavitt  v.  Fisher,  4  Duer 
(N.  Y.)  1.     As  to  the  other  modes  of 
transfer  see  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stock- 
holders,  §375.     Under   the    law    of 
Massachusetts,  shares  of  stock  may  be 
effectually  transferred  by  delivery  of 
the  certificate  with  a  power  of  attor- 
ney to  transfer  the  same  on  the  books 
of   the    company,   signed  in   blank. 
Andrews  v.  Worcester,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
159  Mass.  64. 

u  Walker  v.  Detroit  Transit,  etc., 
Co.,  47  Mich.  338.  That  it  is  only  a 
convenient  evidence  of  the  holder's 
title,  see  Johnson  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  40  How.  Prac.  (N.Y.)  193;  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pearce,  28  Ind. 
502;  Slipherw.  Earhart,  83  Ind.  173. 

"Johnson  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
40  How.  Prac.  (N.Y.)  193;  Buffalo, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dudley,  14  N.  Y.  336, 


114 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§   79 


of  the  company  are  the  final  evidence  of  who  are  stockholders,1 
and  a  certificate,  apart  from  the  ownership  of  the  shares  it 
represents,  may  be  said  to  be  worthless.2 

§79.  Certificates — How  far  negotiable — Shares  are  per- 
sonal property. — It  follows,  from  what  has  been  stated,  that 
such  certificates  are  not  strictly  negotiable,3  but  the  shares 
which  they  represent  may  be  sold*  as  any  other  personal  prop- 
erty,8 and  the  certificates  will  pass  as  incident  to  the  shares. 
But  holders  of  stock  who  transfer  the  certificates  by  indorse- 
ment in  blank  or  by  delivery  when  so  indorsed,  and  corporations 
who  issue  certificates6  which  state  that  the  shares  are  fully 

347;  Chester  Glass  Co.  v.  Dewey,  16 
Mass.  94;  Rio  Grande,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Burns,  82  Tex-.  50,  17  S.  W.  R.  1043 , 
National  Bank  v.  Watsontown  Bank, 
105  U.  S.  217 ;  1  Morawetz  Priv.  Corp., 
§472. 

1  New  Hampshire  Central  R.  Co.  v. 
Johnson,  30  N.  H.  390 ;  Dows  v.  Naper, 
91  111.  44;  Morrill  v.  Little  Falls,  etc., 
Co.,  53  Minn. 371, 21  L.  R.  A.  174;  New 


5  Nearly  all  of  the  states  provide  by 
statute  that  shares  of  stock  shall  be 
personal  property.  Stimson's  Am. 
Stat.  Law,  §8116,  Such  a  provision 
is  merely  declaratory  of  the  common 
law.  Mohawk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clute,  4 
Paige  Ch.384, 393 ;  1  Cook  on  Stock,  and 
Stockholders,  §331.  The  rule  is  the 
same  where  all  the  corporate  property 
is  real  estate.  Baldwin  v.  Canfield,  26 


Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCormick,  10    Minn.  43.    See  generally,  to  the  effect 


Ind.  499.  While  between  the  parties  a 
provision  requiring  the  transfer  of 
stock  on  the  corporation  books  is  in- 


that  shares  are  personal  property, 
Seward  v.  Rising  Sun,  79  Ind.  351,  s. 
c.  13  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  315; 


operative,  yet  as  against  the  corpora-    Cooper  v.  Corbin,  105  111.  224,  s.  c.  13 


tion  and  others  the  assignment  is 
imperfect  and  executory  until  per- 
fected, on  the  books  of  the  corpora- 
tion. Noble  v.  Turner,  69  Md.  519, 
s.  c.  16  Atl.  R.  124;  Topeka  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Hale,  39  Kan.  23,  s.  c.  17  Pac.  R. 
601. 

2  Payne  v.  Elliot,  54  Cal.  339. 

3  Mechanics'   Bank  v.  New    York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  N.  Y.  599,  627 ;  Sewall 
v.  Boston  Water-power  Co.,  86  Mass. 
277;  Shaw  v.  Spencer,  100  Mass.  382; 
Hammond  v.  Hastings,  134  U.  S.  401 ; 
Clark  v.  American  Coal  Co.,  86  Iowa 
436,  53  N.  W.  R.  291 ;  Knox  v.  Eden, 
etc.,  Co.,  (N.  Y.)  42  N.  E.  R.  988. 

*  Stock  may  be  sold  on  execution  in 
nearly  all  the  states. 


Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  394 ;  Berney 
Nat.  Bankv.  Pinckard,  87  Ala.  577,  s. 
c.  30  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  52;  Allen 
v.  Pegram,  16  Iowa  163;  Tregear  v. 
Etiwanda  Water  Co.,  76  Cal.  537,  s.  c. 
9  Am.  St.  R.  245;  Weaver  v.  Barden, 
49  N.  Y.  286. 

6  Where  spurious  and  fraudulent 
certificates  of  stock  are  issued  by  the 
officers  of  a  corporation  under  its  seal 
and  their  genuineness  affirmed  by 
such  officers  in  answer  to  inquiries 
from  an  intending  purchaser,  the  cor- 
poration is  liable  on  such  certificates 
to  a  bona  fide  purchaser  for  value. 
Fifth  Ave.  Bank  v.  Forty-second  St., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  231;  Mutual 
Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Forty-second  St.,  etc., 


§  79 


STOCK. 


115 


paid  up  and  which  contain  no  notice  of  the  claims  of  the  cor- 
poration l  are  held  so  far  estopped  *  by  the  apparent  ability  to 


R.  Co.,  74  Hun  (N.  Y.)  505;  Citizens' 
Nat.  Bk.  r?.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
(Cin.  Super.Ct.)  29  Wkly .  Law  Bui.  15. 
See  Ryder  v.  Bushwick  R.  Co.,  134  N. 
Y.  83.  But  where  the  certificates 
were  issued  in  pursuance  of  a  fraudu- 
lent scheme  to  which  the  assignor  was 
a  party,  the  assignee  acquires  no 
rights  superior  to  those  of  his  assign- 
or. Brown  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 
Fed.  R.  889. 

1  Where  no  lien  upon  shares  is  given 
to  the  company  by  the  charter  or  by 
a  general  law  for  debts  or  unpaid  calls 
due  the  company,  the  certificate 
should  contain  a  reference  to  its 
claims  so  as  to  notify  all  purchasers. 
1  Morawetz  on  Priv.  Corp.  (2d  ed.), 
§203.  Where  the  certificate  states 
that  it  represents  paid-up  stock,  the 
corporation  can  not  deny  that  fact 
after  it  has  passed  into  the  hands  of  a 
bo  na  fide  purchaser.  Steacy  v.  Little 
Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Dill.  (U.  S.)  348; 
Young  v.  Erie  Iron  Co.,  65  Mich.  Ill, 
31  N.  W.  R.  814 ;  1  Cook  on  Stock  and 
Stockholders,  §  50.  And  it  seems  that 
the  purchaser  may  assume  that  stock 
is  paid  up,  when  he  purchases  in  the 
open  market,  in  the  absence  of  any- 
thing to  give  him  notice  to  the  con- 
trary, and  he  will  be  protected.  Fore- 
man v.  Bigelow,  4  Cliff.  (U.  S.)  508; 
Dupont  v.  Tilden,  42  Fed.  R.  87; 
Cleveland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  27  Fed.  R.  250;  Keystone  Bridge 
Co.  v.  McCluney,  8  Mo.  App.  496; 
West  Nashville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nashville 
Sav.  Bank,  86  Tenn.  252, 6  S. W.  R.  340 ; 
Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  §§  50, 
257.  Contra,  Meyers  v.  Seeley,  10  Nat. 
Bank  Reg.  411.  Certificates  of  stock 
ordinarily  contain  no  representations 
as  to  whether  any  equities  attach  to 
the  shares  which  they  represent,  and 


it  is  said  that  a  certificate  of  stock  is 
not  negotiable  paper  and  whoever 
takes  it  takes  it  subject  to  its  equities 
and  burdens,  and  it  is  not  necessary 
that  the  certificate  contain  c,  state- 
ment of  the  limitations  and  burdens 
which  the  law  casts  upon  all  such  pa- 
per. The  omission  of  such  a  state- 
ment is  not  a  waiver  by  the  corpora- 
tion of  the  benefits  thereof;  and, 
though  the  purchaser  be  ignorant  of 
such  equities  and  burdens,  his  igno- 
rance does  not  enable  him  to  hold  the 
paper  discharged  therefrom.  Wher- 
ever such  paper  is  issued,  under 
authority  granted  by  general  statute, 
whoever  deals  with  that  paper  is 
charged  with  notice  of  all  limita- 
tions and  burdens  attached  to  it  by 
such  statute,  whether  the  party  lives 
in  or  out  of  the  state.  Hammond  v. 
Hastings,  134  U.  S.  401,  10  Sup.  Ct.  R. 
727;  Hollins  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
29  N.  Y.  S.  R.  208;  Craig  v.  Hesperia, 
etc.,  Co.,  45  Pac.  R.  10. 

8  Even  though  certificates  are  alto- 
gether spurious,  the  company  issuing 
them  can  be  compelled  to  indemnify 
one  who  purchases  them  in  good  faith 
from  the  person  to  whom  it  issued 
them.  Kisterbock's  Appeal,  127  Pa. 
601.  The  corporation  will  be  es- 
topped to  deny  that  stock  is  fully 
paid  after  certificates  which  were  paid 
in  property  that  the  corporation  was 
authorized  to  take  in  payment  for 
stock  have  passed  into  the  hands  of 
bona  fide  purchasers,  although  the 
property  was  overvalued.  Dupont  v. 
Tilden,  42  Fed.  R.  87.  In  Farrington 
v.  South  Boston  R.  Co.,  150  Mass.  406, 
7  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  196,  5  L.  R.  A. 
849,  the  court  says:  "We  think  it  is  a 
safer  and  more  reasonable  rule  to 
hold  that  a  person  taking  on  pledge  a 


116 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§80 


convey  a  good  title  to  the  shares  which  their  acts  have  con- 
ferred upon  the  holder  of  the  certificates,1  that  such  certificates 
are  said  to  possess  quasi  negotiability.2  Where,  however,  a 
corporation  is  organized  under  a  public  law  which  provides 
that  the  corporation  shall  have  a  lien  upon  all  the  stock  or 
property  of  its  members  invested  therein  for  any  indebtedness 
of  such  members  to  the  corporation,  such  law  is  notice  to  the 
world;  and,  in  the  absence  of  any  representations  as  to  such 
lien  on  the  part  of  the  corporation,  a  purchaser  of  such  stock 
will  take  it  subject  to  such  lien.8 

§  80.  New  certificates  in  place  of  lost — Fraud. — "A  bond 
of  indemnity  may  be  required  by  a  corporation  as  a  condition 
of  issuing  new  certificates  of  stock  for  those  that  have  been 
lost,  where  the  owner  is  an  assignee  and  has  never  had  posses- 
sion of  the  old  certificates,  and  the  lapse  of  time  is  not  so  great 
as  to  preclude  danger  of  their  reappearance/'4  A  purchaser 


certificate  of  stock  newly  issued  in  his 
name  by  an  officer  of  a  corporation  as 
security  for  the  private  debt  of  the 
officer  should  be  required  to  investi- 
gate the  title  to  the  stock  if  the  officer 
is  one  who  has  the  power,  either  alone 
or  with  others,  to  issue  stock  certifi- 
cates, than  to  hold  that  such  a  person 
can  rely  upon  a  certificate  so  issued 
to  him  in  the  absence  of  actual  notice 
or  knowledge  that  it  has  been  fraudu- 
lently issued." 

1  McNeil  v.  Tenth  Nat.  Bank,  46  N. 
Y.  325;  Tayler  v.  Great  Indian,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  4  DeG.  &  J.  559;  Walker  v. 
Detroit  Transit  R.  Co.,  47  Mich.  338, 
347 ;    Cook's  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§  416 ;    Morawetz  on  Priv.  Corp.  (2d 
ed.),  §  190.    The  English  courts,  how- 
ever, refuse  to  follow  the   American 
rule  as  to  the  quasi  negotiability  of 
certificates  even  where  they  are  issued 
by  an  American  corporation.  Colonial 
Bank  v.  Cady,  63  L.  T.  R.  27. 

2  Daniel  on  Negotiable  Instruments, 
§1708.     An  owner  of  stock  who  per- 


mitted  a  certificate  to  be  issued  to  an- 
other for  stock  which  he  had  trans- 
ferred to  such  other  person  without 
consideration,  and  who  takes  a  blank 
assignment  of  such  certificate,can  hold 
the  stock  as  against  an  attaching  cred- 
itor of  that  other  person.  Andrews 
v.  Worcester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159  Mass. 
64.  They  have,  however,  been  held  to 
be  so  far  non-negotiable  instruments 
that  a  bona  fide  purchaser  of  such  cer- 
tificates standing  on  the  company's 
books  in  the  name  of  the  former  owner, 
regularly  indorsed  by  him  in  blank, 
and  stolen  from  the  present  owner 
without  his  fault,  gets  no  title.  East 
Birmingham  Land  Co.  v.  Dennis,  85 
Ala.  565,  5  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  296,  2 
L.  R.  A.  836. 

'Hammond  v.  Hastings,  134  U.  S. 
401,  s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  727. 

«Guilford  v.  Western  U.  Tel.  Co., 
43  Minn.  434,  46  N.  W.  R.  70.  Where, 
on  application  to  a  company  to  regis- 
ter a  transfer  of  stock,  the  company 
sent  a  letter  giving  notice  of  it  to  the 


§  80  STOCK.  117 

of  corporate  stock  receiving  new  certificates  therefor,  signed 
by  the  proper  officers,  although  issued  through  their  fraud,  is, 
if  he  acts  in  good  faith,  and  without  notice,  entitled  to  be  pro- 
tected as  a  bona  fide  purchaser.  He  owes  no  duty,  ordinarily, 
to  the  corporation  to  see  to  it  that  the  seller  surrenders  any  old 
certificates  and  transfers  them  on  the  books  of  the  corporation,1 
and  the  corporation  may  be  held  liable  to  damages  for  the  fraud 
of  its  officers  in  issuing  such  stock,  where  it  can  not  be  com- 
pelled to  issue  valid  shares  in  place  of  those  fraudulently  is- 
sued for  the  reason  that  this  would  cause  an  overissue  of  its 
capital  stock.2  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  held  that  if  a 
purchaser  exhibits  to  the  corporation  a  forged  assignment  of 
stock,  and  thus  obtains  a  new  certificate  which  he  sells  he  may 
become  liable  to  the  corporation  which  he  has  deceived  by  im- 
pliedly  representing  that  the  signature  is  genuine,8  and  it  has 
also  been  held  that  one  who  receives  stock  from  an  agent  to 
secure  the  agent's  own  private  debty  knowing  that  the  surren- 
der of  the  old  certificate  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  issue  of  the 
new,  without  making  any  inquiry  as  to  whether  it  has  been 
surrendered,  is  not  a  bona  fide  purchaser  and  can  not  hold  the 

holder  of  stock  on  the  register,  and  H.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Schuyler,  34  N.  Y.  30. 
stating  that,  unless  she  advised  them  But  see  Mooresa.  Citizens' Nat.  Bank, 
to  the  contrary,  the  stock  would  be  111  U.  S.  156,  s.  c.  4  Sup.  Ct.  R.  345. 
transferred  in  their  books;  and  she  This  case  is  severely  criticised  in  29 
failed  to  answer  the  letter ;  and  the  Alb.  Law  Jour.  364,  and  in  Lowell  on 
company  subsequently  registered  the  Transfer  of  Stock,  §  112,  n.  2. 
transfer, — she  was  held  not  estopped  2New  York,  N.  H.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 
from  showing  that  her  signature  to  v.  Schuyler,  34  N.Y.  30;  Titus  v.  Great 
the  transfer  was  a  forgery,  and  de-  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  61  N.  Y.  237; 
manding  to  have  her  name  replaced  Bridgeport  Bank  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R. 
on  the  register  as  holder  of  the  stock.  Co.,  30  Conn.  231 ;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 
Barton  v.  London  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  Co.  v.  Robbins,  35  Ohio  St.  483; 
R.  24  Q.  B.  D.  77.  See,  also,  Galves-  Kisterbochs'  Appeal,  127  Pa.  St.  601, 
ton  City  Co.  v.  Sibley,  56  Tex.  269;  s.  c.  14  Am.  St.  R.  868;  Tome  v.  Par- 
Butler  v.  Glen  Cove  Starch  Co.,  18  kersburg  R.  R.  Co.,  39  Md.  36,  s.  c.  17 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  47.  Am.  R.  540;  Supply  Ditch  Co.  v.  Elli- 
1  Allen  v.  South  Boston  R.  R.  Co.,  ott,  10  Colo.  327,  s.  c.  3  Am.  St.  R.  586 ; 
150  Mass.  200,  s.  c.  5  L.  R.  A.  716,  22  Western  Un.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Davenport,  97 
N.  E.  R.  917,  15  Am.  St.  R.  185.  See,  U.  S.  369 ;  Western  Md.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
also,  Salisbury  Mills  v.  Townsend,  109  Franklin  Bank,  60  Md.  36. 
Mass.  115;  American  Wire  Nail  Co.  v.  8  Boston  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Richard- 
Bayless,  91  Ky.  94;  New  York  &  N.  son,  135  Mass.  473. 


118 


THE   CORPORATION. 


§81 


corporation  liable  in  damages.1  The  issue  of  new  certificates 
of  stock  in  place  of  other  certificates,  properly  issued,  which 
have  been  lost  does  not,  however,  constitute  an  overissue  of 
stock.* 

§  81.  Preferred  stock. — Preferred  stock  is  usually  issued  in 
exchange  for  common  stock  as  an  inducement  for  the  share- 
holders to  advance  money  to  meet  certain  exigencies  which 
arise  in  prosecuting  the  corporate  enterprises  ;  or  as  security 
to  the  holders  of  stock  in  the  more  prosperous  of  two  consoli- 
dating  companies  ;  or  in  exchange  for  mortgage  bonds  of  the 
corporation.3  It  has  been  held  that  it  can  not  be  issued  to  raise 
money  to  pay  a  dividend  on  the  common  stock.4  To  induce  invest- 
ors to  take  the  stock  it  is  usually  provided  that  the  holder  shall 
be  entitled  to  payment  of  a  certain  dividend  out  of  the  accrued 
profits  not  necessary  for  the  operation  of  the  road  or  for  re- 
pairs,5 or  reasonable  improvements,6  before  dividends  are  paid 


1  Farrington  v.  South  Boston  R.  R. 
Co.,  150  Mass.  406,  a.  c.  15  Am.  St.  R. 
222.     See,   also,  Moores   v.   Citizens' 
Nat.  Bank,  111  U.  S.  156,  s.  c.  4  Sup. 
Ct.  R.  345 ;  Hall  v.  Rose  Hill,  etc.,  Co., 
70  111.  673;  Seligson  v.  Brown,  61  Tex. 
114,  s.  c.  10  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Gas. 
143. 

2  Allen  v.  South  B.  R.  Co.,  150  Mass. 
200,  22  N.  E.  R.  917,  5  L.  R.  A.  716. 

8  A  mortgagee  who  exchanges  his 
bonds  for  preferred  stock  is  no  longer 
a  creditor,  but  becomes  a  stockholder, 
with  a  stockholder's  rights  and  liabil- 
ities. St.  John  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  22 
Wall.  (TJ.  S.)  136.  His  claims  are 
subject  to  all  mortgages  executed  be- 
fore or  after  his  stock  was  issued. 
King  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Chi. 
Leg.  News  219,  s.  c.  2  Fed.  R.  36; 
Warren  v.  King,  108  U.  S.  389.  It 
seems,  however,  th£.t,  as  it  is  not 
against  public  policy  and  amounts 
yirtually  to  a  mere  contract  on  the 
part  of  the  stockholders  as  to  how 
they  shall  divide  the  profits,  they 


may  agree  in  the  beginning  and  pro- 
vide in  the  by-laws  for  the  classifica- 
tion of  the  stock  into  common  and 
preferred,  even  where  the  statute  is 
silent  upon  the  subject.  Be  South,  etc., 
Brewery  Co.,  L.  R.  31  Ch.  Div.  261; 
Kent  v.  Quicksilver  Mining  Co.,  7& 
N.  Y.  159;  Lindley  on  Companies, 
396 ;  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockhold- 
ers, §  268.  But  see  Guinness  v.  Land 
Corp.,  L.  R.  22  Ch.  Div.  349;  Ash- 
bury  v. Watson,  L.  R.  30  Ch.  Div.  376, 
s.  c.  16  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  383. 

*Hoole  v.   Great  Western  R.  Co., 
L.  R.  3  Ch.  262. 

5  It  has  been  held    that    earnings 
should  go  toward  the  payment  of  a 
floating  debt  in  preference  to  the  pay- 
ment of  dividends  on  the  preferred 
stock.    Chaff ee  v.  Rutland  R.  Co.,  55 
Vt.  110.     See  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Belfast,  77  Me.  445.  But  as  to  the  pay- 
ment of  a  debt  not  yet  due,  see  Hazel- 
tine  v.  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Me. 
411. 

6  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nickals, 


§82 


STOCK. 


119 


to  the  holders  of  common  stock,1  and  this  is  the  reason  it  is 
called  preferred  stock. 

§  82.  When  preferred  stock  may  be  issued. — Rights  and 
remedies  of  dissenting1  stockholders. — Such  stock  can  only  be 
issued  where  the  power  to  issue  it  is  conferred  by  charter  or  by 
statute,8  unless  it  is  issued  by  agreement  of  all  the  stockhold- 
ers.8 A  stockholder  may,  however,  waive  objections  to  such 
an  issue,  and  long  acquiescence  will  be  construed  to  be  such  a 
waiver.*  "A  privilege  given  by  a  railroad  company  to  its  stock- 


119  U.  S.  296,  reversing  15  Fed.  R. 
575,  where  it  was  held  that  payment 
of  dividends  could  be  enforced  before 
the  improvements  contemplated  were 
made. 

'Totten  v.  Tison,  54  Ga.  139;  Chaf- 
fee  v.  Rutland  R.  Co.,  55  Vt.  110; 
Henry  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
4  Kay  &  J.  (Eng.  Ch.)  1 ;  Boardman  v. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  N.Y.  157; 
Prouty  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  655;  Bates  v.  Andro- 
scoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Me.  491 ;  Cook 
on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  §  270. 

2Sturge  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 
DeG.,  M.  &  G.  158 ;  Williston  v.  Michi- 
gan, etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Mass.  400;  Bardt?. 
Banigan,  39  Fed.  R.  13 ;  Kent  v.  Quick- 
silver Mining  Co.,  78  N.Y.  159;  Camp- 
bell v.  American,  etc..  Co.,  122  N.  Y. 
455,  s.  c.  25  N.  E.  R.  853.  The  power 
will  not  be  extended  by  implication. 
Covington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sargent,  1  Cin. 
Super.  Ct.  354 ;  Melhado  ».  Hamilton, 
28  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  578, 29  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  364 ; 
Harrison  v.  Mexican  R.  Co.;  L.  R.  19 
Eq.  Cas.  358.  Power  granted  to  a  rail- 
road company  to  do  all  the  lawful  acts 
incident  to  its  corporate  existence,with 
"such  additional  powers  as  may  be 
convenient  for  the  due  and  successful 
execution  of  the  powers  granted," 
does  not  authorize  it  to  guarantee  a 
specific  dividend  on  its  stock,  as  a 
premium  to  induce  a  subscription, 


even  though  the  guaranty  be  partly  in 
consideration  of  services  rendered 
the  company.  Elevator  Co.  v.  Mem- 
phis &  C.  R.  Co.,  85  Tenn.  703,  4  Am. 
St.  R.  798,  5  S.  W.  R.  52. 

8  Harrison  v.  Mexican  R.  Co.,  44  L. 
J.  (Ch.)  403;  Kent  v.  Quicksilver 
Mining  Co.,  78  N.  Y.  159,  178;  Hig- 
gins  v.  Lansingh,  154  111.  301,  s.  c.  40 
N.  E.  R.  362.  Some  cases  have  held 
that  under  a  power  to  increase  the 
capital  stock  and  to  borrow  rnonev 
such  stock  could  be  issued  by  a  ma- 
jority vote.  Hazlehurst  v.  Savannah, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Ga.  13  (1875) ;  Rut- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thrall,  35  Vt.  536 
(1863) ;  West  Chester,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 
».  Jackson,  77  Pa.  St.  321 ;  Gordon  r. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  R.Co.,  78  Va.  501, 
s.  c.  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  33.  But 
this  has  been  denied.  Kent  v.  Quick- 
silver Mining  Co.,  78  N.  Y.  159.  It 
has  been  held  that  the  power  to  issue 
preferred  stock  is  given  by  the  grant 
of  a  right  to  raise  funds  by  a  sale  of 
stock.  Chaff ee  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  55  Vt.  110,  s.  c.  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
R.  Cas.  408.  See,  also,  State  v.  Cheraw, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  S.  C.  524. 

4  Hoyt  v.  Quicksilver  Mining  Co.,  17 
Hun  (N.Y.)  169;  Kent  v.  Quicksilver 
Min.  Co.,  78  N.Y.  159;  Taylor  r. 
South,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Fed.  R.  152: 
Branch  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 
Woods  (U.  S.)  481.  See  Banigan 


120 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§83 


holders  to  exchange  common  stock  for  preferred  stock  must  be 
exercised  within  a  reasonable  time,  and  a  tender  of  common 
stock  and  the  additional  sum  required  for  an  exchange,  made 
thirty-three  years  after  the  privilege  was  conferred,  is  not  made 
within  a  reasonable  time. ' ' 1  It  has  been  held  that  the  directors 
can  not  issue  such  stock  under  an  authorization  to  the  corpo- 
ration to  do  so,2  but  this  decision  seems  of  doubtful  soundness, 
and,  in  any  event,  such  an  issue  is  susceptible  of  ratification 
by  a  subsequent  vote  of  the  stockholders.8  A  dissenting  stock- 
holder may  enjoin  an  unauthorized  issue  of  preferred  stock,4  or 
may  have  it  set  aside  by  suit  brought  within  a  reasonable 
time.5 

§  83.  Holder  of  preferred  stock  not  a  creditor — His  rights 
and  remedies. — The  holder  of  preferred  stock  is  not  a  creditor 
of  the  corporation,6  but  simply  a  shareholder  with  a  superior 


v.  Bard,  134  U.  S.  291,  a.  c.  10  Sup. 
Ct.  R.  565 ;  Lockhart  fl.Van  Alstyne, 
31  Mich.  76,  s.  c.  18  Am.  R.  156, 
163;  Hazlehurst  v.  Savannah,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  43  Ga.  13,  and  compare 
American  Tube  Works  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  Co.,  139  Mass.  5;  National  Bank 
r.  Drake,  29  Kas.  311. 

1  Holland   v.   Cheshire  R.  Co.,  151 
Mass.  231,  s.  c.  8  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J. 
49,  24  N.  E.  R.  206.     See,  also,  Pear- 
eon  v.  London,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  14  Sim. 
541. 

2  McLaughlin  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
8  Mich.  99. 

3  McLaughlin  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
8  Mich.  99. 

*  Sturge  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  7  DeG., 
M.  &  G.  158;  Moss  v.  Syers,  32  L.  J. 
Ch.  711 ;  Hutton  v.  Scarborough,  etc., 
Co.,  4  DeG.,  J.  &  S.  672;  Kent  v. 
Quicksilver,  etc.,  Co.,  78  N.  Y.  159. 

5  A  long  delay  in  bringing  suit  or 
other  acquiescence  may  confirm  the 
issue.  Taylor  v.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
4  Woods  (U.  S.)  575, 13  Fed.  R.  152  (10 
years) ;  Kent  0. Quicksilver  Mining  Co., 


78  N.  Y.  159  (4  years) ;  Banigan  t>. 
Bard,  134  U.  S.  291 ;  Hazlehurst  v. 
Savannah,  ete.,  R.  Co.,  43  Ga.  13, 
One  accepting  such  stock  can  not 
question  its  validity  in  a  suit  for  the 
purchase  price,  if  the  other  stock- 
holders do  not  complain.  Evansville, 
etc.,  R.Co.  0.City  of  Evansville,15  Ind. 
395,  415.  See,  also,  Branch  v.  Jesup, 
106  U.  S.  468.  But  compare  Reed  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  141  Mass.  454,  s.  c. 
5  N.  E.  R.  852;  Anthony  «.  House- 
hold, etc.,  Co.,  16  R.  I.  571,  s.  c.  18 
Atl.  R.  176,  5  L.  R.  A.  575. 

6  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belfast,  77 
Me.  445;  Chafiee  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  55  Vt.  110;  Warren  v.  King,  108 
U.  S.  389;  Taft  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  8  R.  1.310;  Bailey  v.  Railroad 
Co.,  1  Dill.  (U.  S.)  174;  Birch  v.  Crop- 
per, 61  L.  T.  R.  621 ;  Field  v.  Lamson, 
etc.,  Co.,  162  Mass.  388,  s.  c.  27  L.  R. 
A.  136,  and  note.  But  see  Emerson  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  14  R.  I. 
555,  s.  c.  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Gas. 
404;  Burt  v.  Rattle,  31  Ohio  St.  116. 


$83 


STOCK. 


121 


right  to  receive  dividends  when  the  profits  are  insufficient  to 
pay  them  to  all  the  holders  of  stock,1  and  he  can  claim  the 
payment  of  dividends  only  out  of  the  net  earnings.2  The  own- 
ership of  such  stock  usually  confers  upon  the  holder  a  right  to 
vote  it  at  meetings  of  the  shareholders;  but  it  has  been  held 
competent  for  a  railroad  company,  in  issuing  certificates  of  pre- 
ferred stock,  to  stipulate  therein  that  the  holders  shall  not  have 
or  exercise  the  right  to  vote  as  stockholders  at  such  meetings.1 
The  directors  may  be  compelled  by  suit  to  pay  dividends  on 
preferred  stock  before  otherwise  disposing  of  net  earnings,4 
subject  to  a  reasonable  discretion  on  their  part  as  to  making 
improvements,6  and,  possibly,  as  to  the  liquidation  of  a  floating 
debt,8  yet  no  suit  can  be  maintained,  as  a  rule,  against  the  cor- 
poration for  a  preferred  dividend  until  profits  with  which  to 


1  Bates  v.  Androscoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
49  Me.  491 ;  Taft  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  8  R.  I.  310;  Warren  v.  King,  108 
U.  S.  389;  St.  John  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  22 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  136 ;  Chaffee  v.  Rutland, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Vt.  110;  State  v.  Che- 
raw,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  16  S.C.  524.    Held 
subject  to  the  statutory  liability  of  a 
stockholder  in  Railroad  Co.  v.  Smith, 
48  Ohio  St.  219. 

2  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Belfast, 
77  Me.  445;  Lockhart  v.  Van  Alstyne, 
31  Mich.  76 ;  Henry  v.  Great  Northern, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  1  De  Gex  &  J.  606; 
Elkins  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N. 
J.  Eq.  233;  Miller  v.  Ratterman,  47 
Ohio  St.  141,  s.  c.  24  N.  E.  R.  496. 
But  see  Getting  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  54  Conn.  156;  Totten  v.  Tison,  54 
Ga.  139.    As  to  what  are  net  earnings, 
see  St.  John  v.  Erie  R.  R.  Co.,  10 
Blatchf.   (U.  S.)   271,   affirmed  in  22 
Wall.  136;  Warren  v.  King,  108  U.  S. 
389,  398;  Van  Dyck  v.  McQuade,  86 
N.  Y.  38;   Phillips  v.  Eastern  R.  R. 
Co.,  138  Mass.  122;  Union  Pac.  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  United  States,  99  U.  S.  402. 

3  Miller  v.  Ratterman,  47  Ohio  St. 
141,  24  N.  E.  R.  496. 


4  Boardman  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  84  N.  Y.  157,  180;  Bailey  v.  Han- 
nibal, etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Dill.  (U.  S.)  174; 
Bates  v.  Androscoggin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 
Me.  491 ;  Barnard  U.Vermont,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  89  Mass.  512;  Hazeltine  v.  Bel- 
fast, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  79  Me.  411,  s.  c.  1 
Am.  St.  R.  330;  Mackintosh  0.  Flint, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  32  Fed.  R.  350;  Dick- 
inson v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  7 
W.  Va.  390. 

5  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nickals, 
119  U.  S.  296.    It  is  suggested  that 
where  arrears  are  not  collectible  the 
corporation  should  not  be  allowed  to 
retain  profits  for  the  making  of  im- 
provements before  paying  dividends 
on  preferred    stock,  as    such  power 
would  give  the  corporation  an  oppor- 
tunity to  defeat  the  preference   by 
waiting  to  declare  a  dividend  until  the 
profits  sufficed  for  dividends  on  all 
the  capital  stock.     1  Cook  on  Stock 
and  Stockholders,  §  272. 

6  Chaffee  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 
Vt.  110 ;  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belfast, 
77  Me.  445.    See  Hazeltine  v.  Belfast, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Me.  411, 30  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  528. 


122 


THE   CORPORATION. 


§84 


pay  it  have  accrued  and  it  has  been  declared.1  But  if  such 
accrued  profits  be  appropriated  to  the  payment  of  dividends  on 
common  stock  while  the  guaranteed  dividends  on  preferred 
stock  remain  unpaid,  payment  of  such  common  dividends  may 
be  enjoined.2  Or,  if  the  payment  is  actually  made,  the  holder 
of  preferred  stock  is  entitled  to  interest  on  his  accrued  divi- 
dends from  the  date  of  this  misappropriation.3  If  from  alack 
of  net  profits  with  which  to  pay  the  guaranteed  dividends  upon 
preferred  stock  they  should  remain  unpaid  for  a  time,  the  hold- 
ers are  entitled  to  payment  of  arrears  before  any  dividends  are 
declared  on  common  stock,*  unless  different  provision  is  made 
by  statute  or  otherwise.5 

§  84.  Rights  of  preferred  stockholders  after  payment  of 
guaranteed  dividend — Future  dividends. — After  the  holders  of 
preferred  stock  have  received  the  dividend  guaranteed  to  them, 
the  net  profits  remaining  on  hand  may  be  devoted  to  the  pay- 
ment of  dividends  on  the  common  stock  alone,  until  the  holders 

Henry  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  • 
1  DeG.  &  J.  606  (1857) ;  Matthews 
v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  L. 
J.  Chan.  375  (1859).  But  see  contra 
Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belfast,  77  Me. 
445;  Gordon  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  78  Va.501. 

5  See  Dent  v.  London,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R. 
16  Ch,  Div.  341;  Belfast,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Belfast,  77  Me.,  445,  where  a  by-law 
was  held  to  have  controlling  influence. 
See  Companies  Clauses,  act  of  1863, 
26  and  27  Viet.,  Ch.  16,  §  14,  for  stat- 
ute provision  limiting  the  fund  for  the 
payment  of  preferred  dividends  to  the 
profits  of  the  current  year.  See  Stim- 
son's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §8620,  for 
statutes  of  Indiana,  Michigan,  Iowa, 
Minnesota,  Missouri,  and  Montana, 
providing  that  the  terms  and  condi- 
tions of  payment  of  preferred  stock 
shall  be  prescribed  by  the  directors  or 
by  the  company,  at  the  time  it  is  is- 
sued. 


1  Taft  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  R. 
I.  310;  Lockhart  v.  Van  Alstyne,  31 
Mich.  76 ;  Webb  v.  Earle,  L.  R.  20  Eq. 
556.    The  declaration  of  such  a  divi- 
dend is  very  largely  within  the  discre- 
tion of  the  directors  as  long  as  they  act 
in  good  faith.    Field  v.  Lamson,  162 
Mass.  388,  s.  c.  27  L.  R.  A.  136,  and 
note. 

2  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 
99  U.  S.  402 ;  Taft  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  8  R.  I.  310;  Prouty  v.  Michigan 
Southern,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  1  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  655. 

3  Prouty  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 
Hun   (N.  Y.)   655;    Henry  v.  Great 
Northern  R.  Co.,  4  K.  &  J.  1.     See, 
also,  Boardman  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  84  N.  Y.  157,  s.c.  4  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  265. 

4  Bailey  v.   Hannibal,  etc.,   R.  Co., 
1  Dillon  (U.  S.)  174,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
96;  Elkins  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 
N.   J.   Eq.  233;    Boardman  v.   Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,    84   N.   Y.   157; 


§  85  STOCK.  123 

of  siich  stock  have  received  a  dividend  equal  to  that  paid  on 
the  preferred  stock,  after  which  all  stock  shares  equally  in  any 
additional  dividends  which  the  net  earnings  on  hand  may  suf- 
fice to  pay.1  The  preferred  shareholders  are  not  entitled  to 
have  the  profits  reserved  to  pay  their  dividends  which  may 
accrue  in  the  future.  An  assignment  of  the  stock  carries  with 
it  all  arrears  of  dividends,*  not  expressly  separated  and  reserved 
to  the  grantor,8  unless  the  dividend  has  been  declared  before  the 
transfer.* 

§  85.   Bights  of  preferred  stockholders  on  dissolution.  — 

Unless  a  preference  in  repayment  of  capital  invested  has  been 
specially  contracted  for5  or  is  given  by  statute,6  the  holder  of 
preferred  stock  shares  equally  with  common  shareholders  in  a 
distribution  of  assets  upon  dissolution.7  His  claims  are  sub- 
ject to  those  of  creditors  for  debts  contracted  subsequently 
to  the  issue  of  his  stock.8  This  results  from  the  rule  that  he 
is  a  stockholder  and  not  a  creditor.9 

§  86.  Guaranteed,  interest-bearing,  income  and  debenture 
stock. — An  agreement  on  the  part  of  the  corporation  to  pay  a 
specified  dividend  or  interest  on  its  stock  absolutely  and  at  all 

Bailey  v.   Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Ch.  Div.  511;  Birch  v.  Cropper,  61 

1  Dillon  (U.  S.)  174,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  L.  T.  R.  621.   But  see  Gordon  v.  Rich- 

96;  Allen  v.  Londonderry,  etc.,  R.  R.  mond,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  78  Va.  501,  s.  c. 

Co.,  25  W.  R.  524.  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  33.     So, 

2  Manning  v.  Quicksilver  Min.  Co.,  when  the  capital  stock  is  reduced  the 

24  Hun  360;  Hyatt  v.  Allen,  56  N.  Y.  preferred  stock  may  be  reduced  equal- 

553.  ly  with  the  common.   .Re  Barrow,  etc., 

8Jermain  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  L.T.  R.  500;  Re  Great  Western, 

Coy  91  N.  Y.  483.  etc.,  Co.,  56  L.  J.  Ch.  3;  Bannatyne 

*City  of  Ohio  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  v.  Direct,  etc.,  Co.,  55  L.  T.  R.  716. 

Co.,  6  Ohio  St.  489.  Unless  it  is  preferred  as  to  assets  as 

8  He  Bangor,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  well  as  dividends.    He  Quebrada  Ry., 

59;  Ee  Bridgewater  Nav.  Co.,  L.  R.  60  L.T.  R.  482.     But  see  Re  American 

39  Ch.  Div.  1,  s.  c.  58  L.  T.  R.  476,  26  Pastoral  Co.,  62  L.  T.  R.  625. 
Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  386.  8  Warren  v.  King,  108  U.  S.  389,  s.  c. 

'McGregor  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  33  N.  2  Sup.  Ct.  R.  789;  St.  John  v.  Erie. 

J.  Eq.  181.  Ry.  Co.,  22  Wall.  (U.  S.)  136;    King. 

'McGregors  Home  Ins.  Co.,  33  N.  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Fed.  R.  36; 

J.  Eq.  181 ;  Be  Bridgewater  Nav.  Co.,  Birch  v.  Cropper,  61  L.  T.  R.  621. 
58  L.  T.  R.  476 ;  Griffith  v.  Paget,  L.  R.        9  See  ante,  §  83. 


124 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§86 


events,  whether  any  profits  are  earned  or  not,  would  be  contrary 
to  public  policy  and  void,1  and  it  has  been  held  that  a  railroad 
company  can  not,  without  legislative  authority,  contract  to 
pay  interest  on  its  stock  before  the  road  is  completed  or  any 
income  received.2  But  in  Massachusetts,  the  statute  provides 
for  "special  stock,"  upon  which  a  semi-annual  dividend  or 
interest  is  payable  absolutely  and  as  a  debt,  without  regard  to 
the  corporate  earnings,8  and,  even  in  the  absence  of  express 
legislative  authority,  a  corporation  has  the  same  power  to 


1  Lockhart  v.  VanAlstyne,  31  Mich. 
76,  s.  c.  18  Am.  R.  156;  State  v.  Che- 
raw,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  S.  C.  524;  Craw- 
ford v.  Northeastern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 
Jur.   (N.   S.)   1093;    Ohio   College  v. 
Rosenthal,  45  Ohio  St.  183,  s.  c.  12  N. 
E.  R.  665;  Chase  v.  Vanderbilt,  62  N. 
Y.  307 ;  Elevator  Co.  v.  Memphis,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  85  Tenn.  703,  s.  c.  4  Am. 
St.  R.  798,  5  S.  W.  R.  52. 

2  Painesville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v .  King, 
17  Ohio  St.  534.     See,  also,  Troy,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Tibbits,  18  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
297;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alle- 
gheny Co.,  63  Pa.  St.  126.      But  we 
believe     that    a    railroad    company 
ordinarily  has  power,  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  subscriptions  and  money 
to  build  the  road,  to  issue  interest- 
bearing  stock  or  to  agree  to  pay  inter- 
est until  the  road  is  built  or  until 
some  other  designated  time,  at  least 
where  the  interest,  although  accrued, 
is  not  to  be  paid  until  the  road  is  in 
operation  and  sufficient    profits   are 
made.    Thus,  in  the  case  of  Evans- 
ville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  City  of  Evans- 
ville,  15  Ind.  395,  415,  the  court  said : 
"The  work  of  constructing  a  railroad 
sometimes  requires  years  for  its  com- 
pletion, and  dividends  to  stockholders 
seldom,  if  ever,  accrue  before  the  road 
is  fully  completed.     If  interest  were 
not  allowed  upon  the  stock,  those  who 
invest  their  funds  at  the  beginning 


would  receive  nothing  more  than 
those  who  take  their  stock  when  the 
work  may  be  nearly  completed.  We 
see  nothing  against  the  law  or  public 
policy  in  this  arrangement.  The  con- 
struction of  a  railroad  requires  a  large 
outlay  of  capital,  much  of  which  must 
be  furnished  before  the  work  can  pro- 
gress to  any  considerable  extent.  If 
interest  is  allowed  on  the  stock  from 
the  time  it  is  paid  for,  there  is  an 
inducement  for  capitalists  to  invest 
early  and  furnish  the  means  to  suc- 
cessfully carry  on  the  enterprise."  To 
the  same  effect  are  the  decisions  in 
Richardson  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  Co., 
44  Vt.  613,  618;  Rutland,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Thrall,  35  Vt.  536 ;  Wright  ^.Vermont, 
etc.,  R.  Corp.,  12  Cush.  68 ;  Milwaukee, 
etc.,R.  R.  Co.e.Field,  12  Wis.  340 ;  Bar- 
nard W.Vermont,  etc.,  R.R.Co.,  7  Allen 
(Mass.)  512;  Ohio  v.  Cleveland,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  6  Ohio  St.  489.  See,  also, 
People  v.  Preston,  140  N.  Y.  549,  s.  c.  24 
L.  R.  A.  57 ;  Miller  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  40  Pa.  St.  237,  s.  c.  80  Am. 
Dec.  570;  Waterman  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  8  Gray  (Mass.)  433. 

8  American  Tube  Works  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  Co.,  139  Mass.  5 ;  Reed  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  Co.,  141  Mass.  454,  s.  c.  12  Am. 
&  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  153,  5  N.  E.  R.  852; 
Williams  v.  Parker,  136  Mass.  204,  s. 
c.  6  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Caa.  566. 


§  86  STOCK.  125 

guaranty  dividends  and  provide  for  interest  out  of  the  profits 
that  it  has  to  issue  preferred  stock,  for  such  guaranteed  or 
interest-bearing  stock  is  virtually  preferred  stock  and  nothing 
more.1  It  will  generally  be  construed  to  mean  that  the  interest 
or  dividend  is  payable  only  out  of  the  profits  and  upheld  on 
that  ground,8  but  much,  of  course,  will  necessarily  depend  up- 
on the  language  used,  and  where  the  interest  is  guaranteed  ab- 
solutely and  the  corporation  also  agrees  to  liquidate  the  prin- 
cipal at  a  specified  time,  or  the  like,  so  that  the  so-called  stock 
is  in  reality  an  interest-bearing  debenture  the  relation  created 
thereby  will  be  that  of  debtor  and  creditor  and  the  holder  will 
not  be  merely  a  shareholder  as  he  would  be  if  it  were  preferred 
or  interest-bearing  stock  payable  only  cut  of  the  profits.*  Its 
validity,  therefore,  would  depend  upon  some  other  power  than 
the  power  to  issue  preferred  stock.  Sometimes  an  agreement 
is  made  between  two  corporations  whereby  one  guarantees  to 
the  other  a  certain  specified  annual  dividend  on  its  capital 
stock.  Such  an  agreement  is  held  to  be  a  guarantee  to  the 
corporation  and  not  to  the  stockholders  severally,  and  the  di- 
rectors have  power  to  modify  the  terms  of  .such  guaranty,  and 
their  action  in  so  doing  will  not  be  disturbed  by  the  courts 
where  they  have  acted  fairly  and  in  good  faith.4 

'Taft  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  E.  R.  Co.,  8  Mass.  388,  s.  c.  27  L.  R.  A.  136,  and 

R.  1. 310,  s.  c.  5  Am.  R.  575;  Miller  v.  note.     See,  also,  Barnard  V.Vermont, 

Ratterman,  47  Ohio  St.  141,  24  N,  E.  R.  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  7  Allen  (Mass.)  512 ; 

496;    Henry  v.  Great  Northern,  etc.,  Richardson  V.Vermont,  etc.,   R.  R. 

R.  R.  Co.,  4  K.  &  J.  1.   Except  that  the  Co.,  44  Vt.  613. 

dividends  are  more  clearly  cumulative  8  Burt  v.  Rattle,  31  Ohio  St.  116 ; 
and  more  clearly  show  that  the  holder  West  Chester,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Jack- 
is  entitled  to  arrears  as  soon  as  the  son,  77  Pa.  St.  321 ;  Totten  v.  Tison, 
profits  are  earned  and  the  dividend  54  Ga.  139. 

declared.    Boardman  v.  Lake  Shore,  *  Flagg  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  10  Fed. 

etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  84  N.  Y.  157;  Henry  «.  R.  (TJ.  S.  C.  C.)  413;  Beveridge  v.  N. 

Great  Northern,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  4  K.  Y.  El.   R.   R.   Co.,   112  N.  Y.  1.     A 

&  J.  1.  guarantee  of  a  specified  dividend  upon 

2  Lockhart  v.  VanAlstyne,  31  Mich,  the  stock  of  another  company  abso- 

76,  s.  c.  18  Am.  R.  156;  Taft  v.  Hart-  lately  and  without  regard  to  profits 

ford,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8  R.  I.  310,  s.  c.  was  held  unauthorized  and  not  en- 

5  Am.  R.  575;  Scott  v.  Central  R.  R.  forceable  in    Memphis,   etc.,   Co.   «. 

Co.,  52  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  45;  Waterman  Memphis,   etc.,   R.  R.  Co.,  85  Tenn. 

v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8  Gray  (Mass.)  703,  s.  c.  5  S.  W.  R.  52,  4  Am.  St.  R. 

433;  Field  o.  Lamson,  etc.,  Co.,  162  798. 


126 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§87 


§  87.  Increase  and  reduction  of  capital  stock. — A  corpora- 
tion can  neither  increase  nor  reduce  its  fixed  capital  stock 
without  legislative  authority.1  The  power  to  increase  it  can 
not,  ordinarily,  be  implied  from  the  power  to  reduce  it,*  nor 
can  the  power  to  reduce  it  be  implied  from  the  mere  power  to 
increase  it.3  And  when  the  statute  confers  the  power  to  in- 
crease or  decrease  the  capital  stock  the  statutory  method  of  pro- 
cedure should  be  substantially  followed.*  Unless  otherwise 
provided,  the  power  so  given  can  only  be  exercised  by  the 
stockholders,  and  not  by  the  directors.5  But  the  stockholders 
may  be  estopped  by  their  acquiescence,  in  such  a  case,  from 
questioning  the  legality  of  an  increase  or  decrease  made  by 
the  directors.6  When  the  capital  stock  is  increased  new  shares 
of  stock  are  generally  issued  and  sold,  but  the  existing  share- 


1  Spring  Co.  v.  Knowlton,  103  U.  S. 
49;  Scovill  v.  Thayer,  105  U.  S.  143; 
Oldtown  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Veazie,  39  Me. 
571 ;  Railway  Co.  v.  Allerton,  18  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  233;  New  York  &  N.  H.  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Schuyler,  34  N.  Y.  30;  Mechan- 
ics' Bank  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  13 
N.  Y.  599,  617 ;  Winters  v.  Armstrong, 
37  Fed.  R.  508.  But  the  authorized 
issue  of  bonds  convertible  into  stock 
may,  in  effect,  amount  to  authority  to 
increase  the  capital  stock  to  that  ex- 
tent. Belmont  v.  Erie  Ry.  Co.,  52 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  637 ;  Ramsey  v.  Erie  Ry. 
Co.,  38  How.  Pr.  193,  216.  See,  also, 
Van  Allen  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.  Co., 
7  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  515. 

E  See  Sutherland  v.  Olcott,  95  N.  Y. 
93;  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chand- 
ler, 13  Met.  (Mass.)  311. 

3Seignouret  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  24 
Fed.  R.  332,  s.  c.  10  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cas.  131,  25  Am.  L.  R.  29;  Sutherland 
v,  Olcott,  95  N.  Y.  93.  See,  also, 
Smith  v.  Goldsworthy,  4  Q.  B.  (1  Ad. 
&  E.  N.  S.)  430. 

4  Spring  Co.t>. Knowlton,  103  U.S.  49 ; 
Knowlton  v.  Congress  Spring  Co.,  57 
N.  Y.  518 ;  Grangers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kam- 


per,  73  Ala.  325,  s.  c.  6  Am.  &  Eng. 
Corp.  Cas.  497.  In  re  Wheeler,  2  Abb. 
Pr.  N,  S.  (N.  Y.)  361 ;  State  v.  Mc- 
Grath,  86  Mo.  239.  But  see  Handley 
».  Stutz,  139  U.  S.  417,  s.  c.  34  Am.  & 
Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  624.  The  general  rule 
is  that  if  the  stock  is  an  overissue  so 
that  there  is  an  entire  want  of  power 
the  holder  does  not  become  a  stock- 
holder, and  is  not  liable  as  such,  but 
if  there  is  power  to  issue  it,  mere  in- 
formalities or  irregularities  will  not 
vitiate  it  and  one  who  receives  it  may 
become  liable  as  a  stockholder.  This 
distinction  is  drawn  in  Scovill  ?<. 
Thayer,  105  U.  S.  143,  where  the  au- 
thorities are  reviewed  and  distin- 
guished. 

5  Eidmaa  v.  Bowman,  58  111.  444,  s.c. 
11  Am.  R.  90;  Percy  v.  Millaudon,  9 
La.  326  (6  Mart.  N.  S.  616),  s.  c.  7 
Am.  Dec.  196;   Gill  v.  Balis,  72  Mo. 
424.     But  see  Sutherland  v.  Olcott,  95 
N.  Y.  93. 

6  Railway  Co.  v.  Allerton,  18  Wall. 
(TJ.  S.)  233 ;  Payson  v.  Stoever,  2  Dill. 
(U.  S.)428;  Sewell's  Case,  L.  R.  3 
Oh.  131. 


§87 


STOCK , 


127 


holders,  it  seems,  hare  the  first  right  to  take  their  proportion- 
ate part  of  the  new  stock,1  although  they  have  no  right  to 
demand  a  gratuitous  distribution  of  it  to  them2  and  may  lose 
their  right  to  take  precedence  of  other  purchasers  by  failing  to 
act  within  the  time  specified,  or  within  a  reasonable  time.*  The 
capital  stock  may  also  be  increased,  when  authorized,  by  means 
of  stock  dividends.*  The  ordinary  method  of  reducing  the 
capital  stock  is  by  refunding  to  each  stockholder  a  proportion- 
ate part  of  the  surplus  over  and  above  the  amount  of  the  capi- 
tal stock  as  reduced.6  So,  a  corporation  may  effect  a  reduction 
by  purchasing  and  cancelling  its  own  shares,  where  it  has 
authority  to  do  so.'  This,  however,  will  not  necessarily  oper- 


1  Cunningham's  Appeal,  108  Pa.  St. 
646 ;  Jones  v.  Morrison,  31  Minn.  140 ; 
Gray  v.  Portland  Bank,  3  Mass.  364, 
s.  c.  3  Am.  Dec.  156 ;  Humboldt,  etc., 
Ass'n  v.  Stevens,  34  Neb.  528,  s.  c.  52 
N.  W.  R.  568,  33  Am.  St.  R.  654.    It 
has,  however,  been  questioned  wheth- 
er this  rule  applies  to  a  railroad  com- 
pany existing  independently  of  the 
stockholders  with    its  economy  and 
modes  of  action  defined  by  statute. 
See  Pierce  on  Railroads,  124 ;  1  Wood 
on  Railroads,  §  72.     And  it  does  not 
apply  to  old  shares  purchased  by  the 
corporation   and   reissued.      State  v. 
Smith,  48  Vt.   266 ;   nor,  it  seems,  to 
original    shares  of    authorized  stock 
remaining   undisposed  of.    Curry  v. 
Scott,  54  Pa.  St.  270,  275. 

2  Miller  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
24  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  312,  330;  Brown  v. 
Florida,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  19  Fla.  472. 

8  Hart  v.  St.  Charles  St.  R.  R.  Co., 
30  La.  Ann.  Pt.  1,  758;  Brown  v.  Flor- 
ida, etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  19  Fla.  472.  See, 
also,  Sewall  v.  Eastern  R.  R.  Co.,  9 
Cush.  (Mass.)  5;  Terry  v.  Eagle  Lock 
Co.,  47  Conn.  141. 

*  Beach  on  Private  Corporations, 
§477;  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stock- 
holders, §  287 ;  post,  §§  331,  338.  In  one 
sense,  perhaps,  a  stock  dividend  does 


not  increase  the  capital  stock  as  the 
theory  is  that,  while  it  may  increase 
the  number  of  shares,  the  aggregate 
interest  of  the  stockholders  is  the 
same  as  before;  in  other  words,  it 
simply  dilutes  the  existing  shares  to 
the  extent  that  new  shares  are  issued. 
Williams  v.  Western  Un.  Tel.  Co.,  93 
N.  Y.  162. 

5  Seeley    v.    New   York    Exchange 
Bank,  8  Daly  (N.  Y.)  400,  affirmed  in 
78  N.  Y.  608;  Strong  v.  Brooklyn,  etc., 
R.   R.  Co.,  93  N.  Y.  426;  Currier  v. 
Lebanon,  etc.,  Co.,  56  N.  H.  262.  But 
a  stockholder  in  a  bank  which  re- 
duces its  capital  stock  to  the  extent 
that  its  capital  has  become  impaired 
on    account   of   bad    debts,    to    pre- 
vent an  assessment  upon  the  stock- 
holders, can  not  compel  a  distribution 
of  money  afterwards  realized  on  the 
"bad  debts,"  as  in  case  of  a  reduction 
where  the  capital  is  unimpaired.   Mc- 
Cann  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  112  Ind.  354. 

6  Taylor  v.  Miami,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Ohio 
176;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mar- 
seilles, 84  111.  145;  State  v.  Smith,  48 
Vt.  266 ;  Williams  v.  Savage,  etc.,  Co., 
3  Md.  Ch.  418 ;    Re  Gatling  Gun,  etc., 
62  L.  T.  R.  312.    See  article  in  8  So. 
Law  Rev.U.  S.  369 ;  Tulare,  etc.,  Dist.  v 
Kaweah.etc.,  Co.,(Cal.)  44  Pac.  R.662. 


128 


THE   CORPORATION. 


§88 


ate  as  a  reduction,  unless  so  intended,  for  they  may  be  resold 
and  reissued.1  And  the  mere  power  to  reduce  the  capital  stock 
does  not  authorize  the  corporation  to  purchase  the  shares  of 
particular  shareholders,  over  the  objection  of  others,  on  such 
terms  or  in  such  a  way  as  to  benefit  the  former  at  the  expense 
of  the  latter.2  Nor  is  the  "writing  off"  of  a  loss,  which  the 
corporation  has  suffered,  such  a  reduction  as  is  generally  au- 
thorized.8 

§88.  Watered  stock. — What  is  known  as  "watered  stock" 
is  fictitiously  paid-up  stock  or  stock  which  dees  not  represent 
its  face  or  par  value  in  money  or  money's  worth  added  to  the 
assets  of  the  corporation,4  but  which  is  issued  as  a  bonus  or 
exchanged  for  money,  property,  services,6  or  demands  upon 
the  company6  of  a  less  value  than  the  par  value  of  the  stock.7 
Such  issues  of  stock  are  frequently  said  to  be  contrary  to  pub- 
lic policy,8  and  a  fraud  upon  those  who  take  it  as  full  paid 


1  Commonwealth  v,  Boston,  etc., 
R.  E.  Co.,  142  Mass.  146;  City  Bank 
v.  Bruce,  17  N.  Y.  507 ;  Vail  v.  Ham- 
ilton, 85  N.  Y.  453;  Jefferson  v. 
Burford,  (Ky.)  17  S.  W.  R.  855; 
State  Bank  v.  Fox,  3  Blatchf.  (TJ  S.) 
431;  Clapp  v.  Peterson,  104  111.  26; 
Bank  v.  Wickersham,  99  Cal.  655,  s.  e. 
34  Pac.  R.  444. 

8  Currier  t?.  Lebanon,  etc.,  Co.,  56 
N.  H.  262;  Chetlain  v.  Republic  Life 
Ins.  Co.,  86  111.  220;  Gill  v.  Balis,  72 
Mo.  424.  See,  also,  Pacific  Fruit  Co. 
v.  Coon,  (Cal.)  40  Pac.  R.  542. 

8  In  re  Ebbw  Vale,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R. 
4Ch.  Div.  832;  Seignouret  v.  Home 
Ins.  Co.,  24  Fed.  R.  332. 

*  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§  28;  Handley  v.  Stutz,  139  TJ.  S.  417, 
418. 

5  Capital  stock  to  an  amount  far  be- 
yond the  actual  cost  of  the  road  is  fre- 
quently issued  to  the  construction 
company  in  payment  for  building  it. 
Cyclopedia  of  Politica-l  Science,  etc., 


VoL  III,  page  527,  cited  in  Cook  on 
Stock  and  Stockholders,  §  28. 

6  Such  stock  is  frequently  issued  in 
the  shape  of  a  stock  dividend  when 
no  corresponding  amount  has  been 
added  to  the  value  of  the  company's 
property. 

7  Barnes  v.   Brown,  80  N.  Y.  527, 
534;  Sturges  v.  Stetson,  1  Biss.(U.  S.) 
246;  Tobey  v.  Robinson,  99  111.  222, 
228;    Oliphant    v.   Woodburn,    etc., 
Co.,  63  Iowa  332.     But  see  Scovill  ». 
Thayer,   105  TJ.  S.   143;   Lorillard  v. 
Clyde,  86  N.  Y.  384.     Mere  inflation, 
or  gratuitous  distribution  of  stock  up- 
on no  increase  of  value  in  the  corpo- 
rate property,  is  condemned  by  law. 
Williams  v.  Western  Unien  Tel.  Co., 
93  N.  Y.  162. 

8  State  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 
Neb.  143;  Morrow  v.  Iron,  etc.,  Co., 
87  Tenn.  262,  s.  c.  5  Ry.  &  Corp.  L. 
J.  206;  Sturges  v.  Stetson,  1  Biss.(U. 
S.)  246;  Oliphant  v.  Woodburn  Coal, 
etc.,  Co.,  63  Iowa  332.      Quo  warrantc 


§89 


STOCK. 


129 


stock,1  and  are  sometimes  said  to  be  cause  for  the  forfeiture  of 
the  company's  charter.  In  Louisiana  the  constitution  provides 
that  this  penalty  shall  follow  such  action.2 

§89.  Watered  stock  not  absolutely  void.  —  The  stock  so 
issued  is  not,  however,  absolutely  void,  where  it  is  not  an 
overissue,  even  though  there  is  a  constitutional  provision  declar- 
ing fictitious  issues  void,  if  there  is  a  consideration  to  support 
it,  as  where  it  is  sold  below  par,  or  issued  in  payment  for  work 
or  property  of  less  than  its  face  value.8  But  the  stock,  if  issued 
gratuitously,4  or  such  a  proportion  of  it  as  will  reduce  the  face 
value  of  the  shares  held  to  the  sum  paid  for  the  stock,5  may,  it 
has  been  held,  where  it  is  sold  below  par,  be  at  the. suit  of  a 
dissenting  stockholder,6  recalled  for  cancellation,  from  the  per- 
son to  whom  it  is  issued,7  or  from  his  grantee  with  notice,1 

does  not  lie  against  a  corporation  in    Gasquet  v.  Crescent  City,  etc.,  Co.,  49 

Fed.  R.  496;  Lorillard  t;.  Clyde,  86  N. 
Y.  384 ;  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dow, 
120  U.  S.  287;  In  re  Ambrose,  etc., 
Co.,  L.  R.  14  Ch.  Div.  390,  394.  But 
see  New  Castle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simp- 
son, 21  Fed.  R.  533,  23  Fed.  R.  214; 
Sturges  v.  Stetson,  1  Biss.  (U.  S.)  246; 
Fisk  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  53 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  513. 

4  Oilman,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  77 
111.  426. 

5  Sturges  v.  Stetson,  1  Biss.  (U.  S.) 
246 ;  Fosdick  v.  Sturges,  1  Biss.  (U.  S.) 
255. 

6  Since  each  shareholder  may  insist 
that  every  other    shareholder   shall 
contribute    his    ratable  part  of    the 
company's  capital   for  the    common 
benefit,  he  may  maintain  a  suit  to 
cancel  an  unauthorized  issue  of  shares 
purporting  to  be  paid-up,  when  they, 
in  reality,  are  not.   Morawetz  on  Priv. 
Corp.  (2d  ed.),  §§  275,  286. 

'Oilman,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  77 
111.  426. 

8  Upton  v.  Tribilcock,  91  U.  8.  45; 
Boulton  Carbon  Co.  v.  Mills,  78  Iowa 
460,  43  N.  W.  R.  290. 


Minnesota  merely  because  it  issues  its 
stock  below  par.  State  v.  Minnesota, 
etc.,  Co.,  40  Minn.  213,  41  N.  W.  R. 
1020.  But  such  an  act  is  said  to  be 
clearly  ultra  vires.  Fisk  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  513. 
And  it  is  held  that  a  forfeiture  may 
be  decreed  for  ultra  vires  acts  which 
are  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the 
public.  People  v.  TJtica  Ins.  Co.,  15 
Johns.  (N.  Y.)  358;  Commonwealth 
v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  43  Pa. 
St.  295;  State  v.  People's,  etc.,  Ass'n, 
42  Ohio  St.  579;  People  v.  Improve- 
ment Co.,  103  111.  491.  See,  also,  Hoi- 
man  v.  State,  105  Ind.  569,  5  N.  E.  R. 
702.  And  the  constitutions  and  laws 
of  many  of  the  states  provide  that 
railroad  corporations  shall  not  issue 
stock  excepting  for  money  or  its 
equivalent  actually  received.  Stim- 
son's  Am.  Stat.,  §452.  See,  also, 
Fitzpatrick  v.  Dispatch,  etc.,  Co.,  83 
Ala.  604,  s.  c.  19  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cas.  423. 

1  Barnes  v.  Brown,  80  N.  Y.  527. 

2  Const.  La.,  §238. 

8  Peoria  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  103  111. 
187;    Stein  v.  Howard,  65  Cal.  616; 

CORP.  9 


130 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  90 


though  not,  it  would  seem,  from  a  bona  fide  purchaser  for 
value.1  Participating  stockholders *  and  their  transferees  with 
notice*  are  estopped  to  complain  of  the  transaction,4  as  is  the 
corporation  itself,  in  the  absence  of  fraud. 


§  90.  Rights  of  creditors  and  liabilities  of  holders  of 
watered  Stock. — But  the  creditors  of  the  corporation  may 
generally  compel  the  persons  receiving  stock  to  pay  the  par 
value  in  full,5  or  such  part  thereof  as  may  be  necessary  to  pay 
their  claims.6  It  is  held,  however,  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 


1 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§31. 

2/nreGoldCo.,L.R.llCh.  Div.701, 
712;  Scovill  v.  Thayer,  105  TJ.  S.  143; 
Callanan  v.  Windsor,  78  Iowa  193,  42 
N.  W.  R.  652;  Wood  v.  Cor-ry,  etc., 
Co.,  44  Fed.  R.  146.  Dissenting  stock- 
holders may  have  relief.  Taylor  v. 
Phila.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  7  Fed.  R.  381 ; 
Parsons  v.  Joseph,  92  Ala.  403,  8  So. 
R.  788;  Perry  v.  Tuscaloosa,  etc.,  Co., 
93  Ala.  364,  9  So.  R.  217.  If  they  act 
promptly.  Taylor  v.  South,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  13  Fed.  R.  152. 

3  In  re  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  N. 
Y.  1;  Ffooks  v.  Southwestern  Ry.,  1 
Sm.  &  G.  142;  Foster  v.  Seymour,  23 
Fed.  R.  65. 

*  Scovill  v.  Thayer,  105  TJ.  S.  143 ; 
Harrison  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  13 
Fed.  R.  522;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  v .  Tiernan,  37  Kan.  606,  s.  c.  15 
Pac.  R.  544,  where  the  giving  of  $3,- 
600,000  of  stock  and  payment  of  $200,- 
000  to  directors  of  the  company  for  an 
old  road-bed  which  cost  them  $15,000, 
when  all  the  stockholders  and  direct- 
ors knew  all  the  facts,  was  held  to 
give  the  corporation  no  cause  to  com- 
plain, s.  c.  40  Am.  &  Eng  R.  Cas. 
525, 544.  See,  also,  Arkansas,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Co.,  13  Colo.  587, 
22  Pac.  R.  954;  First  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Gustin,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Minn.  327,  44  N. 
W.  R.  198. 


5  Sagory  v.  Dubois,  3  Sandf .  Ch.  (N. 
Y.)  466,  499;  Upton  v.  Tribilock,  91 
U.  S.  45;  Scovill  v.  Thayer,  105  U.  S. 
143;  Bates  v.  Great  Western  Tel.  Co., 
134  111.  536,  25  N.  E.  R.  521 ;  Hickling 
v.  Wilson,  104  111.  54;  Great  Western 
Tel.  Co.  v.  Gray,  122  111.  630,  14  N.  E. 
R.  214 ;  Mann  v.  Cooke,  20  Conn.  178; 
Skrainka  v.  Allen,  76  Mo.  384 ;  Fisher 
v.  Seligman,  7  Mo.  App.  383;  Flinnu. 
Bagley,  7  Fed.  R.  785 ;  Stutz  v.  Hand- 
ley,    41    Fed.    R.    531;     Carnden    v. 
Stuart,  144  U.  S.  104.    But  in  Clark  v. 
Bever,  139  U.  S.  96,  it  was  held  that  a 
railroad  company  in  financial  straits 
could  settle  with  a  creditor  by  giving 
him  stock  at  twenty  cents  on  the  dol- 
lar, and  that  other  corporate  creditors 
could  not  afterwards  hold  him  liable 
for  the  additional  eighty  cents. 

6  Scovill  v.  Thayer,  105  U.  S.  143, 
155.    Where  a  director  takes  shares 
of  the  capital  stock  as  a  bonus  for  his 
influence  he  becomes  subject  to  the 
liabilities  of  a  shareholder  who  has 
taken  stock  but  has  not  paid  for  the 
same,  and  a  contract  between  him  and 
the  company  that  the  stock  shall  not 
be  assessable  can  not  relieve  him  of 
the  liability.  Richardson  v.  Green,  133 
U.  S.  30,  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  280;  McAvity 
v.   Lincoln,   etc.,   Co.,   82    Me.    504; 
Allen  v.  Fairbanks,  45  Fed.  R.  445; 
Haldeman  v.  Ainslie,  82  Ky.  395.  But 
see  Christensen  v.  Quintard,  29  N.  Y. 


§  91  STOCK.  131 

the  United  States,  in  a  recent,  yet  much  criticised  case,  that 
"an  active  corporation  may,  for  the  purpose  of  paying  its 
debts  and  obtaining  money  for  the  successful  prosecution  of 
its  business,  issue  its  stock  and  dispose  of  it  for  the  best  price 
that  can  be  obtained,"  and  that  it  may  give  the  purchaser 
paid-up  stock  as  a  bonus  without  making  him  liable  on  such 
stock.1 

§  91.  Stock  paid  for  by  overvalued  property — Sale  of  stock 
on  market. — Where  the  stock  is  paid  for  in  property  at  a 
fraudulent  overvaluation,  the  corporate  creditor  may  compel 
a  rescission  of  the  sale  in  toto,*  and  the  restoration  of  the  stock 
or  its  actual  value,8  unless  he  knew  of  the  manner  in  which 
payment  was  made  for  the  stock  before  he  became  a  creditor.* 
It  has  also  been  stated  broadly  that  the  creditor  must  affirm  in 
toto  or  rescind  in  toto  and  that  he  can  not  hold  the  owner  of 
such  stock  liable  as  for  an  unpaid  subscription.5  But  most  of 
the  cases  relied  upon  in  support  of  this  doctrine  are  cases  in 
which  the  stock  was  not  issued  upon  an  ordinary  subscription, 

8.  B.  61,  where  it  is  held  that  a  reduc-  ence  between  the  value  of  the  prop- 

tion  of  forty  per  cent,  in  the  price  of  erty  or  labor  given  in  exchange  for 

stock  and  bonds  was  a  donation  by  the  stock  and  its  par  value,  even  where 

corporation  to  induce  him  to  take  the  no  fraud  is  proven,  but  this  is  against 

stock,  and  a  judgment  creditor  can  the  weight  of   authority.     See,  also, 

not  claim  it  in  payment  of  his  debt.  Libby  v.  Tobey,  82  Me.  397,  s.  c.  19 

See,  also,  Christensen  v.  Eno,  106  N.  Atl.  B.  904. 

Y.  97.  *  Bank  of  Fort  Madison  v.  Alden, 

1  Handley  v.  Stutz,  139  U.  S.  417.  129  U.  S.  372,  s.  c.  9  Sup.  Ct.  B.  332. 

See,   also,   Hospes  v.  Northwestern,  5  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

etc.,  Co.,  48  Minn.  174,  50  N.  W.  B.  §46;  1  Beach  on  Private  Corporations, 

1117 ;  Coe  v.  East  &  W.  B.  B.  Co.,  52  §  120 ;  Coffin  v.  Bansdell,  110  Ind.  417. 

Fed.  B.  531.  See  criticismin  2  Thomp.  In  Fogg  v.  Blair,  139  U.  S.  118,  s.  c.  11 

'Corp.,  §'2092.  Sup.Ct.  B.  476,  the  stock  was  not  shown 

2Currie's    Case,   3  De  G.,  J.  &  S.  to  be  of  any  value  and  the  court  said 

367 ;  Van  Cott  v.  Van  Brunt,  82  N.  Y.  that  the  creditors  were  not,  therefore, 

535 ;  Phelan  v.  Hazard,  5  Dill.  (U.  S.)  wronged.    In  Anderson's  Case,  L.  B.  7 

45;  Coffin  v.  Bansdell,  110  Ind.  417.  Ch.  Div.  75,  the  court  said  that  the 

s  In  Iowa  (Osgood  v.  King,  42  Iowa  contract  was  for  paid-up  stock  and  to 
478)  and  in  Missouri  (Shickle  v. Watts,  hold  the  owner  liable  as  a  "contrib- 
94  Mo.  410)  it  is  held  that  the  court  utory"  would  be  to  make  a  new  con- 
will  decree  the  payment  of  the  differ-  tract. 


132  THE   CORPORATION.  §  91 

but  in  payment  for  the  construction  of  the  road,  or  the  like,1 
and,  whatever  may  be  the  rule  in  such  cases,  it  seems  unjust 
and  in  violation  of  true  principle,  to  extend  it  to  ordinary  sub- 
scriptions.2 It  is  a  questionable  doctrine  at  the  best,  and,  upon 
principle,  a  subscriber  who  fraudulently  pays  his  subscription 
in  grossly  overvalued  property,  or  property  which  is  practi- 
cally worthless  or  of  so  little  value  that  the  transaction  should 
be  presumed  to  be  fraudulent,  and  receives  paid-up  stock  there- 
for, ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  take  advantage  of  his  own  fraud 
and  thus  occupy  a  better  position  than  one  who  has  paid  cash 
and  acted  in  good  faith,  but  should,  on  the  contrary,  be  held 
liable  to  creditors  whom  he  has  misled  for  the  entire  subscrip- 
tion, where  the  property  is  worthless,  and,  it  would  seem,  for 
the  difference  between  the  value  of  the  property  and  the  par 
value  of  the  stock,  in  other  cases,  if  the  corporation  is  insolv- 
ent.8 But,  in  the  absence  of  fraud,  paid-up  stock  may  be  paid 
for  in  property  such  as  the  corporation  may  use,  and  it  will 
make  no  difference  that  the  property  afterwards  turns  out  to  be 
of  less  value  than  was  supposed.4  The  court,  in  such  a  case, 

1  Fogg  v.  Blair,  139  U.  S.  118,  s.  c.  11    the  same  court  has  both  law  and  equity 
Sup.   Ct.    R.  476;   Van    Cott  v.  Van    jurisdiction  and  can  give  full  relief  in 
Brunt,   82  N.  Y.  535;  Barr  v.   New    one  proceeding. 

York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  263.  8  Camden  t».  Stuart,  144  U.  S.  104; 

2  See  Lloyd  v.  Preston,  146  U.  S.  630,  Clayton  v.  Ore.,  etc.,  Co.,  109  N.  C.  385,- 
s.  c.  13  Sup.  Ct.  R.  131;  Camden  v.  14  S.  E.  R.  36;  Boulton,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Stuart,  144  U.  S.  104;  Elyton,  etc.,  Co.  Mills,  78  Iowa  460,  s.  c.  43  N.  W.  R. 
c.  Birmingham,  etc.,  Co.,  92  Ala.  407,  290, 5  L.  R.  A.  649 ;  Chisholm  v.  Forny, 
9  So.  R.  129;  Garrett  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  65  Iowa  333;  Jackson  v.Traer,  64  Iowa 
Co.,  113  Mo.  330,  20  S.  W.  R.  965 ;  Go-  469;  Osgood  v.  King,  42  Iowa 478 ;  First 
gebic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Iron  Chief,    etc.,  Nat.   Bank   v.   Gustin,   etc.,  Co.,  42 
Co.,  78  Wis.  427,  s.  c.  47  N.W.  R.  726.  Minn.  327,  44  N.  W.  R.  198;  Peninsu- 
These  cases  would  also  seem  to  deny  lar,  etc.,   Bank    v.    Black,  etc.,  Co., 
the  universal  application  of  the  al-  (Mich.)  63  N.  W.  R.  514.      See,  also, 
leged  rule  stated  in  Coffin  v.  Ransdell,  Bates  v.  Great  Western  Tel.  Co.,  134 
110  Ind.  417;  Scovill  v.  Thayer,  105  111.  536,  s.  c.  25  N.  E.  R.  521 ;  McAvity 
U.  S.  143,  and  other  cases  cited  in  a  v.  Lincoln  Pulp,  etc.,  Co.,  82  Me.  504, 
previous    note,   that  the  transaction  s.  c.  20  Atl.  R.  82;  Douglass  v.  Ire- 
must  first  be  set  aside  as  fraudulent  land,  73  N.Y.  100;  Gamble  v.  Queens, 
in  a  proceeding  for  that  purpose  be-  etc.,  Co.,  123  N.  Y.  91,  s.  c.  25  N.  E. 
fore  the  subscriber  can  be  held  liable  R.  201,  9  L.  R.  A.  527. 

in  any  event,  and  we  see  no  reason        *Coit  -o.  North  Carolina  Gold,  etc., 
for  such  rule  in  the  code  states  where    Co.,  14  Fed.  R.  12,  affirmed  in  119  U. 


$92 


STOCK. 


133 


"will  treat  that  as  payment  which  the  parties  have  agreed 
should  be  payment."1  And  it  has  been  held  that  the  fact  that 
one  to  whom  such  stock  is  issued  returns  a  portion  of  it  as  a 
gift  to  the  corporation  to  sell  below  par  and  place  the  pro- 
ceeds in  the  corporate  treasury  does  not  necessarily  prove  that 
the  property  was  overvalued.*  A  corporation  may. also  distrib- 
ute to  its  shareholders,  or  sell  on  the  market,  shares  of  stock 
which  it  has  purchased  under  legislative  authority,8  or  which 
have  been  forfeited  to  it  for  non-payment  of  calls.4 

§92.  Sale  and  transfer  of  stock. — Shares  of  stock  (unless 
declared  by  statute  to  be  real  estate)  are  personal  property,* 
and  are  subject  to  purchase  and  sale  by  natural  persons  as 
other  personal  property,  and  the  right  of  the  shareholder  to 
sell  and  transfer  his  stock  can  not  be  restrained  by  a  by-law 
of  the  corporation.'  But  reasonable  regulations  may  be  made 

5  Ante,  §  79 ;  note  to  In  re  Klaus,  26 
Am.L.Reg.(N.S.)98, 104.  Andassuch 


S.  343;  Bickleyr.  Schlag,  (N.  J.)  20 
Atl.  R.  250;  Clow  v.  Brown,  134  Ind. 


287,  31  N.  E.  R.  361 ;  Commonwealth    they  are  generally  held  in  America  to 


•».  Central  Pass.  Ry.,  52  Pa.  St.  506; 
Drummond's  Case,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  Ap. 
772;  Young  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  65  Mich. 
Ill,  s.  c.  31  N.  W.  R.  814;  Whitehill 
•».  Jacobs,  75  Wis.  474,  s.  c.  44  N.  W. 
R.  630;  Schenck  v.  Andrews,  57  N. 
Y.  133. 

1  Phelan  v.  Hazard,  5  Dill.  (TJ.  S.) 
45,  s.  c.  6  Cent.  L.  J.  109 ;  Brant  v. 
Ehlen,  59  Md.  1 ;  Coffin  v.  Ransdell, 
110  Ind.  417;  Peck  v.  Coalfield  Coal 
Co.,  11  111.  App.  88. 

2  Lake  Superior  Iron  Co.  v.  Drexel, 
90  N.  Y.  87 ;  Williams  v.  Taylor,  120 
N.  Y.  244.     See,  also,  Davis  v.  Mont- 
gomery, etc.,  Co.,  101  Ala.  127,  8  So.  R. 
496.     But  compare  Ailing  v.  Wenzel. 
133  111.  264;  Ailing  v.  Ward,  30  Am. 
&  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  133. 

8  Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  142  Mass.  146. 
4  Ramwell's  Case,  50  L.  J.(Ch.)  827 ; 


be  included  in  the  phrase  "goods, 
wares  and  merchandise  "  in  the  stat- 
ute of  frauds.  Baltzen  v.  Nicolay,  53 
N.  Y.  467 ;  Tisdale  v.  Harris,  20  Pick. 
(Mass.)  9;  Norths.  Forest,  15  Conn. 
400;  Mason  v.  Decker,  72  N.  Y.  595, 
s.  c.  28  Am.  R.  190;  Boardman  v. 
Cutter,  128  Mass.  388 ;  Hinchman  v, 
Lincoln,  124  U.  S.  38;  Pray  v.  Mitch- 
ell, 60  Me.  430.  But  see  Vawter  v. 
Griffin,  40  Ind.  593,  602;  Green  v. 
Brookins,  23  Mich.  48,  s.  c.  9  Am.  R. 
74 ;  Gadsden  v.  Lance,  1  McMull.  Eq. 
(S.  Car.)  87,  s.  c.  37  Am.  Dec.  548. 
Statute  does  not  apply  to  agreement 
to  take  back  or  repurchase.  Fitzpat- 
rick  v.  Woodruff,  96  N.  Y.  561 ;  Meyer 
v.  Blair,  109  X.  Y.  600,  s.  c.  4  Am.  St. 
R.  500;  Thorndike*.  Locke,  98  Mass. 
340 ;  Richter  v.  Frank,  41  Fed.  R.  859 ; 
Fay  v.  Wheeler,  44  Vt.  292. 
6  Morgan  v.  Struthers,  131  U.  S.  246, 


Otter  v.  Brevoort,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Barb.  252,  s.  c.  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  726 ;  In  re  Klaus, 
(N.  Y.)  247;  People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  67  Wis.  401,  29  N.  W.  R.  582;  Gould 
R.  R.  Co.,  55  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  344,  371.  v.  Head,  41  Fed.  R.  240,  247;  Feck- 


134 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§92 


regarding  the  formalities  of  transfer  and  registration,1  and 
such  matters  are  frequently  provided  for  in  the  charter  or  by 
statute.2  The  transfer,  in  order  to  relieve  the  transferer  from 
further  liability,  must  usually  be  absolute,8  and  to  a  person 
capable  of  succeeding  to  his  liabilities.4  Where  the  shares 
are  not  fully  paid-up  a  transfer  to  an  insolvent  person,  or 
"man  of  straw,"  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  liability,  can  not 
be  made  so  as  to  relieve  the  transferer  from  liability  to  credit- 
ors upon  his  stock.5  But,  as  a  general  rule,  a  regular  transfer 
of  shares  of  corporate  stock  will  not  be  disturbed  by  the  courts 
unless  it  is  satisfactorily  shown  that  it  was  conditional,  de- 
signed to  serve  as  collateral  or  pledge  to  secure  a  payment,  or 
was  simulated  and  not  intended  to  transfer  the  ownership. * 


heimer  v.  Nat.  Exch.  Bank,  79  Va.  80; 
Moore  v.  Bank,  52  Mo.  377 ;  Sargent 
v.  Franklin  Ins.  Co.,  8  Pick.  (Mass.) 
90,  s.  c.  19  Am.  Dec.  306.  Such  a  by- 
law would  be  in  restraint  of  trade  and 
contrary  to  public  policy.  But  an 
agreement  between  members  not  to 
sell  except  on  certain  conditions  may 
be  valid  if  not  in  unreasonable  re- 
straint of  trade.  1  Cook  on  Stock  and 
Stockholders,  §332.  See,  also,  Dane 
v.  Young,  61  Me.  160;  Metropolitan, 
etc.,  Bank  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  36 
Fed.  R.  722;  New  England  Trust  Co. 
v.  Abbott,  162  Mass.  148,  s.  c.  27  L.  R. 
A.  271,  and  note.  The  right  to  sell 
and  transfer  stock  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany can  not  be  exercised  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  public  in  a  manner 
prohibited  by  law,  and  illegal  agree- 
ments for  "corners"  in  stock  and  the 
like  will  not  be  enforced.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 
(Pa.),  7  Atl.  R.  368;  Town  Coun- 
cil v.  Elliott,  5  Ohio  St.  113;  Sampson 
v.  Shaw,  101  Mass.  145 ;  Leonard  v . 
Poole,  114  N.  Y.  371.  But  see  Have- 
meyer  v.  Havemeyer,  11  J.  &  S.  (N. 
Y.)  506,  s.  c.  13  J.  &  S.  464,  86  N.  Y. 
618.  As  to  such  contracts  and  wager 
or  gambling  contracts  generally,  see 


1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§§333,341-348. 

1  Dane  v.  Young,  61  Me.  160 ;  Plant- 
ers', etc.  Co.,  v.  Selma  Sav.  Bank,  63 
Ala. 585;  Bishopt?.  Globe,  etc., Co.,  135 
Mass.  132,  s.  c.  5  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cas.  161. 

2  Shepherd's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Eq.  564; 
Smith  v.  Canada  Car  Co.,  6  Upper 
Can.  Pr.  R.  107 ;  Fractor's,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Marine,  etc;,  Co.,  31   La.  Ann.  149; 
Merrill  v.  Call,  15  Me.  428. 

8  National  Bank  v.  Case,  99  U.  S. 
628;  Billings  v.  Robinson,  94  N.  Y. 
415;  Veillerr.  Brown,  18  Hun  (N.Y.) 
571. 

4 1  Beach  Priv.  Corp.,  §128;  Tay- 
lor's Priv.  Corp.,  §747;  Article  in  & 
Cent.  L.  J.  182. 

5  Dauchy    v.   Brown,    24  Vt.    197 ; 
Marcy  v.  Clark,  17  Mass.  330 ;  Bowden 
v.  Johnson,    107  U.  S.  251 ;    Rider  v. 
Morrison,  54  Md.  429 ;  Gaff  v.  Flesher, 
33  Ohio  St.  107 ;    Aultman's  Appeal, 
98  Pa.  St.  505 ;    McClaren  v.  Francis- 
cus,  43  Mo.  452;  1  Beach  Priv.  Corp., 
§  127,  and  numerous  authorities  there 
cited. 

6  Small  v.   Saloy,  42  La.  Ann.  183, 
7  So.  R.  450.     See,  also,  Farmers'  L.  & 
T.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163  U. 
S.  31,  16  Sup.  Ct.  R.  917. 


92 


STOCK. 


135 


Stock  can  generally  be  completely  transferred  only  on  the 
books  of  the  corporation,  and  the  company  is  entitled  to  require 
proof  of  the  right  of  the  holder  of  certificates  to  demand  such 
a  transfer.1  If  it  permits  stock  to  be  transferred  to  one  having 
no  right  to  the  same,  it  will  be  liable  to  the  rightful  owner.2 


1  Buttrick  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
62  N.  H.  413 ;  Telegraph  Co.  v.  Daven- 
port, 97  U.  S.  369;  Davis  v.  Bank  of 
England,  2  Bing.  393;  Bayard  r. 
Farmers',  etc.,  Bank,  52  Pa.  St.  232. 
Transfers  of  stock  in  corporations  or- 
ganized under  Ky.  Gen.  Stat.,  chap. 
56,  are  valid  against  creditors  as  well 
as  between  the  parties,  although  not 
recorded  in  the  books  of  the  com- 
pany. Thurber  v.  Crump,  86  Ky.  408. 
One  acting  as  the  agent  of  a  trust  com- 
pany, to  enable  it  to  perpetrate  a 
fraud  or  wrong  on  the  rights  of  a 
stockholder,  and  who  has  thus  ac- 
quired possession  of  certificates  of 
stock,  can  not  compel  a  transfer  of 
the  stock  to  him  on  the  books  of  the 
corporation.  Gould  v.  Head,  (C.  C. 
D.  Colo.)  7  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  402, 
41  Fed.  R.  240.  If  the  corporation  re- 
fuses to  make  the  transfer,  upon 
proper  request,  the  party  entitled  to 
have  it  made  has  his  remedy,  although 
there  is  considerable  conflict  among 
the  authorities  as  to  whether  it  is  by 
mandamus,  by  suit  in  equity,  or  by 
an  action  at  law  for  damages.  See  1 
Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§§389-392;  Green  Mount,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Bulla,  45  Ind.  1;  State  v.  Cheraw, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  16  S.  Car.  524;  Cush- 
man  v.  Thayer,  etc.,  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  365; 
Iron  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Fink,  41  Ohio  St. 
321 ;  Hoppin  v.  Buffum,  9  R.  I.  513,  s. 
c.  11  Am.  R.  291 ;  Re  St.  Lawrence, 
etc.,  Co.,  44  N.  J.  L.  529 ;  Doty  v.  First 
Nat.  Bank,  3  N.  Dak.  9,  53  N.  W. 
R.  77;  Rio  Grande,  etc., Co.  v.  Burns, 
82  Tex.  50,  17  S.  W.  R.  1043. 

» Pratt  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126 


Mass.  443;  Midland  R.  Co.  t>.  Taylor, 
8  H.  L.  Cases  751,  affirming  Taylor  v. 
Midland  R.  Co.,  29  L.  J.  Ch.  731,  ante, 
§  80.  Where  an  executor  surrenders 
stock  to  a  reorganization  committee 
of  a  corporation,  taking  therefor  ne- 
gotiable certificates  redeemable  after 
a  reorganizattion  by  a  new  issue  of 
stock,  and  after  his  removal  from  the 
executorship,  transfers  the  certifi- 
cates, which,  after  several  transfers, 
are  taken  up  by  the  corporation  and 
new  stock  issued  to  the  holders  in  lieu 
thereof,  the  corporation  is  liable  to 
the  legatees  for  the  value  of  the  stock 
at  the  time  of  the  transfer  on  the 
books  of  the  company.  Mobile  &  O. 
R.  Co.  v.  Humphries.  (Miss.),  7 
So.  R.  522.  If  a  corporation  negli- 
gently cancels  a  person's  stock  and 
issues  certificates  therefor  to  a  third 
party,  the  true  owner  may  bring  action 
against  the  corporation  to  compel  re- 
placement of  his  stock  or  its  value. 
St.  Romes  v.  Levee  Steam  Cotton- 
Press  Co.,  127 U.  S.  614,  32  L.  Ed.  289. 
An  agent,  with  power  of  attorney 
authorizing  him  to  sell  and  transfer 
stock  and  other  securities  and  prop- 
erty, caused  stock  belonging  to  the 
principal  to  be  transferred  to  himself 
on  the  books  of  the  company,  without 
the  knowledge  of  the  principal.  The 
court  held  that  the  corporation  was 
liable  to  the  original  stockholder. 
Tafft  v.  Presidio  &  F.  R.  Co.,  84  Cal. 
131 ;  Revering  22  Pac.  485,  where  it 
was  held  that  the  power  was  sufficient 
to  authorize  a  transfer  to  the  the  agent, 
and  the  fact  that  such  agent  was  a 
director  of  the  corporation  would  not 


136  THE    CORPORATION.  §  93 

"The  act  of  a  corporation  in  transferring  shares  of  stock  with- 
out the  authority  of  the  owner  is  not  ratified  by  the  latter 's 
having  told  another  agent  than  the  one  on  whose  application 
the  transfer  was  made  that  he  would  not  hold  him  responsible 
for  delivering  the  certificates  to  the  agent  who  applied  for  the 
transfer."1 

§  93.  Who  may  own  and  transfer  shares. — Married  women 
are  generally  enabled  to  become  the  owners  of  shares  of  stock, 
by  the  statutes  of  the  various  states,8  and  also  to  a  limited  de- 
gree in  England.8  Purchases  and  sales  of  stock  by  an  infant 
are  voidable  at  any  time  during  infancy,*  or  within  a  reasona- 
ble time  after  becoming  of  age,5  as  are  his  other  contracts. 
The  corporation,  it  has  been  held,  is  bound  to  know  of  the  in- 
ability of  a  person  who  is  non  compos  mentis  to  make  a  valid 
transfer,  and  may  become  liable  if  it  permits  a  registry.6  A 
sale  of  stock  by  a  drunken  person  will  be  set  aside,  unless 
fairly  made  and  for  a  sufficient  consideration.7  An  unrecorded 
transfer,  made  in  good  f aith  before  assignment  by  an  insolvent, 
will  be  protected.8  But  if  the  transferee  delay  unreasonably 

charge  it  with  notice.     A  corporation  Pine  River  Bank,  45  N.  H.  300;  Cook 

may  also  be  liable  to  the  transferee  on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  §  319. 

where  it  represents  that  a  forged  cer-  3  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders* 

tificate  is  genuine.     Mut.   Life   Ins.  §319. 

Co.  v.  Forty-second  St.,  etc.,  Co.,  74  *  Birkenhead,  etc.,    R.   Co.   v.  Pil- 

Hun  505,  explaining  Fifth  Ave.  Bank  cher,    5    Ex.   24.     Voidable  and   not 

v.  Forty-second  St.,  etc.,  Co.,  137  N.  void.   Smith  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Y.  231.  (Tenn.),  18  S.  W.  R.  546;  Lumsden's 

1  Quay  v.  Presidio  &  F.  R.  Co.,  82  Case,  L.  R.,  4  Ch.  App.  C.  31. 

Cal.  1,  22  Pac.  925.  5  Dublin,  etc.,  R.  Co  v.  Black,  8  Ex. 

2  Witters  v.  Sowles,  38  Fed.  R.  700,  181.    But  if  he  does  not  so  disaffirm 
construing  law  of  Vermont.     A  mar-  within  a  reasonable  time  (in  this  case 
ried  woman  has  the  legal  capacity  to  ten  months)  he  will  be  bound.    Eb- 
receive  a  transfer  of  stock  in  moneyed  bett's  Case,  L.  R.  5  Chan.  App.  C.  302. 
corporations  though  the  consideration  Even  a  sale  by  transfer  of  the  certifi- 
may  have  been  paid  entirely  by  the  cate    is    not   binding  on  an    infant, 
husband.     Keyser  v.  Hitz,  133  U.  S.  Smith  v.  Baker,  42  Hun  504. 

138,  33  L.  Ed.  531.  The  wife's  capacity  6Chew«.  Bank  of  Baltimore,  14  Md. 

to  hold  and  transfer  stock  is  generally  299. 

determined  by  the  law  of  her  domicile,  'Thackrah  v.  Haas,  119  U.S.  499. 

but  that  of  the  domicile  of  the  corpora-  8  Dickinson  v.  Central  Nat.  Bank, 

tion  should  also  be  consulted.     Hill  v.  129  Mass.  279,  s.  c.  37  Am.  R.  351. 


§94 


STOCK. 


137 


to  claim  his  stock,  it  may  be  awarded  to  the  assignee.1  An 
officer  or  director  of  the  company  may  buy  and  sell  its  stock 
like  any  other  person,  if  he  acts  in  good  faith  and  does  not  mis- 
lead the  person  with  whom  he  deals,2  and  he  is  not  bound  to 
disclose  information  received  by  him  as  such  officer.8  A  part- 
ner may  also  sell  and  transfer  partnership  stock,4  but  a  joint 
owner  can  not  transfer  the  interest  of  the  other  joint  owner  of 
stock  registered  in  the  name  of  both.5  Stock  may  be  bought  or 
sold  by  means  of  an  agent,6  and  the  principal  will  be  bound  by 
the  acts  of  the  agent  done  in  excess  of  his  authority,  if  the  agent 
was  clothed  with  apparent  authority  and  the  limitations  im- 
posed were  unknown  to  the  person  dealing  with  him  in  good 
faith.7 

§  94.    Purchase  and  sale  by  trustees  and  fiduciaries. — The 

common  law  rule  is  that  guardians,  executors  and  trustees  may 
not  use  trust  funds  for  the  purchase  of  shares  of  stock,8  nor 
sell  shares  which  form  a  part  of  the  trust  estate,9  except  as  em- 

1  Shipman  v.  -<Etna  Ins.  Co.,  29 
Conn.  245. 

2Trisconi  v.  Winship,  43  La.  Ann. 
45,  s.  c.  33  Am.  Eng.  Corp.  Gas.  271; 
In  re  Cawley,  L.  R.,  42  Ch.  Div.  209; 
Board  v.  Reynolds,  44  Ind.  509 ;  Car- 
penter v.  Danforth,  52  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
581 ;  Crowell  ».  Jackson,  53  N.  J.  656, 
23  Atl.  R.  426.  But  see  Grant  v. 
Attrill,  11  Fed.  R.  469;  Gilbert's 
Case.L.R.  5  Ch.  App.C.  559 ;  In  re  South 
London,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  39  Ch.  Div. 
324,  s.  c.  60  L.  T.  R.  N.  S.  68 ;  Fisher 
v.  Budlong,  10  R.  I.  525 ;  Prewett  v. 
Trimble,  92  Ky.  176,  17  S.  W.  R.  356. 

3  Board,  etc.,  v.  Reynolds,  44  Ind. 
509. 

4  Quiner  v.  Marblehead  Social  Ins. 
Co.,  10  Mass.  476. 

5  Comstock  v.  Buchanan,  57  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  127;  Standing  v.  Bowring,  L. 
R.,  27  Ch.  Div.  341.     In  most  of  the 
states,  a    joint-tenancy  can  only  be 
created  by  an  express  statement  or  a 
manifest  intention  to  create  an  estate 


limited    to    the    survivor.    Stinson's 
Am.  Stat.  Law,  §  1371. 

6  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
Ch.  25.     An  agent  has  no  further  real 
interest  in  stock  standing  in  his  name 
than  he  has  in  any  other  property  of 
his  principal  in  his  hands.    Cook  on 
Stock  and  Stockholders,  Ch.  25,  §321. 

7  McNeil  v.  Tenth  National   Bank, 
46  N.  Y.  325 ;  Strange  v.  Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  53  Tex.  162,  where  the  owner 
of  a  certificate  of  stock  in  an  incor- 
porated company,  placed  his  certifi- 
cate, with  a  blank  transfer  indorsed 
thereon,  in  the  hands  of  an  agent  for 
sale ;  the  agent  filled  the  blank  with 
his  own  name,  and  afterward  indorsed 
thereon  a  transfer  from  himself  to  a 
bona  fide  purchaser,  and  it  was  held 
that  such  purchaser  took  a  good  title 
to  the  stock. 

"Trafford    v.     Boehm,   3  Atk.  440 
(1746). 
9  Bohlen's  Estate,  75  Penn.  St.  304. 


138  THE    CORPORATION.  §  94 

powered  to  do  so  by  the  statute,1  or  by  the  instrument  creating 
the  trust,  or  directed  to  do  so  by  a  court  of  chancery.8  It  is 
held  under  the  English  Companies  Act  of  1845,  para- 
graph 18,  that  when  the  names  of  the  executors  of  a  deceased 
shareholder  in  a  company  are  placed  on  the  register  of  share- 
holders in  respect  of  shares,  which  belonged  to  their  testator, 
they  become  joint-shareholders  in  their  individual  capacity, 
although  they  may  be  described  as  executors  in  the  register  ; 
and,  consequently,  the  shares  can  only  be  transferred  by  means 
of  a  transfer  executed  by  all  of  them.8  If  a  sale  of  shares  held 
in  trust  be  made  by  the  trustee  without  authority  he  may  be 
compelled  to  restore  the  stock  with  dividends,  or  to  pay  over 
the  amount  received  therefor  with  interest,  at  the  election  of 
the  cestui  que  trust.11  And  the  same  rule  is  enforced  where  the 
stock  is  sold  in  breach  of  the  trust  and  converted  to  the  use  of 
the  trustee,  even  though  he  was  empowered  to  sell.5  A  bona 
fide  purchaser  from  a  trustee  without  notice  takes  a  good  title 
to  the  stock  transferred.6  But  anything  which  is  sufficient  to 
put  the  purchaser  upon  inquiry  that  would,  if  reasonably  pur- 
sued, disclose  the  real  facts,  will  amount  to  constructive  notice.7 

1  See  22  and  23  Victoria,   Ch.   35,    also,  Boggs  v.  Adger,  4  Rich.  Eq.  (S- 
Sec.  32,  23  and  24  Victoria,  Ch.  38.          C.)  408,   and   dictum  in  Hunt,   Ap- 

2  This  is   the  rule  of  law  in  many    pellant,  141  Mass.  515. 

of  the  states  at  the  present  time.  King  8  Barton  v.  London  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

t?.  Talbot,  40  N.  Y.  76;  Ihmsen's  Ap-  L.  R.  24  Q.  B.  D.  77. 

peal,  43  Pa.  St.  431 ;  Ward  ».  Kitchen,  *  Harrison  v.  Harrison,  2  Atk.  121 ; 

30  N.  J.  Eq.  31 ;  Kimball  v.  Reding,  31  Hart  v.  Ten  Eyck,  2  Johns.  Ch.  62, 

N.  H.  352;  Allen  v.  Gaillard,  1  S.  C.  117;  Pinkett  v.  Wright,  2  Hare  120; 

(Rich.  N.  S.)  279 ;  Tucker  v.  State,  ex,  McKim  v.  Hibbard,  Exr.,  142  Mass. 

rel.  Hart,  72  Ind.  242.    This  rule  stated  422. 

in  the  text  obtains  generally  in  the  5  McKim   v.    Hibbard,    Exr.,     142 

United  States  and  England.     Hill  on  Mass.  422. 

Trustees,  Marginal  page  369;  Perry  on  6  Smith  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91 
Trusts  407,  Sec.  552,  553.  Some^of  Tenn.  221 ;  Salisbury  Mills  v.  Town- 
the  states  have  upheld  the  rule  that  send,  109  Mass.  115;  Cook  on  Stock 
trustees  may  invest  the  trust  funds  and  Stockholders,  §  325.  The  rule  is 
in  stocks  without  special  authority,  otherwise  in  England  until  the  pur- 
Washington  v.  Emery,  4  Jones  Eq.  chaser  has  obtained  registry.  Shrop- 
(N.  Car.  )  32;  Gray  v.  Lynch,  8  Gill  shire  Union  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Queen,  L. 
(Md.)  403;  Smyth  v.  Burns,  25  Miss.  R.  7  H.  L.  496;  Roots  v.  Williamson, 
422;  Lamar  v.  Micou,  112  U.  S.  452,  58  L.  T.  Rep.  802. 
and  114  U.  S.  218  (Ga.  and  Ala.).  See,  'Where  the  stockholder  is  termed 


§94 


STOCK. 


139 


If  the  trustee  has  authority  to  transfer  the  stock  for  any  pur- 
pose, the  purchaser  may  assume  that  the  proceeds  of  the  sale 
will  be  properly  disposed  of,1  and  he  will  be  protected  unless  he 
knows  that  the  sale  or  pledge  is  to  procure  means  for  the  pri- 
vate debts  or  purposes  of  the  trustee.2  The  corporation  is  lia- 
ble to  the  cestui  que  trust,  if,  with  notice  that  stock  is  held  in 
trust,  it  permits  such  stock  to  be  transferred  on  the  books  of 
the  company  by  the  trustee  without  authority.*  The  word 
"trustee"  following  the  holder's  name  is  sufficient  notice;4  and 


in  the  certificate  a  "trustee"  or  stated 
therein  to  hold  the  shares  "in  trust," 
this  is  notice  of  everything,  which, 
upon  inquiry,  the  purchaser  could  as- 
certain from  the  cestui  que  trust.  Shaw 
v.  Spencer,  100  Mass.  382;  Jaudon  v. 
National  City  Bank,  8  Blatch.  (U.  S.) 
430;  Duncan  v.  Jaudon,  15  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  165,176;  Gerard t>.  McCormick,  130 
N.  Y.  261. 

1  Perry  on  Trusts  (3d.  Ed.),  §225; 
Ashton  v.  Atlantic  Bank,  3  Allen  (85 
Mass.)  217. 

8  Simons  v.  Southwestern  R.  Bank,  5 
Rich.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  270;  Jaudon  v.  Na- 
tional City  Bank,  8  Blatch.  (U.S.)  450; 
s.  c.  Duncan  v.  Jaudon,  15  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  165.  • 

3  May  wood  v.  Railroad  Bank,  5  S. 
Car.  379;  Chapman  v.  City  Council, 
30  S.  Car.  549,  6  S.  E.  Rep.  158 ;  Boh- 
len's  Estate,  75  Pa.  St.  304;  Barton  v. 
North,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  38  Ch.  D. 
458,  58  L.  T.  Rep.  549.  See  Bird 
v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  Mass. 
428,  Weyer  v.  Second  Nat.  Bank, 
57  Ind.  198;  Marbury  v.  Ehlen,  72 
Md.  206, 19  Atl.  648.  A  corporation 
having  issued  stock  certificates  show- 
ing on  their  face  that  they  were  to  be 
taken  by  the  holder  as  devisee  under 
and  subject  to  the  provisions  of  a  cer- 
tain will,  is  chargeable  with  notice  of 
the  contents  of  such  will  and  of  the 


r  trusts  imposed  thereby,  in  all  subse- 
quent dealings  with  such  shares  of 
stock,  and  is  liable  for  a  conversion  by 
a  trustee  to  the  prejudice  of  the  rights 
of  the  cestui  que  trust,  of  which  it  has 
notice,  where  it  aids  such  conversion 
by  transfer  of  the  stock  and  reissu- 
ance  of  certificates.  Caulkins  v.  Gas- 
light Co.,  85  Tenn.  683,  4  Am.  St. 
Rep.  786.  Generally  the  corporation 
is  not  chargeable  with  liability  for 
transferring  stock  in  violation  of 
trusts,  of  which  it  had  no  actual  no- 
tice. Peck  v.  Providence  Gas  Co.,  17 
R.  I.  275.  Where  the  administrator 
of  an  estate  transferred  certain  shares 
of  stock  to  the  "heirs  and  distributees" 
of  his  decedent's  estate,  it  was  held 
that  the  corporation  was  not  bound  to 
hold  the  stock  subject  to  a  trust  im- 
posed by  the  will  of  the  decedent,  of 
which  it  had  no  actual  knowledge, 
but  was  justified  in  transferring  her 
proportion  of  the  stock  to  the  grantee 
of  the  decedent's  daughter.  Smith  v. 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Tenn.  221. 

*Loring  v.  Salisbury  Mills,  125 
Mass.  138.  The  fact  that  the  transfer 
is  made  some  years  after  the  execu- 
tion of  the  trust  should  have  been 
completed,  is  notice.  Lowry  v.  Com- 
mercial, etc.,  Bank, etc.,  Taney's  Dec. 
(U.  S.)  310. 


140  THE    CORPORATION.  §  95 

formal  notice  to  a  board  of  directors  is  notice  to  the  corpora- 
tion under  all  future  boards.1 

§  95.   Right  of   corporation   to  buy  and  sell  stock. — In 

England  it  is  held  that  a  corporation  can  not  buy  shares  of 
its  own  stock,2  unless  expressly  empowered  to  do  so.  In  case 
of  a  transfer  of  stock  to  the  corporation8  or  to  a  trustee  in  trust 
for  it,  where  this  rule  prevails,  the  transferor  is  liable  on  the 
subscription,  and  on  the  statutory  liability  in  case  of  in- 
solvency to  the  same  extent  as  if  he  still  held  the  stock,4  unless 
the  corporation  has  authority  by  charter  or  otherwise  to  make 
the  purchase.5  Where,  however,  he  does  not  know  that  the 
trustee  takes  the  stock  in  trust  for  the  corporation,  but  believes 
him  to  be  a  bona  fide  purchaser,  the  seller  is  not  so  liable.6 
The  trustee  accepting  such  a  conveyance7  and  the  directors 
procuring  it8  are  also  personally  liable  to  the  corporation  and 
its  creditors  on  all  shares  so  conveyed.  A  person  who  has 
been  employed  by  a  railroad  company  to  buy  the  stock  of  a 
certain  person  for  the  purpose  of  consummating  a  sale  of  the 
corporate  property,  who  buys  such  stock  in  his  own  name, 
must  be  regarded  as  holding  it  subject  to  the  equitable  con- 
siderations growing  out  of  an  arrangement  previously  made  by 
his  vendor  with  parties  acting  in  the  interest  of  the  corpora- 
tion, and  the  most  that  he  can  have  after  a  transfer  of  the  cor- 
porate property  is  the  fair  value  of  the  stock  at  the  time  of 

1  Mechanic's  Bank,  etc.,  v.  Seton,  1        5  Grady's  Case,  1  De  G.,  J.  &  S.  488. 
Pet.  (U.  S.)  299.  6  Johnson  v.  Laflin,  103  U.  S.  800; 

2  Trevor   v.    Whitworth,  L.    R.    12    Nicol's  Case,  3  De  G.  &  J.  387. 

App.  C.  409,  57  L.  T.  R.  457 ;  Zulueta's  7  Crandall  v.  Lincoln,  52  Conn.  73 ; 

Claim,   L.  R.  5  Ch.  444.     See,  also,  Allibone    v.    Hager,   46   Pa.    St.   48; 

Coppin  v.  Greenlees,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Ohio  Matter  of  Empire  City  Bank,  18  N.  Y. 

St.  275;  German  Sav.  Bank  v.  Wulfe-  199,    226.      One    who    has  exercised 

kuhler,  19  Kan.  60;  Barton    v.  Port  ownership    of    stock  by  accepting  a 

Jackson,  etc.,  Co.,  17  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  dividend  can  not  deny  his  liability  as 

397.  owner.     Sanger  v.  Upton,  91  U.  S.  56, 

8  Dillon,  J.,  in  Johnson  v.  Laflin,  5  60. 

Dill.  (U.  S.)  65;  Great  Eastern  R.  Co.  8  Evans  v.  Coventry,  25  L.  J.  (Ch.) 

v.  Turner,  L.  R.  8  Ch.  App.  149.  489,  501.     So  the  corporate  agent  may 

*  Walters'  Second  Case,  3  De  G.  &  be  made  personally  liable  for  moneys 

6m.  244;  Hunt's  Case,  22  Beav.  55;  expended  by  him   for  such  stock. 

Daniell'a  Case,  22  Beav.  43.  Crandall  v.  Lincoln,  52  Conn.  73. 


§95 


STOCK. 


141 


such  transfer.1  But  the  better  American  authority2  is  to  the 
effect  that  a  railroad  company  may,  for  legitimate  purposes, 
purchase  shares  of  its  own  stock  which  have  been  issued  to 
individuals,3  unless  prohibited  by  statute.*  And  the  courts  of 
all  the  states  hold  that  a  corporation  may  take  shares  of  its 
own  stock  in  payment  of,  or  as  security  for,  antecedent  debts 
due  to  it  from  the  stockholder.5  But  it  has  been  held  that  such 
purchase  is  voidable  at  the  instance  of  corporate  creditors  who 
are  injured  thereby.6  Where  shares  of  its  own  stock  are  trans- 
ferred to  the  corporation7  or  to  a  trustee  for  its  benefit,  the  stock  is 
not  thereby  merged,  unless  such  is  the  intention,  but  may,  it  has 
been  held,  be  resold  by  authority  of  the  board  of  directors,8  or 
of  the  stockholders,  at  the  market  price,9  without  regard  to  its 


1  Young  v.  Toledo  &  S.  H.  R  Co.,  76 
Mich.  485,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  514. 

2  Clapp  v.  Peterson,  104  111.  26;  Du- 
pee  v.  Boston  Water-power  Co.,  114 
Mass.  37;  City  Bank  v,  Bruce,  17  N. 
Y.    507;    Eby    v.  Guest,    94  Pa.   St. 
160;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Salem,  etc., 
Co.,  39  Fed.  R.  89;  Hartridger.  Rock- 
well, R.  M.  Charlton  (Ga.)  260;  Far- 
mers', etc.,  Bank  v.  Champlain  Trans. 
Co.,  18  Vt.  131, 139;  Iowa  Lumber  Co. 
v.  Foster,  49  Iowa  25;  Snyderv.  Tuni- 
tas,  etc.,  Co.,  72  Cal.  194;  Blalock  v. 
Kernersville,  etc.,  Co.,  110  N.  Car.  99, 
s.  c.  36  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Gas.  84,  90, 
and  note,  where  the  authorities  on 
both  sides  of  the  question  are  col- 
lected. 

'Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  President, 
etc.,  Town  of  Marseilles,  84  111.  145. 

4  For  such  prohibition  see  Stimson 
Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §§  8216,  8217. 

5  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§  311.    A  promise  of  a  stockholder  to 
surrender  to  the  corporation  stock  on 
which  there  is  an  unpaid  assessment, 
which  stock  is  not  at  the  time  under 
his  control,  having  been  pledged  by 
him,  does  not  constitute  a  surrender 
of  such  stock,  as  against  a  subsequent 


purchaser  from  such  stockholder.  Hill 
v.  Atoka,  etc.,  Co.,  (Mo.  Sup.)  21  S.W. 
R.  508,  25  S.  W.  R.  926. 

6  Clapp  v.  Peterson,  104  111.  26.  See, 
also,  Crandall  v.  Lincoln,  52  Conn. 
73,  s.   c.  52  Am.  R.  560;   Heggie  v. 
People's,  etc.,  Ass'n,  107  N.  C.  581,  e.  c. 
32  Am.  Eng.  Corp.  Gas.  605;    Fraser 
v.  Ritchie,  8  111.  App.  554'.    So,  if  the 
corporation  is  insolvent  at  the  time. 
Currier  v.  Lebanon,  etc.,  Co.,  56  N.  H. 
262;  Alexander  v.  Relfe,  74  Mo.  495; 
In  re  Columbian  Bank,  147  Pa.  St.  422, 
23  Atl.  R.  626. 

7  State  Bank  of  Ohio  v.  Fox,  3  Blatch. 
(U.  S.)  431 ;  State  v.  Smith,  48  Vt.  266; 
Vail  v.  Hamilton,  85  N.  Y.  453;  Am. 
R.  Frog  Co.  v.  Haven,  101  Mass.  398. 

8  State  v.  Smith,  48  Vt.  266;    State 
Bank  of  Ohio  v.  Fox,  3  Blatch.  (U.  S.) 
431 ;  Williams  v.  Savage  Mfg.Co.,  3  Md. 
Ch.  418;  Jefferson  v.  Burford,  (Ky.) 
17  S.  W.  R.  855.     See,  also,  Vail  r. 
Hamilton,   85  N.   Y.  453;    Common- 
wealth v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  142 
Mass.  146;  City  Bank  v.  Bruce,  17  N. 
Y.  507. 

9  Ramwell's  Case,  50  L.  J.  (Ch.)  827 ; 
Otter  v.  Brevoort,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  247. 


142 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§95 


par  value.  But  such  stock,  until  resold,  is  said  to  be  lifeless  and 
can  not  be  voted,  nor  can  it  draw  dividends.1  A  railroad  com- 
pany may  not  purchase  stock  of  another  railroad  corporation,* 
without  legislative  authority  contained  in  the  charter  or  in  the 
general  statute  of  the  state.8  One  corporation  has,  generally, 


1  Monsseaux    v.  Urquhart,   19    La. 
Ann.  482 ;  Brewster  v.  Hartley,  37  Cal. 
15 ;  State  v.  Smith,  48  Vt.  266 ;  Vail  v. 
Hamilton,  85  N.  Y.  453 ;  New  England, 
etc.,  Ins.   Co.  v.  Phillips,  141  Mass. 
535 ;  American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Haven,  101 
Mass.  398 ;    McNeely  v.  Woodruff,  13 
N.  J.  Law  352. 

2  Such  a  purchase  may  be  enjoined. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  40  Ga.  582 ; 
Hazlehurst  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
43  Ga.  13,  57;  Elkinsw.  Camden,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  5;   Great  North. 
R.  Co.  v.  Eastern  Counties  R.  Co.,  21 
L.  J.  (Ch.)  837 ;    Pearson  v.  Concord, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  N.  H.  537;   Memphis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  88  Ala.  630,  a. 
c.  7  So.  R.  108,  1  Lewis's  Am.  R.  R.  & 
Corp.  R.  55,  and  note ;  Mackintosh  v. 
Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (C.  C.  Mich.)  34 
Fed.  R.  582 ;  Angell  &  Ames  on  Corp., 
§392;     Green's  Brice's  Ultra  Vires, 
(2d  Ed.)  91. 

3  Mayor  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
21  Md.  50 ;  Zabriskie  v.  Cleveland,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   23  How.  (U.  S.)  381  (Ohio 
Act) ;   Whiter.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
14  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  559;  Atchison,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Fletcher,  35  Kan.  236,  and 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Cochran, 
43  Kan.  225,  s.  c.  1  Lewis's  Am.  R.  R. 
&  Corp.  R.  640,   construing  Kansas 
statute;  Matthews  v.  Murchison  (C. 
C.  N.  C.)  17  Fed.  R.  760.     Authority 
to  consolidate  with  a  road  gives  power 
to  purchase  its  stock  with  a  view  to 
securing  that  end.      Hill  v.  Nisbet, 
100  Ind.  341.     For  a  construction  of 
the  provision  in  the  constitution  of 
Pennsylvania  that  a  railroad  company 


may  not  control  a  competing  line, 
see  The  Commonwealth  v.  South  Pa. 
R.  Co.,  1  Co.  Ct.  (Pa.)  214,  223.  Af- 
firmed by  Sup.  Ct.  29  Am.  &  E.  R. 
Gas.  145,  154,  where  it  is  held  to  pro- 
hibit a  purchase  of  the  stock  of  a 
competing  line  by  a  railroad  company 
in  its  own  name  or  in  the  name  of 
another  road  which  it  controls.  To 
the  same  point  under  the  constitution 
of  Georgia,  see  Clarke  v.  Central  R., 
etc.,  Co.,  50  Fed.  Rep.  338  (1892).  A 
railroad  company  is  authorized  to 
purchase  the  stock  of  another  com- 
pany for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  its 
roadbed  and  right  of  way,  by  a  statute 
(How.  Mich.  3403),  which  provides 
that  "it  shall  be  lawful  for  any  rail- 
road company  in  this  state,  which 
shall  have  entered  in  good  faith  upon 
the  work  of  constructing  its  road,  and 
shall  become  unable  to  complete  the 
construction  of  the  same,  or  any  part 
thereof,  to  sell  and  convey  the  whole 
or  any  part  of  its  road  so  partially 
completed,  together  with  the  rights 
and  franchises  connected  therewith, 
to  any  other  railroad  company  or  cor- 
poration of  this  state  not  having  the 
same  terminal  points  and  not  being  a 
competing  line."  Dewey  v.  Toledo, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mich.  351,  50  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  607.  A  railroad  com- 
pany may  purchase  and  vote  the  stock 
of  another  company  in  like  manner 
as  an  individual  under  the  New  York 
statute.  Oelbermann  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.)  77  Hun 
332. 


§  96  STOCK.  143 

no  implied  power  to  invest  money  in  the  stocks  of  another.1 
But  a  corporation  may  have  the  right  to  acquire  shares  in 
another  company  in  the  usual  course  of  its  legitimate  business,1 
or  to  protect  itself  by  way  of  compromise  or  security  or  pay- 
ment of  a  doubtful  debt  owing  to  it  by  the  corporation  whose 
shares  it  receives.8  A  contract  by  the  stockholders  of  a  cor- 
poration to  transfer  their  stock  to  a  person  or  corporation  not 
allowed  by  law  to  hold  the  same  is  illegal  and  void.4 

§  96.  Gifts  and  bequests  of  stock. — Shares  of  stock  in  a  cor- 
poration may  be  the  subject  of  a  gift.6  A  clear  intent  to  give 
it  must  be  proven,  although  no  formal  method  of  transfer  is 
necessary.6  But  in  England,  under  the  statutes,  the  stock  must 
be  registered  in  the  name  of  the  donee,  in  order  to  vest  the  title 
in  him.7  Stock  may  also  be  bequeathed  by  will  like  other 
property.8 

§  97.  Formalities  of  transfer. — In  making  a  complete  and 
formal  transfer  of  shares  of  stock  three  separate  and  distinct 
steps  are  usually  taken.  The  certificate  is  assigned  by  the 
transferer  to  the  transferee,  the  certificate  is  then  surrendered 
or  delivered  to  the  corporation,  and  finally  the  transfer  is  duly 
registered  in  the  books  of  the  corporation.  A  new  certificate 

1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders,        *  State  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Ohio 
§  315;   Morawetz  Priv.  Corp.,  §431;     Cir.  Ct.  R.  415. 

Hamilton  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  5Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

49  Fed.  Rep.  412;  People  v.  Chicago  §308.    See  DeCaumont  v.  Bogert,  36 

Gas  Trust  Co.,  130  111.  268,  22  N.  E.  R.  Hun  (N.  Y.)  382 ;  Walker  v.  Joseph, 

798,  s.  c.  1  Lewis's  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  etc.,  Co.,  47  N.  J.  Eq.  342, 20  Atl.  Rep. 

R.  562;  Franklin  Bankv.  Commercial  885;  Jackson  v.  Twenty-third  St.  Ry. 

Bank,  36  Ohio  St.  350 ;  Franklin  Co.  Co.,  88  N.  Y.  520 ;  Reed  v.  Copeland,  50 

v.  Lewiston  Institution,  68  Me.  43;  Conn.  472;    Grymes  v.  Hone,  49  N. 

Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Eastern,  Y.  17 ;  Roberts  Appeal,  85  Pa.  St.  84. 

etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  21  L.  J.  Ch.  837.    But  6Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders,, 

see  Booth  v.  Robinson,  55  Md.  419 ;  §  308.     But  see   Matthews  v.   Hoag- 

Ryan  v.  Leaven  worth,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  land,  48  N.  J.  Eq.  455,  21  Atl.  Rep. 

21  Kan.  365.  1054. 

2  Royal  Bank  of  India's  Case,  L.  R.  7  Nanney  v.  Morgan,  57  L.  T.  Rep. 
4  Ch.  App.  Gas.  252.  48. 

8  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Nat.,  etc.,  Bank,  8  For  the  effect  of  different  forms  of 
92  U.  8.  122,  128;  Fleckner  v.  Bank,  devise  and  of  gifts  causa  mortis,  see 
8  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  351.  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

Chap.  XVIII. 


144  THE    CORPORATION.    \  §  97 

4 

is  then,  ordinarily,  issued  to  the  transferee.1     But  where  no 

certificate  has  ever  been  issued,  the  registry  of  the  transfer 
upon  the  books  of  the  company  will  be  sufficient,8  and  a  transfer 
may  be  good,  even  where  a  certificate  has  been  issued,  without 
surrendering  it.8  So,  in  the  absence  of  any  valid  provision  to 
the  contrary,  a  transfer  may  be  made,  at  least  as  between  the 
parties,  by  mere  delivery  of  the  certificate  without  any  written 
assignment  or  registration.4  Ordinarily,  however,  the  assign- 
ment^ is  made  in  writing  upon  the  certificate,  and  it  is  held  in 
accordance  with  the  well  established  custom,  that  the  assign- 
ment may  be  made  in  blank,  that  is,  it  may  be  signed  by 
the  transferor  without  inserting  the  name  of  the  transferee, 
who,  upon  its  delivery  to  him,  may  insert  his  own  name.* 
Such  an  assignment  is  usually  accompanied  by  a  power  of  attor- 
ney, also  signed  in  blank,  authorizing  such  attorney  to  sign 
the  transfer  or  registry  upon  the  books  of  the  company, 
thus  obviating  any  necessity  for  the  presence  of  the  transferor 
at  the  office  of  the  company,  and  this  blank  may  likewise  be 
filled  out  by  the  transferee,6  or  by  the  registry  clerk.7 

1  But  this  is  not  absolutely  essential.  Jarvis  v.  Rogers,  13  Mass.  105.     But 

Chouteau  Spring  Co.  v.  Harris,  20  Mo.  compare  Matthews  ».  Hoagland,  48  N. 

382;  First  Nat.  Bank  c.   Gifford,  47  J.  Eq.  455,  21  Atl.  Rep.  1054;  Burrall 

Iowa  575.  v.  Bushwick  R.   R.  Co.,  75  N.  Y.  211 ; 

£  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Gifford,  47  Iowa  Sitgreaves  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank,  49 

575 ;     Brigham    v.    Mead,    10    Allen  Pa.  St.  359. 

(Mass.)  245.  5  McNeil  v.  Tenth  Nat.  Bank,  46  N. 

8  Finn  v.  Brown,  142  TJ.  S.  56;  Rob-  Y.  325 ;  Cutting  v.  Damerel,  88  N.  Y. 

erts'  Appeal,  85  Pa.  St.  84;  Citizens'  410;    Walker  v.  Detroit,   etc.,  R.  R. 

St.  Ry.  v.  Robbins,  128  Ind.  449,  s.  c.  Co.,  47  Mich.  338;  Bank  of  America 

26  N.   E.   Rep.   116;  De  Caumont  v.  v.  McNeil,  10  Bush  (Ky.)    54;  Penn- 

Bogert,  36  Hun  (N.  Y.)  382;  Hasting  sylvania  R.  R.  Co.'s  Appeal,  86  Pa. 

v.  Blue  Hills,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Pick(Mass.)  St.  80;  Exparte  Sargent,  L.  R.  17  Eq. 

80;  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.v.  Schuy-  Cas.  273;  Ortigosa  v.  Brown,  47  L.  J. 

ler,  34  N.  Y.  30;  Seeligson  v.  Brown,  Ch.  168. 

61  Tex.  114,  s.  c.  10  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  6  Holbrook  v.  New  Jersey  Zinc  Co., 

Cas.  143.     But  see  Moores  v.  Citizens'  57  N.  Y.  616,  623;  Broadway  Bank  v. 

Nat.  Bank,  111  U.  S.  156.  McElrath,  13  N.  J.  Eq.   24;  Bridge- 

4  Walsh  v.  Sexton,  55  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  port  Bank  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R. 

251;  Allerton  v.  Lang,  10  Bosw.  (N.  Co.,  30  Conn.  231;  Otis  v.  Gardner, 

Y.)  362;  Reed  v.  Copeland,  50  Conn.  105  111.   436;  Colonial  Bank  v.  Hep- 

472 ;  Com.  v.  Crompton,  137  Pa.  St.  138,  worth,  36  Ch.  Div.  36. 

B.C.  20  Atl.  R.  417;.  Parker  v.  Bethel,  7Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

etc.,  Co.,  (Tenn.)34S.W.  R.  209.   See,  §375;  Allen  v.  South  Boston  R.  R., 
also,  Brewster  v.  Hartley,  37  Cal.  15; 


§98 


STOCK. 


145 


§  98.  Registry  of  transfer. — It  is  generally  provided  that 
stock  shall  be  transferred  only  upon  the  books  of  the  company. 
Even  where  such  a  provision  exists,  however,  a  valid  assign- 
ment of  the  certificate  will  estop  the  transferer  from  impeaching 
his  transferee's  title  or  that  of  any  subsequent  bona  fide  trans- 
feree, notwithstanding  the  fact  that  such  assignment  or  trans- 
fer is  not  registered.1  As  to  the  corporation,  however,  where 
such  a  provision  exists  it  is  not  bound  to  recognize  as  a  stock- 
holder a  purchaser  who  does  not  have  the  transfer  registered 
or  properly  apply  for  its  registration.2  But  the  corporation 
may  waive  a  formal  registry  so  far  as  its  own  rights  are  con- 
cerned.8 And  in  many  jurisdictions  the  rule  is  that  a  bona  fide 


150  Mass.  200,  22  N.  E.  Rep.  917.  Such 
a  power  of  attorney  has  been  held  irre- 
vocable. Skinner  v.  Ft.  Wayne,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  58  Fed.  R.  55. 

1  Noyes  v.  Spaulding,  27  Vt.  420; 
Black  v.  Zacherie  &  Co.,  3  How.  (U. 
S.)  483,  513;  Johnson  v.  Laflin,  103  U. 
S.  800,  804;  Continental  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Eliot,  etc.,  Bk.,  7  Fed.  R.  369 ;  Baldwin 
v.  Canfield,  26  Minn.  43;  Merchants', 
etc.,  Bank  v.  Richards,  6  Mo.  App. 
454;  Brown  v.  Smith,  122  Mass.  589; 
People's  Bank  v.  Gridley,  91  111.  457; 
Duke  v.  Cahawba  Nav.  Co.,  10  Ala. 
82,  e.  c.  44  Am.  Dec.  472;  Nobler. 
Turner,  69  Md.  519;  Ross  v.  South- 
western R.  R.  Co.,  53  Ga.  514;  Lund 
v.  Wheaton,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Minn.  36,  52 
N.  W.  R.  268;  Cushman  v.  Thayer 
Mfg.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  365 ;  Bruce  v.  Smith, 
44  Ind.  1 ;  Smith  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  91  Tenn.  221,  18  S.  W.  R.  546. 
The  same  rule  has  been  held  to  apply 
to  the  transferor's  assignee  in  bank- 
ruptcy. Dickinson  v.  Central  Nat. 
Bank,  129  Mass.  279;  Sibley  v.  Quin- 
sigamond  Nat.  Bank,  133  Mass.  515 ; 
Ex  parte  Dobson,  2  Mont.  &  D.  $Eng. 
B.  R.)  685. 

z  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§  381.  As  to  the  ordinary  manner  of 

CORP.  10 


registering  the  transfer,  see  Burrall 
v.  Bushwick  R.  R.  Co.,  75  N.  Y.  211; 
Green  Mount,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bulla,  45 
Ind.  1 ;  National  Bank  v.  Watsontown 
Bank,  105  U.  S.  217.  As  to  what  is  a 
sufficient  registry  or  application  in 
particular  cases,  see  Plumb  v.  Bank, 
48  Kan.  484,  29  Pac.  R.699;  Chemical 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Codwell,  132  N.  Y.  250; 
American  Nat.  Bank  v.  Oriental  Mills, 
17  R.  I.  551,  23  Atl.  R.  795;  Case  v. 
Bank,  100  U.  S.  446 ;  Fisher  v.  Jones, 
82  Ala.  117,  3  So.  R.  13 ;  Pinkerton  v. 
Manchester,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  42  N.  H. 
424;  Newell  v.  Williston,  138  Mass. 
240.  Either  party  to  the  transfer  is 
usually  entitled  to  demand  a  registry. 
Johnston  v.  Laflin,  103  U.  S.  800; 
Webster  v.  Upton,  91  U.  S.  65. 

3  Cutting  v.  Damerel,  88  N.  Y.  410; 
Isham  v.  Buckingham,  49  N.  Y.  216 ; 
Robinson  ».  Nat.  Bank,  95  N.  Y.  637; 
Chambersburg  Ins.  Co.  ».  Smith,  11 
Pa.  St.  120 ;  Richmondville  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Prall,  9  Conn.  487;  Wilson  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  108  Mo.  588,  s.  c.  36 
Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  290;  Upton 
v.  Burnham,  3  Biss.  (U.  S.)  431,  520; 
American  Nat.  Bankt?.  Oriental  Mills, 
17  R.  I.  551,  23  Atl.  R.  795. 


146 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§98 


purchaser  of  a  share  of  stock  for  a  valuable  consideration  is 
not  affected  by  a  subsequent  attachment  or  levy  upon  stock  for 
the  debts  of  the  transferer,  nor,  in  general,  by  any  subsequent 
equities,  although  the  transfer  has  never  been  registered.1  But 
this  rule  has  not  passed  unchallenged,2  and  it  does  not,  of 
course,  apply  to  a  purchaser  of  stock  upon  which  a  levy  has 
been  made  before  the  purchase.3  The  corporation  may,  and 
should,  generally,  insist  upon  the  surrender  of  the  old  certifi- 
cate.4 But  when  this  is  done  and  proper  application  made  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  company  to  register  the  transfer  in  the  absence 


1  Continental    Nat.    Bank  v.   Eliot 
Nat.  Bank,  7  Fed.  R.  369;  Scott  v.  Pe- 
quonnock  Nat.  Bank,  15  Fed.  R.  494 ; 
Broadway  Bank  v.  McElrath,  13  N.  J. 
Eq.  24;   Doty  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  3 
N.  Dak.  9,  53  N.  W.  R.  77 ;  Clark  v. 
German,   etc.,   Bank,   61   Miss.   611 ; 
Lund  v.  Wheaton,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Minn. 
36,  s.  c.  36  Am.  St.  R.  623;  Thurberr. 
Crump,  86  Ky.  408,  s.  c.  6  S.  W.  R. 
145 ;  Seeligson  v.  Brown,  61  Tex.  114 ; 
Smith  v.  Crescent  City,  etc.,  Co.,  30 
La.  Ann.  1378;   Kern  v.  Day,  45  La. 
71,  12  So.  R.  6 ;  Comeau  v.  Guild  Farm 
Oil  Co.,  3  Daly  (N.  Y.)  218;  Smith  v. 
American  Coal  Co.,  7  Lans.  (N.  Y.) 
317.    At  least  where  there  is  notice  of 
the  transfer.     Bridgewater  Iron  Co. 
v.  Lissberger,  116 U.  S.  8;  Scriptures. 
Francestown,  etc.,  Co.,  50  N.  H.  571 ; 
Wilson  v.   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
108  Mo.  588,  s.  c.  32  Am.  St.  R.  624; 
Telford,    etc.,  Co.   v.  Gerhab,    (Pa.) 
13  Atl.   R.   90,   21   Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cas.    471 ;    Commonwealth    v.    Wat- 
mough,  6  Whart.  (Pa.)  117;  Mowry  v. 
Hawkins,  57  Conn.  453,  s.  c.  18  Alt.  R. 
784. 

2  Weston  v.  Bear  River,  etc.,  Co.,  5 
Cal.  186,  s.  c.  63  Am.  Dec.  117 ;  Con- 
way  77.  John,  14  Colo.  30,  s.  c.  23  Pac. 
R.  170;   State  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,   89 
Ind.  302 ;  Colmanr.  Spencer,  5  Blackf. 
(Ind.)  197;  Oxford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bun- 


nel,  6  Conn.  552 ;  Buttrick  v.  Nashua, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  62  N.  H.  413,  s.  c.  13 
Am.  St.  R.  578 ;  Skowhegan  Bank  v. 
Cutler,  49  Me.  315  *  Be  Murphy,  51 
Wis.  519,  s.  c.  8  N.  W.  R.  419;  Fort 
Madison,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Batavian  Bank,71 
Iowa  270,  s.  c.  32  N.  W .  R.  336 ;  Noble  v. 
Turner,  69  Md.  519,  16  Atl.  R.  124; 
Berney  Nat.  Bank  v.  Pinckard,  87  Ala. 
577,  s.  c.  6  So.  R.  364.  But  in  several 
of  these  cases  the  statute  explicitly 
altered  the  rule. 

3  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Paine,  29  Gratt.(Va.)502 ;  Shenandoah 
Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Griffith,  76  Va.  913 ; 
Young  v.  South  Tredegar,  etc.,  Co.,  85 
Tenn.  189,  s.  c.  4  Am.  St.  R.  752. 

4  State  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  30  La.  Ann.  308;  Banka.  Lanier, 
11  Wall.  (U.  S.)  369;  New  York  &  N. 
H.  R.  R.  Co.  B.  Schuyler,  34  N.  Y.  30; 
Brisbane  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
94  N.  Y.  204 ;  Bridgeport  Bank  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  30  Conn.  231 ; 
Factors',  etc.,  Co.  P.  Marine,  etc.,  Co., 
31  La.  Ann.  149 ;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  «.  Robbins,  35  Ohio  St.  483;   Na- 
tional Bank  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  21  Ohio  St.  221 ;  Supply  Ditch  Co. 
T.  Elliott,  10  Colo.  327,  s.  c.  3  Am.  St.R. 
586 ;  Tafftr.  Presidio  R.  R.  Co.,  84  Cal. 
131,  s.  c.  22  Pac.  R.  485,  18  Am.  St.  R. 
166. 


§98 


STOCK. 


147 


of  some  legal  excuse.1  Where  a  corporation  wrongfully  re- 
fuses to  make  or  permit  the  registry  of  a  transfer  the  party 
entitled  thereto  usually  has  his  remedy  by  suit  in  equity,8  but 
he  may,  if  he  so  elects,  bring  an  action  at  law  for  damages,* 
and,  in  some  jurisdictions,  it  is  also  held  that  mandamus  will 
lie  to  compel  the  corporation  to  make  or  permit  a  registration.* 


1  As  to  what  will  justify  refusal,  see 
Gould  v.  Head,  41  Fed.  R. 240;  Peo- 
ple v.  Sterling  Mfg.  Co.,  82  111.  457 ; 
Telegraph  Co.  v.  Davenport,  97  U.  S. 
369;   Merchants'  Nat.  Bank  v.  Rich- 
ards, 6  Mo.   App.  454;   2  Beach  on 
Private  Corp.,  §  654.     As  to  what  will 
not  justify  refusal,  see  Helm  v.  Swig- 
gett,  12  Ind.  194 ;   Kahn  v.  St.  Joseph 
Bank,  70  Mo.  262 ;  State,  ex  rel.  Town- 
send,  v.  Mclver,  2  S.  C.  25;  People  v. 
Paton,  5  N.  Y.  St.  R.  316 ;   Moffatt  v. 
Farquhar,  L.R.  7  Ch.  Div.  591 ;  Ameri- 
can, etc.,  Co.  v.  Bayless,  91  Ky.  94, 
15  S.  W.  R.  10. 

2  Cushman  v.  Thayer  Mfg.   Co.,  76 
N.  Y.  365;    Shinner  so.   Ft.  Wayne, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  58  Fed.  R.  55 ;  Mechan- 
ics' Bank  v.  Seton,  1  Pet.  (U.  S.)  299; 
Wilson  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  2 
Fed,   R.  459;   lasigi  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.   R.  Co.,  129  Mass.  46;  Iron  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Fink,  41  Ohio  St.  321,  s.  c.  52 
Am.    R.    84;   1   Cook  on   Stock  and 
Stockholders,  §391.  In  Gould  v.  Head, 
41  Fed.  R.  240,  the  suit  was  against 
the  secretary  and  it  was  held  that  the 
corporation  was  not  a  necessary  party. 

8  Rio  Grande,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burns,  82 
Tex.  50,  s.  c.  17  S.  W.  R.  1043;  Kim- 
ball  v.  Union  Water  Co.,  44  Cal.  173, 
s.  c.  13  Am.  R.  157;  Doty  v.  First  Nat. 
Bank,  3  N.  Dak.  9,  53  N.  W.  R.  77; 
Sargent  v.  Franklin  Ins.  Co.,  8  Pick. 
(Mass.)  90,  s.  c.  19  Am.  Dec.  306; 
Helm  v.  Swiggett,  12  Ind.  194;  Kort- 
wright  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  Bank,  20  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  90;  2  Thomp.  Corp.,  §  2447,  et 
seq. 


4  Green  Mount,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bulla,  45 
Ind.  1 ;  State  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  89 
Ind.  302 ;  State  v.  Cheraw,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  16  S.  C.  524;  People  v.  Goss, 
etc.,  Co.,  99  111.  355;  Slemmons  v. 
Thompson,  23  Ore.  215, 31  Pac.  R.  514 ; 
Goodwin  v.  Ottawa,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  13 
Upper  Can.  (C.  P.)  254;  Norris  v. 
Irish  Land  Co.,  8  El.  &  Bl.  512.  It 
has  been  said  that  this  remedy  is 
peculiarly  appropriate  in  the  case  of 
railroads  on  account  of  their  quasi  pub- 
lic nature.  State,  ex  rel.  Townsend,  v. 
Mclver,  2  S.  C.  25.  But,  although  we 
believe  that,  in  many  cases,  where  the 
shares  have  comparatively  little  value 
or  an  emergency  exists,  mandamus 
ought  to  lie,  yet  we  do  not  believe 
that  the  distinction  referred  to  in  the 
case  last  cited  exists,  as  the  rights  of 
the  members  are  substantially  the 
same  as  in  ordinary  private  corpora- 
tions. See  Stackpole  v.  Seymour,  127 
Mass.  104.  The  following  cases  hold 
that  mandamus  will  not  lie :  Shipley 
v.  Mechanics'  Bank,  10  Johns.  (N.Y.) 
484 ;  Freon  v.  Carriage  Co.,  42  Ohio  St. 
30,  s.  c.  51  Am.  Rep.  794;  Townes  v. 
Nichols,  73  Me.  515 ;  State  v.  Guerrero, 
12  Nev.  105 ;  Tobey  v.  Hakes,  54  Conn. 
274,  s.c.  1  Am.  St.  R.  114 ;  Birmingham, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  92  Pa.  St. 
72;  State  v.  Rombauer,  46  Mo.  155; 
Baker  v.  Marshall,  15  Minn.  177; 
State  v.  People's,  etc.,  Ass'n,  43  N.  J. 
L.  389 ;  Rex  v.  Bank,  2  Doug.  524 ;  Rex 
p.  London,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Dowl.  &  R.  510. 


148 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§99 


§  99.  Lien  of  corporation  on  stock. — A  corporation  has, 
at  common  law,  no  lien  upon  a  shareholder's  stock  for  debts 
due  from  him  to  it.1  Such  a  lien  is  given  by  general  statutes 
in  many  of  the  states,2  and  is  frequently  given  by  charter.8  It 
may  be  created  also,  when  authorized,  by  a  by-law  of  the  cor- 
poration,* but  many  of  the  courts  hold  that,  if  created  in  this 
way,  it  will  not  bind  a  bona  fide  purchaser,  without  notice  that 


1  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Wasson,  48 
la.  336,  s.  c.  30  Am.  R.  398 ;  Bank  of 
Holly  Springs  v.  Pinson,  58  Miss.  421, 
s.  c.  38  Am.  R.  330 ;  Massachusetts  Iron 
Co.  v.  Hooper,  7  Gush.  (Mass.)  183 ; 
Sargent  v.  Franklin  Ins.  Co.,  8  Pick. 
(Mass.)  90,  s.   c.   19  Am.   Dec.  306; 
Gemmell  v.  Davis,  75  Md.  546,  s.  c.  23 
Atl.  R.  1032,  32  Am.  St.  R.  412 ;  Dris- 
coll  v.  West  Bradley,  etc.,  Co.,  59  N. 
Y.  96 ;  Hagar  v.  Union  Nat.  Bank,  63 
Me.  509;  Williams  v.  Lowe,  4  Neb. 
382 ;  Merchants'  Bank  v.  Shouse,  102 
Pa.  St.  488 ;  Carroll  v.  Mullanphy,  etc., 
Bank,  8  Mo.  App.  249 ;  Case  v.  Bank, 
100  U.  S.  446. 

2  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8148, 
citing  the  statutes ;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Clarke,  29  Pa.  St.  146,  constru- 
ing the  Pennsylvania  statute  requiring 
payment  of  the  shareholder's  indebt- 
edness to  the  corporation  before  trans- 
fer of  shares  in  a  railway  corporation 
unless  the  lien  is  waived.     Liens  upon 
shares  are  forbidden  by  statute  in  New 
Hampshire.     Hill  v.  Pine  River  Bank, 
45  N.  H.  300,  309.     A  corporation  has 
no  special  vendor's  lien,  in  the  absence 
of  a  contract  to  that  effect,  on  shares 
or  its  capital  stock,  for  unpaid  pur- 
chase-money.      Lankershim     Ranch 
Land  &  W.  Co.  v.  Herberger,  82  Cal. 
600.     A  statute  may  create  a  lien  in 
favor  of  the  corporation  for  debts  due 
from  shareholders  prior  to  its  enact- 
ment.    Birmingham  Trust,  etc., Co.  v. 
East  Lake  Land  Co.,  99  Ala.  379, 13  So. 
R.  72.     See,  also,  Hammond  v.  Hast- 


ings, 134  TJ.  S.  401,  s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R. 
727 ;  Oliphint  v.  Bank,  60  Ark.  198,  29 
S.  W.  R.  460. 

3Leggett  v.  Bank,  24  N.  Y.  283; 
Reese  v.  Bank,  14  Md.  271,  s.  c.  74 
Am.  Dec.  536;  German,  etc.,  Bank  v. 
Jefferson,  10  Bush  (Ky.)  326;  Cross 
v.  Phenix  Bank,  1  R.  I.  39;  Sabin  v. 
Bank,  21  Vt.  353;  Kenton  Ins.  Co.  ». 
Bowman,  84  Ky.  430/1  S.  W.  R.  717; 
Bohmer  v.  City  Bank,  77  Va.  445; 
Bradford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Briggs,  L.  R.  12 
App.  Gas.  29. 

*  Reading  Trust  Co.  v.  Reading  Iroa 
Works,  137  Pa.  St.  282 ;  St.  Louis  Per- 
petual Ins.  Co.  v.  Goodfellow,  9  Mo. 
149 ;  Mechanics'  Bank  v.  Merchants' 
Bank,  45  Mo.  513;  Tuttle  v.  Walton,  1 
Ga.  43;  Cunninghams.  Alabama,  etc.,. 
Co.,  4  Ala.  652;  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank 
v.  Haney,  87  Iowa  101, 54  N.W.  R.  61 ; 
Bank  of  Holly  Springs  r.  Pinson,  58 
Miss.  421,  s.  c.  38  Am.  R.  330;  Young 
v.  Vough,  23N.J.  Eq.  325;  Lockwood 
v.  Mechanics'  Nat.  Bank,  9  R.  1. 308,  s. 
c.  11  Am.  R.  258 ;  1  Cook  on  Stock  and 
Stockholders,  §  522 ;  2  Beach  on  Pri- 
vate Corp.,  §644;  1  Morawetz  on 
Corp.,  §  201.  It  has  also  been  held  that 
such  a  lien  may  be  created  by  con- 
tract. Jennings  v.  Bank,  79  Cal.  323 ; 
Vansands  v.  Middlesex  Co.  Bank,  26 
Conn.  144;  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v. 
Haney,  87  Iowa  101,  54  N.  W.  R.  61. 
Or  by  usage.  Morgan  v.  Bank,  8  Yerg. 
&  R.  (Pa.)  73,  s.  c.  11  Am.  Dec.  575, 
and  note.  But  this  would  not  bind  a 
bona  Jide  purchaser  without  notice. 


$100 


STOCK. 


149 


such  a  by-law  existed,1  for  such  a  by-law,  unless  recited  in  the 
certificate,  will  not  amount  to  constructive  notice.2  Authority 
to  make  "regulations"  as  to  transfers  has  been  held  sufficient 
to  empower  the  directors  of  a  corporation  to  make  a  by-law  re- 
serving such  a  lien.3  "Where,  by  general  law,  a  lien  is  given 
to  a  corporation  upon  its  stock  for  the  indebtedness  of  the  stock- 
holder, it  is  valid  and  enforceable  against  all  the  world."4 

§  100.  When  and  to  what  the  lien  attaches. — It  may  attach 
to  the  stock  for  the  owner's  debts,  although  registered  in 
another's  name  ;5  and  it  will  take  priority  over  antecedent 
debts  which  the  stock  has  been  pledged  to  secure,  if  the 
pledgee  has  failed  to  notify  the  corporation  of  his  interest.6  No 
action  of  the  directors  is  necessary  to  fix  the  lien  upon  stock 
owned  by  its  debtor.7  It  will  attach  to  trust  stock  for  debts  of 
a  trustee  holding  the  stock  in  his  own  name,  there  being  noth- 
ing in  the  way  of  notice  to  the  corporation  of  the  nature  of  his 
title.8  The  lien  attaches  to  dividends  as  well  as  to  stock,  and 


Driscoll  v.  West  Bradley,  etc.,  Co.,  59 
N.  Y.  96;  Bryon  v.  Carter,  22  La. 
Ann.  98. 

1  This  is  true  of  New  York,  Louisi- 
ana, Massachusetts,  Alabama,  Penn- 
sylvania, California,  Mississippi  and 
Ohio,  and  probably  some  others.     1 
Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  §  522. 
See,  also,   Bank  v.  Lanier,  11  Wall. 
369;  Kisterbock's  Appeal,  127  Pa.  St. 
601,  s.  c.  14  Am.  St.  R.  868.     Bank  of 
Holly  Springs  v.  Pinson,  58  Miss.  421, 
s.    c.   38    Am.   R.   330;    Brinkerhoff- 
Farris  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Home,  etc., 
€o.,  118  Mo.  447,  s.  c.  24  S.  W.  R.  129, 
and  23  Am.  &  Eng.   Ency.   of  Law 
€91. 

2  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§532;  Brinkerhoff-Ferris  Trust,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Home,  etc.,  Co.,  118  Mo.  447,  s. 
c.  24  S.  W.  R.  129. 

3  Spurlock  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  61  Mo. 
319;  Cunningham  v.   Alabama,   etc., 
Co.,  4  Ala.  652;  McCready  v.  Rumsey, 
ODuer  (N.   Y.)  574;    Pendergast  v. 


Bank,  2  Sawy.  (U.  S.)  108.  But  see 
Bank  of  Atticar.  Manufacturers',  etc., 
Bank,  20  N.  Y.  501;  Bank  v.  Durfee, 
118  Mo.  431,  s.  c.  24  S.  W.  R.  133. 

4  Hammond  v.  Hastings,  134  U.  S. 
401,  s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  727,  2  Lewis's 
Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  698,  and  authori- 
ties there  cited.  To  the  same  effect,  see 
Bishop  ».  Globe  Co.,  135  Mass.  132; 
Bohmer  v.  City  Bank,  77  Va.  445. 

5  Stebbins  v.  Phoenix  F.  Ins.  Co.,  3 
Paige  (N.  Y.)  350.    See,  also,  Mount 
Holley  Paper  Co.'s  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St. 
513;  Planters',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Selma  Sav. 
Bank,  63  Ala.  585.  But  compare  Helm 
v.  Swiggett,  12  Ind.  194. 

6Platt  v.  Birmingham  Axle  Co.,  41 
Conn.  255,  264 ;  Union  Bank  v.  Laird, 
2  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  390.  See  where  no- 
tice is  given,  Bradford,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Briggs,  56  L.  T.  Rep.  62;  Gemmell  v. 
Davis,  75  Md.  546,  23  Atl.  Rep.  1032. 

7  Elliott  v.  Sibley,  101  Ala.  344, 13 
So.  Rep.  500. 

8  Young  v.  Vough,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  325 ; 


150 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  101 


they  may  be  retained  by  the  corporation  to  discharge  a  debt 
due  it  from  the  shareholder,1  and  the  lien  may  be  enforced, 
whether  the  debts  are  due,  or  are  to  become  due  at  some  future 
time.2  But  it  has  been  held  that  no  lien  attaches  for  debts  of 
a  holder  of  certificates  who  has  re-transferred  them  without  ob- 
taining registry.' 

§  101.  Waiver  of  lien — Enforcement  of  lien. — The  right  to  a 
lien  is  given  exclusively  for  the  benefit  of  the  corporation, 4*and 
can  not  be  enforced  by  any  one  else.  It  can  not  even  be  en- 
forced indirectly  by  assignment  of  another's  claim  to  the  cor- 
poration that  it  may  enforce  payment  for  his  benefit.5  But  a 
surety  of  the  stockholder,  who  has  been  compelled  to  discharge 
such  a  lien,  is  subrogated  to  the  rights  of  the  corporation.5 
The  corporation  may  waive  its  lien  and  proceed  by  other  means 
to  collect  the  debt,7  or  at  its  election  it  may  enforce  it  against 


New  London,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Brockle- 
bank,  L.  R.  21  Ch.  Div.  302.  Compare 
Bradford,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Briggs,  L.  R.  12 
App.  Cas.  29. 

1 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§526;  Hagar  t>.  Union  Nat.  Bank,  63 
Me.  509;  Sargent  v.  Franklin  Ins.  Co., 
8  Pick.  (U.  S.)  90,  s.  c.  19  Am.  Dec. 
306;  Bates  v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Johns. 
Cas.  (N.  Y.)  238.  See  Gemmell  v. 
Davis,  75  Md.  546,  s.  c.  23  Atl.  Rep. 
1032,  32  Am.  St.  Rep.  412,  and  com- 
pare Brent  v.  Bank,  2  Cranch  C.  C. 
(U.  S.)  517. 

2  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke, 
29  Pa.  St.  146;  St.  Lonis,  etc.,  Ins.  Co. 
v.  Goodfellow,  9  Mo.  149 ;  Cunningham 
v.  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Ala.  652.   The 
lien  is  not  lost,  even  though  the  stat- 
ute of  limitations  should  interpose  as 
a  bar  to  an  action  on  the  debt.   Geyer 
v.  Western  Ins.  Co.,  3  Pittsb.  (Pa.) 
41 ;  Farmers'  Bank  v.  Iglehart,  6  Gill 
(Md.)  50. 

3  Helm  v.  Swiggett,  12  Ind.  194.  But 
see  first  note  to  this  section,  supra. 

*  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§  529.  Bank  of  Utica  v.  Smalley,  2 


Cowen  (N.  Y.)  770,  s.  c.  14  Am.  Dec. 
526. 

5  White's  Bank  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  Ins. 
Co.,  12  Ohio  St.  601. 

6  Young  v.  Vough,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  325 ; 
Petersburg  Sav.,   etc.,   Co.  v.  Lums- 
den,   75  Va.  327.     See,  also,  Gray  v. 
Stone,  69  L.  T.  R.  282.    But  compare 
Cross  v.  Phenix  Bank,  1  R.  I.  39. 

7  In  re  Hoylake  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  9  Chan. 
App.  C.  257, 259.    1  Cook  on  Stock  and 
Stockholders,    §  531.     A    corporation 
may  waive  a  lien  on  its  stock,  but  igno- 
rance of  the  existence  of  the  lien,  on 
the  part  of  the  purchaser,  does  not 
destroy  the  lien  and  does  not  consti- 
tute waiver  on  part  of  the  corporation. 
Hammond  v.  Hastings,  134  U.  S.  401, 
s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  727.  See  generally, 
as  to  waiver,  Cecil  Nat.  Bank  v.  Wat- 
sontown   Bank,   105  U.  S.  217;  First 
Nat.   Bank  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  Co.,  45 
Conn.  22 ;  Hill  v.  Pine  River  Bank,  45 
N.  H.  300;  Kenton  Ins.  Co.  ».  Bow- 
man, 84  Ky.  430;  Bishop  ».  Globe  Co., 
135  Mass.  132. 

135  Mass.  132;  Des  Moines,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  Bank,  (la.)  66  N. 
W.  R.  914. 


§  101  STOCK.  151 

shares  in  the  hands  of  the  debtor  as  liens  are  enforced  against 
other  property.1  It  has  been  held  that  the  waiver  of  the  lien 
will  not  release  a  surety  unless  he  has  given  the  corporation 
express  notice  not  to  waive  it.2  The  ordinary  method  of  en- 
forcing its  lien  against  shares  which  have  been  sold  by  the 
debtor  is  by  a  refusal  to  transfer  the  stock.8  The  corporation 
can  not  hold  the  purchaser  personally  liable.*  And  it  can 
not  hold  a  lien  on  stock  for  the  debts  of  a  registered  stock- 
holder contracted  after  it  has  been  regularly  notified  that  he 
has  sold  such  stock  and  transferred  the  certificates.5 

1  Brent  v.  Bank  of  Washington,  10  100  Am.  Dec.  388;   First  Nat.  Bank  of 

Peters  (U.  S.)596.  Foreclosure  and  sale  Hartford    v.    Hartford,   etc.,  Co.,  45 

or  attachment,  Sabin  v.  Bank,  21  Vt.  Conn.  22;  Bohmer  v.  City  Bank,  77 

353;    Farmers'   Bank  of  Maryland's  Va.  445. 

Case,  2  Eland's  Ch.  (Md.)  394;  In  re  *2  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

Morrison,  10  Nat.  Bank  Reg.  105.  §  530. 

zPerrine  v.  Fireman's  Ins.  Co.,  22  5Conant  v.   Reed,  1  Ohio  St.  298; 

Ala.  575.  Nesmith  w.  Washington  Bank,  6  Pick. 

3  Reese  v.  Bank,  14  Md.  271,  s.  c.  (Mass.)  324 ;  Bank  of  America  v.  Mc- 

74  Am.  Dec.  536 ;  Mechanics'  Bank  v.  Neil,  10  Bush  (Ky .)  54.    See  Gemmell 

Merchants'  Bank,  45  Mo.  513,  s.  c.  v.  Davis,  75  Md.  546;  23  Atl.  Rep.  1032. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


SUBSCRIPTIONS. 


§102.  Preliminary     agreements     to     §119. 
subscribe. 

103.  Subscriptions    generally  — 

Form.  120. 

104.  Construction    of    contract    of        121. 

subscription. 

105.  Contracts  of  subscription  are 

several.  122. 

106.  Effect    of    statutes    requiring 

cash    deposit    to    complete        123. 
subscription. 

107.  Who  may  subscribe  for  stock.        124. 

108.  Presumption  that  one  whose 

name  is  subscribed  is  a  stock- 
holder. 125. 

109.  Implied  promise  to  pay  sub- 

scription— Consideration. 

110.  Payment  of  subscription  — 

Trust  fund  doctrine.  126. 

111.  Conditional  subscription. 

112.  Valid  and  invalid  conditions. 

113.  Conditional   subscription  is  a        127. 

mere  offer  until  accepted. 

114.  Subscriptions  in  escrow — Parol        128. 

evidence. 

115.  Waiver  of  conditions. 

116.  When    conditional    subscrip-        129. 

tion  becomes  payable. 

117.  Construction     of     conditional        130. 

subscriptions  —  What    is    a 
sufficient    compliance    with 
conditions  as  to  time  of  be- 
ginning    and     completing        131. 
road. 

118.  Subscriptions  payable  as  work 

progresses  or  upon  expendi-        132. 
ture  of  a  certain  amount. 

(152) 


Failure  to  perform  parol  con- 
dition will  not  defeat  sub- 
scription. 

Conditions  in  notes. 

Subscriptions  conditioned  up- 
on location  or  construction 
of  the  road. 

Effect  of  alteration  in  route 
fixed  by  charter. 

Effect  of  abandonment  or  sale 
of  road. 

Condition  as  to  terminus  — 
Question  o  f  intention  for 
jury. 

What  is  sufficient  compliance 
with  condition  as  to  termin- 
us or  location  of  depot  at  a 
certain  place. 

General  rule  of  construction — 
Performance  of  condition  by 
consolidated  company. 

Fraudulent  representations  in 
obtaining  subscriptions. 

Misrepresentations  in  pro- 
spectus and  by  agents  gener- 
ally. 

Fraud  may  be  shown  by  parol 
evidence. 

Subscriber  must  be  free  from 
negligence  in  order  to  be 
released  upon  the  ground  of 
fraud. 

Subscription  induced  by  fraud 
is  merely  voidable — When 
it  will  be  enforced. 

Ratification  and  estoppel  — 
Rescission. 


102 


SUBSCRIPTIONS. 


153 


§  102.  Preliminary  agreements  to  subscribe.— It  frequently 
happens,  especially  where  corporations  are  formed  under  gen- 
eral laws,  that,  prior  to  their  incorporation,  a  preliminary 
agreement  is  made  by  those  who  are  interested,  to  take  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  stock.1  There  is  a  sharp  conflict  among  the 
authorities  as  to  the  effect  of  such  agreements  and  the  liability 
of  those  who  execute  them.  A  distinction  is  sometimes  drawn 
between  an  agreement  to  subscribe,  and  a  present  subscription 
or  agreement  stating  that  each  subscriber  "hereby  subscribes" 
a  certain  sum,  or  the  like;8  but  while  this  is  doubtless  good  law 
where  the  facts  justify  such  a  distinction,  it  would  seem  that 
although  the  company  is  not  yet  incorporated  and  the  agree- 
ment is  made  in  contemplation  of  its  future  incorporation,  yet 
if  each  one  who  signs  the  agreement  relies  and  must  rely  upon 
each  and  every  other  party  thereto  in  order  to  obtain  the  means 
to  incorporate  and  carry  out  the  purposes  of  the  agreement, 
the  effect  is  practically  the  same,  no  matter  whether  the  agree- 
ment is  in  terms  that  they  agree  to  subscribe  a  certain  amount 


1  This  is  often  contemplated  by  the 
statutory   scheme    of    incorporation, 
even  where  there  is  no  express  provis- 
ion upon  the  subject.    Thus,  in  An- 
derson v.  New  Castle,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
12  Ind.  376,  s.  c.  74  Am.  Dec.  218,  it  is 
said:   "Under    the    general  railroad 
law,  subscriptions  of  a  certain  amount 
of  stock  are  necessary  for  the  organi- 
zation of  the   contemplated  corpora- 
tion, and  for  that  reason  and  purpose 
are  valid  before  the  corporation  is  or- 
ganized, and  may  be  collected  by  it 
after  organization."  See,  also,  Hughes 
t?.    Antietam,    etc.,  Co.,  34  Md.  316; 
Cross  v.  Pickneyville,  etc.,  Co.,  17  111. 
54 ;  Hamilton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rice,  7  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  157. 

2  See  Mt.  Sterling,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Little, 
14  Bush  (Ky.)  429;  Lake  Ontario,  etc., 
R.   R.  Co.   v.  Curtiss,  80  N.  Y.  219; 
Strasburg  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Echternacht,  21 
Pa.  St.  220.     In  such  a  case  it  is  held 
that  while  the   agreement  does  not 
amount  to  a  subscription  which  can  be 


enforced,  yet  the  corporation  may  re- 
cover from  the  signer  the  damages 
caused  by  his  failure  to  accept  and 
pay  for  the  stock,  which  should  be 
measured,  however,  not  by  the  par 
value  of  the  stock  but  by  the  difference 
between  its  par  value  and  its  market 
value.  Thrasher  v.  Pike  County  R.  R. 
Co.,  25  111.  340  (393  orig.  ed.)  See,  also, 
Stowe  v.  Flagg,  72  111.  397,  402;  Rhey 
v.  Ebensburg,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Pa.  St.  261 ; 
Peninsular  R.  Co.  v.  Duncan,  28  Mich. 
130;  Cartwright  v.  Dickinson,  88 
Tenn.  476;  Lake  Ontario,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Curtiss,  80  N.  Y.  219,  (intimat- 
ing that  one  of  the  parties  to  the  agree- 
ment, if  made  for  his  benefit,  could 
bring  such  an  action  and  that  the  meas- 
ure of  damages  would  be  as  above 
stated).  The  preliminary  agreement 
may,  of  course,  be  so  worded  as  to  be 
binding  only  in  case  a  de  jure  corpora- 
tion is  formed.  Capps  v.  Hastings, 
etc.,  Co.,  (Neb.)  58  N.  W.  Rep.  956. 


154  THE    CORPORATION.  §  102 

or  that  they  do  subscribe  a  certain  amount.1  In  either  case,  if 
a  signer  of  the  agreement  receives  shares  after  the  company  is 
incorporated,  pays  calls,  takes  part  in  the  corporate  proceed- 
ings, or  otherwise  ratifies  the  subscription,  the  corporation, 
after  also  ratifying  it,  may  hold  him  liable  the  same  as  any 
other  subscriber.2  Upon  this  proposition  there  is  substantial 
unanimity  among  the  authorities,  although  it  is  sometimes 
said  that  a  corporation  not  in  existence  at  the  time  a  contract 
is  made  can  not  become  a  party  to  it  so  far  as  to  enforce  it 
after  the  incorporation,8  and,  in  a  recent  Massachusetts  case 
the  rule  is  broadly  stated  that  although  a  contract  is  made  in 
the  name  and  for  the  benefit  of  a  projected  corporation,  it  can 
not,  after  its  organization,  become  a  party  to  the  contract  even 
by  adoption  or  ratification  of  it.*  But  the  better  rule  is  that 
such  an  agreement,  if  not  a  completed  contract,  is  at  least  a 
continuing  offer  made  for  the  benefit  of  the  corporation,  which 
is  practically  the  aggregate  of  the  individuals  who  entered  into 
the  agreement  upon  the  faith  of  each  other's  subscription,  and 
that  the  corporation  may  adopt  and  enforce  it.5  The  statute 

'SeeCookonStockandStockholders,  Ass'n  v.  Walker,  83  Mich.  386,  47  N. 
J  75;  lThomp.Corp.,§§  1164, 1165;  Au-  W.  Rep.  338,  s.  c.  3  Lewis  Am.  R.  R.  & 
burn,  etc.,  Asso.  v.  Hill,  (Cal.)  45  Pac.  Corp.  Rep.  731,  and  note,  where  the 
R.  695.  authorities    are     collected     and    re- 
Monica,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McNeely,  viewed. 

21  111.  71;  Cross  v.  Pickneyville,  etc.,  3Lake  Ontario,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Curtiss, 

R.  R.  Co.,  17  111.  54;  Maltby  t>.  North-  80  N.  Y.  219;  Mt.  Sterling,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

western,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  16  Md.  422;  Little,  14  Bush  (Ky.)  429;  Pittsburgh, 

Inter  Mountain  Pub.  Co.  v.  Jack,   5  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  Gazzam,  32  Pa.  St.  340; 

Mont.  568;  Rockville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Van  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Blakely, 

Ness,   2  Cranch  C.  C.   (U.   S.)  449;  (S.  Car.)   3  Strob.  245;  and  note  to 

Kansas  City  Hotel   Co.   v.   Hunt,  57  Winston  v.  Dorsett,  etc.,  Co.,  129  111. 

Mo.   126;   Bell's  Appeal,  115  Pa.  St.  64,  4  L.  R.  A.  507,  508.   See,  also,  Rik- 

88 ;  Buffalo  &  J.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Gifford,  87  hoff  v.  Machine  Co.,  68  Ind.  388. 

N.  Y.  294 ;  Buffalo  &  N.  Y.  City  R.  R.  *  Abbott  v.  Hapgood,  150  Mass.  248, 

Co.  77.   Dudley,   14  N.   Y.  336;  Twin  s.  c.  22  N.  E.  Rep.  907. 

Creek,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lancaster,  79  Ky.  5  Marysville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson,  93 

552;  Kennebec,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pal-  Cal.  538,  6  Lewis  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp. 

mer,  34  Me.   366;    Penobscot  R.    R.  Rep.9;  AshuelotShoeCo.f.  Hoit,56N. 

Co.  v.  Dummer,  40  Me.  172;  McCor-  H.  548;  Lake  Ontario,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

mick  v.  Gas  Co.,  48  Kan.  614;   Red  Mason,  16N.Y.  451;  Buffalo,  etc.,  R. 

Wing  Hotel  Co.  v.  Freidrich,  26  Minn.  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  22  Hun  (N.  Y.)  359; 

112;  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis,  Nulton  v.  Clayton,  54Iowa425,  s.  c.37 
40  Minn.  110;  International,  etc., 


§102 


SUBSCRIPTIONS. 


155 


may,  however,  provide  that  subscriptions  shall  be  made  by 
signing  the  articles  of  incorporation,  with  certain  other  formal- 
ities, and  it  has  been  held  that  in  such  a  case  one  who  has 
merely  signed  a  preliminary  agreement,  and  has  not  signed  or 
joined  in  the  execution  of  the  articles  of  incorporation  in  the 
manner  provided  by  statute,  can  not  be  held  liable  upon  the  in- 
complete subscription  or  agreement.1  It  is  also  urged,  in  sup- 
port of  this  doctrine,  and,  indeed,  in  support  of  the  broader 
doctrine  announced  in  some  of  the  cases,  which  requires  a  rati- 
fication by  the  corporation  and  the  alleged  stockholder,  before 
he  can  be  held  liable  as  a  subscriber,  that,  as  every  contract 
must  be  mutually  binding  upon  both  parties,  the  corporation 
can  not  enforce  such  an  agreement  because  it  is  not  itself 
bound  thereby.8  In  line  with  these  decisions,  it  has  also  been 
held  that  one  who  signs  such  an  agreement  may  withdraw  be- 
for  acceptance  by  the  corporation,8  but  this  would,  in  some 

Am.  Eep.  213 ;  Auburn,  etc.,  Ass'n  v.  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  33  Mich.  23 ;  Carlisle  v- 
Hill,  (Cal.)  32  Pac.  Rep.  587;  Heaston 
v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  16  Ind. 
275;  Miller  v.  Wild  Cat,  etc.,  Co.,  52 
Ind.  51 ;  note  to  Winston  v.  Dorsett, 
etc.,  Co.,  129  111.  64, 4  L.  R.  A.  507,  and 
authorities  cited  in  note  2,  ante  p.  154. 
In  no  case,  perhaps,  is  this  more  clearly 
stated  than  it  is  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Massachusetts  in  the  case  of  Afihol 
Music  Hall  Co.  v.  Carey,  116  Mass. 
471,  and  yet  this  is  difficult  to  recon- 
cile with  the  extreme  rule  that  a  cor- 


poration can  not  ratify  a  contract  made 
for  its  benefit,  announced  in  Abbott  v. 
Hapgood,  150  Mass.  248,  heretofore 
cited. 

1  Coppage  v.  Hutton,  124  Ind.  401, 
s.  c.  24  N.  E.  Rep.  112,  7  L.  R.  A.  591 ; 
Reed  v.  Richmond  St.  R.  R.  Co.,  50 
Ind.  342;  Dutchess,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Mabbett,  58  N.  Y.  397 ;  Poughkeepsie, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Griffin,  24  N.  Y.  150; 
Troy  &  Boston  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Tibbits,  18 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  297;  Erie,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Owen,  32  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  616 ;  Se- 
dalia,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkerson,  83 
Mo.  235;  Parker  v.  Northern  Cent., 


Saginaw,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  27  Mich.  315 ; 
Monterey,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hildreth, 
53  Cal.  123;  Butcher  v.  Dillsburg,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  76  Pa.  St.  306.  But  see  Mc- 
Clure  v.  People's  Freight  Ry.  Co.,  90 
Pa.  St.  269 ;  Buffalo  &  J.  R.  R.  Co.  t>. 
Gifford,  87  N.  Y.  294. 

8  Strasburg  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Echternacht, 
21  Pa.  St.  220,  s.  c.  60  Am.  Dec.  49; 
Gleaves  v.  Brick  Church  Co.,  1  Sneed, 
(Tenn.)  491 ;  Goff  v.  Winchester  Col- 
lege, 6  Bush  (Ky.)  443;  Monterey, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hildreth,  53 Cal.  123; 
Fanning  v.  Insurance  Co.,  37  Ohio  St. 
339,  s.  c.  41  Am.  Rep.  517.  But  com- 
pare Shober  v.  Lancaster,  etc.,  Ass'n, 
68  Pa.  St.  429,  and  Edinboro  Academy 
v.  Robinson,  37  Pa.  St.  210,  s.  c.  78 
Am.  Dec.  421,  with  the  Pennsylvania 
case  above  cited.  While  some  of  the 
cases  in  which  this  rule  is  stated  were, 
perhaps,  correctly  decided,  yet  we 
think  the  broad  doctrine  they  an- 
nounce is  unsound  in  principle  and 
upon  authority. 

'Garrett  v.  Dillsburg,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  78  Pa.  St.  465;  Auburn  Bolt  and 


158  THE   COKPORATION.  §  104 

ment  by  one  to  accept  so  many  shares  as  should  be  allotted  to 
him,  and  sending  to  the  company's  banker  a  sufficient  deposit 
to  cover  the  advancement  required  upon  a  subscription  to  such 
shares,  although  it  is  acted  upon  by  the  corporation  and  a  cer- 
tain number  of  shares  are  allotted,  and  the  rest  of  his  deposit 
returned,  is  not  sufficient  to  constitute  him  a  stockholder  until 
he  has  accepted  the  shares,  although  his  name  is  placed  upon 
the  register  as  a  stockholder,  and  he  has  notice  that  his  certifi- 
cates of  stock  are  ready  for  him,  and  he  requests  that  they  be 
forwarded  to  him.1 

§  104.  Construction  of  contract  of  subscription. — Where  the 
place  of  performance  is  not  specified  in  a  contract  made  in  one 
state  to  subscribe  for  shares  of  stock  of  a  railroad  company  in- 
corporated under  the  laws  of  another  state  where  it  has  its  road 
and  treasury,  the  contract  is  to  be  performed  in  the  latter  state 
and  is  to  be  construed  by  its  laws.2  It  is  a  well  established 
rule  that  the  construction  of  a  written  contract  is  for  the  court, 
and  this  is  true  of  a  contract  of  subscription.3  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  questions  of  ratification  and  intention  are  usually 
questions  of  fact  for  the  jury,  and  it  has  been  held  that  the  in- 
tention of  an  alleged  subscriber  to  take  stock  as  a  subscriber, 
or  -to  ratify  an  insufficient  subscription,  or  an  act  of  the  cor- 
poration treating  him  as  a  subscriber,  is  a  question  of  fact  for 
the  jury.4 

§  105.  Contracts  of  subscription  are  several. — Contracts  of 
subscription,  as  usually  made,  are  several  and  not  joint.5  This 

Co.,  35  Ala.  33.  But  see  Phoenix,  N.  H.  379 ;  1  Elliott's  Gen.  Pr.,  §  431 . 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Badger,  67  N.  Y.  294;  4 Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.*.  Co- 
Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Gifford,  87  well,  28  Pa.  St.  329,  s.  c.  70  Am.  Dee. 
N.  Y.  294;  Jewell  v.  Rock  River,  etc.,  128;  Galveston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bolton,  46 
Co.,  101  111.  57, and  compare  Grangers',  Tex.  633;  McComb  v.  Barcelona,  etc., 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Vinson,  6  Oreg.  172.  Ass'n,  134  N.  Y.  598. 

1  New  Brunswick,    etc.,   R.    Co.*.  5  Whittlesey  v.  Frantz,  74  N.  Y.  456 ; 
Muggeridge,  4  H.  &  N.  160.  Wayne,  etc.,  Inst.  v.  Smith,  36  Barb. 

2  Penobscot  &  K.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bart-  (N.  Y.)  576 ;  Herron  v.  Vance,  17  Ind. 
lett,  12  Gray  (Mass.)  244,  s.  c.  71  Am.  595;  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Dec.  753.  Bailey,  24  Vt.  465,   s.  c.  58  Am.  Dec. 

3Monadnock  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Felt,  52    181;  Gibbons  v.  Grinsel,  79  Wis.  365; 


§103 


SUBSCRIPTIONS. 


157 


informal  it  may  be.1  Indeed,  it  would  seem  that  a  parol  sub- 
scription may  be  valid,2  and  merely  accepting  and  holding  a 
certificate  of  stock  is,  ordinarily,  sufficient  to  make  one  liable 
as  a  stockholder,3  or  if  he  assumes  the  duties  and  claims  the 
rights  of  a  stockholder,  and  acts  as  such  with  the  acquiescence 
and  consent  of  the  corporation,4  it  is  sufficient  to  bind  both  him 
and  the  corporation.  But  the  charter  or  statute  may  require 
subscriptions  to  be  made  in  a  specified  manner;  and,  unless 
there  is  a  subsequent  ratification,  express  or  implied,  by  the 
parties,  the  statute  must  be  substantially  complied  with  in  or- 
der to  hold  the  subscriber.5  It  has  also  been  held  that  an  agree- 


1  Fry  v.  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  B*Co., 
2  Met.  (Ky.)  314;  Nulton  ».  Clayton, 
54  Iowa  425,  s.  c.   37   Am.  Rep.  213 ; 
Phoenix,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Badger,  67 
N.  Y.  294;  Cayuga,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Kyle,  64  N.  Y.  185 ;  Hagerstown,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Creeger,  5  Harr.  &  J.  (Md.)  122, 
s.  c.  9  Am.  Dec.  495;  Woodruff  v.  Mc- 
Donald, 33  Ark.  97;  Stuart  v.  Valley 
R.  R.   Co.,  32  Gratt.  (Va.)  146;  Og- 
densburgh,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Frost,  21 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  541 ;  Melvin  v.  Lamar 
Ins.  Co.,  80  111.  446,  s.  c.  22  Am.  Rep. 
199;  State  v.   Beck,  81  Ind.  500;  Ot- 
tawa, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Black,  79  111. 
262;  Oler  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
41  Md.  583 ;  Brownlee  v.  Ohio,  etc., 
R.   R.  Co.,   18  Ind.    68;    Ashtabula, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  15  Ohio  St. 
328,  and  note  to  Parker  v.  Thomas,  81 
Am.  Dec.  385,  395.     But  see  McClel- 
land v.  Whiteley,  15  Fed.  Rep.  322. 

2  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§52;    Colfax,  etc.,   Co.   v.   Lyon,  69 
Iowa  683,  s.  c.  29  N.  W.  Rep.  780.    If 
it  may  be  performed  within  a  year,  it 
is  not  within  the  statute  of  frauds. 
Bullock  v.  Falmouth,  etc.,  Co.,  85  Ky. 

184,  s.  c.  3  S.  W.  Rep.  129 ;  Straughan 
v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  38  Ind. 

185.  But  see  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Gazzam,  32  Pa.  St.  340;  Vreeland  v. 
New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,   29  N.  J.  Eq. 


188;  Fanning  v.  Ins.  Co.,  37  Ohio  St. 
339,  s.  c.  41  Am.  Rep.  517. 

3  Upton  v.  Tribilicock,  91  U.  S.  45 ; 
Stutz  v.  Handley,  41  Fed.  Rep.  531 ; 
McLaughlin  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
8  Mich.  99.   See,  also,  Shicklev.  Watts, 
94  Mo.  410,  7  S.W.  Rep.  274;  Clark  v. 
Continental,  etc.,   Co.,  57  Ind.   135; 
Hamilton,   etc.,  Co.  v.  Rice,  7  Barb. 
(N.    Y.)   157;  Lane  v.   Brainerd,  30 
Conn.    565;    Nulton    v.    Clayton,  54 
Iowa  425;  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Barton,  16  N.  Y.  457. 

4  Such  acts  operate  as  an  estoppel 
to  deny  his  membership  in  the  com- 
pany. Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Welling- 
ton, 113  Mass.  79:  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Cowell,  28  Penn.  St.  329; 
Jewell  v.  Rock  River,  etc.,  Co.,  101 
111.  57;  Griswold  v.  Seligman,  72  Mo. 
110;  Cheltenham,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dan- 
iel, 2  Q.   B.  281 ;  Wheeler  v.  Millar, 
90  N.  Y.  353;  Sanger  v.  Upton,  91  U. 
S.  56.    But  see  Shields  v.  Casey,  155 
Pa.  St.  253. 

5  Coppage  v.  Hutton,  124  Ind.  401, 
s.  c.  24  N.  E.  Rep.  112;  Reed  v.  Rich- 
mond St.   R.   R.  Co.,  50    Ind.  342; 
Bucher  v.  Dillsburg,  etc.,  R.R.  Co.,  76 
Pa.  St.  306;  Dutchess,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 
v.  Mabbett,  58  N.  Y.  397;  Ashtabula, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  15  Ohio  St. 
328;  Eppes  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  R. 


158  THE    CORPORATION.  §  104 

ment  by  one  to  accept  so  many  shares  as  should  be  allotted  to 
him,  and  sending  to  the  company's  banker  a  sufficient  deposit 
to  cover  the  advancement  required  upon  a  subscription  to  such 
shares,  although  it  is  acted  upon  by  the  corporation  and  a  cer- 
tain number  of  shares  are  allotted,  and  the  rest  of  his  deposit 
returned,  is  not  sufficient  to  constitute  him  a  stockholder  until 
he  has  accepted  the  shares,  although  his  name  is  placed  upon 
the  register  as  a  stockholder,  and  he  has  notice  that  his  certifi- 
cates of  stock  are  ready  for  him,  and  he  requests  that  they  be 
forwarded  to  him.1 

§  104.  Construction  of  contract  of  subscription. — Where  the 
place  of  performance  is  not  specified  in  a  contract  made  in  one 
state  to  subscribe  fpr  shares  of  stock  of  a  railroad  company  in- 
corporated under  the  laws  of  another  state  where  it  has  its  road 
and  treasury,  the  contract  is  to  be  performed  in  the  latter  state 
and  is  to  be  construed  by  its  laws.8  It  is  a  well  established 
rule  that  the  construction  of  a  written  contract  is  for  the  court, 
and  this  is  true  of  a  contract  of  subscription.8  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  questions  of  ratification  and  intention  are  usually 
questions  of  fact  for  the  jury,  and  it  has  been  held  that  the  in- 
tention of  an  alleged  subscriber  to  take  stock  as  a  subscriber, 
or  -to  ratify  an  insufficient  subscription,  or  an  act  of  the  cor- 
poration treating  him  as  a  subscriber,  is  a  question  of  fact  for 
the  jury.4 

§  105.  Contracts  of  subscription  are  several. — Contracts  of 
subscription,  as  usually  made,  are  several  and  not  joint.5  This 

Co.,  35  Ala.  33.  But  see  Phoenix,  N.  H.  379;  1  Elliott's  Gen.  Pr.,  §431. 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Badger,  67  N.  Y.  294;  4  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Co- 
Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Gifford,  87  well,  28  Pa.  St.  329,  s.  c.  70  Am.  Dee. 
N.  Y.  294;  Jewell  v.  Rock  River,  etc.,  128;  Galveston,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bolton,  46 
Co.,  101  111.  57,and  compare  Grangers',  Tex.  633;  McComb  v.  Barcelona,  etc., 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Vinson,  6  Oreg.  172.  Ass'n,  134  N.  Y.  598. 

*New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  s  Whittlesey  v.  Frantz,  74  N.  Y.  456; 

Muggeridge,  4  H.  &  N.  160.  Wayne,  etc.,  Inst.  v.  Smith,  36  Barb. 

2  Penobscot  &  K.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bart-  (N.  Y.)  576 ;  Herron  v.  Vance,  17  Ind. 

lett,  12  Gray  (Mass.)  244,  s.  c.  71  Am.  595;  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Dec.  753.  Bailey,  24  Vt.  465,  s.  c.  58  Am.  Dec. 

3Monadnock  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Felt,  52  181;  Gibbons  v.  Grinsel,  79  Wis.  365; 


§  106  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  159 

is  true,  ordinarily,  even  where  they  are  joint  in  form,  because 
it  is  clear  from  the  nature  of  the  contract  that  each  subscriber 
intends  to  bind  himself  alone  for  his  own  subscription,  and 
this  intention  must  prevail  notwithstanding  the  joint  form  of 
the  promise.1  In  accordance  with  this  rule  it  has  even  been 
held  that  where  one  person  makes  two  subscriptions  in  two 
different  capacities,  that  is,  as  an  individual  and  as  a  trustee, 
a  separate  action  must  be  brought  to  enforce  each  subscrip- 
tion.8 

§  106.  Effect  of  statutes  requiring  cash  deposit  to  complete 
subscription. — Several  of  the  states  by  general  statute8  require 
that  a  certain  sum  shall  be  paid  upon  each  share  of  stock  at 
the  time  of  subscribing,  and  such  a  provision  is  frequently  found 
in  special  charters  and  in  by-laws.  It  is  generally  held  that 
an  entire  omission  to  make  such  a  payment  at  the  time  of  sub- 
scribing will  not  render  the  subscription  absolutely  void  so 
that  the  subscriber  can  defend  against  payment  of  it  for  this 
cause,4  since  this  would  be  permitting  him  to  take  advantage 
of  his  own  wrong  in  failing  to  pay.5  The  theory  of  these  cases 
is  that  the  requirement  is  made  for  the  benefit  of  the  corpora- 
Robertson  v.  March,  4  111.  198;  Miller  *  Illinois  River  R.  Co.  v.  Zimmer, 
v.  Preston,  4  N.  Mex.  314.  20  111.  654;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

1  Clark  on  Contracts,  605 ;  Landwer-    Applegate,  21 W.  Va.  172 ;  Minneapo- 
len  v.  Wheeler,  106  Ind.  523;  Davis  v.    lis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Bassett,  20  Minn. 
Belford,  70  Mich.  120,  s.  c.  37  N.  W.    535,  s.  c.  18  Am.  R.  376;  Barrington  v. 
R.  919;  Price  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,    Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co.,  32 Miss.  370; 
R.  R.  Co.,  18  Ind.  137 ;  Hall  v.  Thayer,    Vicksburg,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  McKean, 
12  Met.  (Mass.)  130;  Davis,  etc.,  Co.     12  La.   Ann.  638;  Wight  v.  Shelby  R. 
v.  Barber,  51  Fed.  Rep.  148;  Gibbons    Co.,  16  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  4;  Mitchell  ». 
v.  Bente,  51  Minn.  499, 53  N.  W.  R.  756,     Rome  R.  Co.,  17  Ga.  574 ;  Selma,  etc., 
s.  c.  22  L.  R.  A.  80,  and  note ;  but  see    R.    Co.    v.    Roundtree,   7    Ala.  670; 
Davis  v.  Shafer,  50  Fed.  Rep.  764;    Henry   v.  Vermillion,  etc.,  R.    Co., 
Davis  v.  Bronson,  2  N.  Dak.  300,  s.  c.     17  Ohio  187;     Spartanburg,  "etc.,  R. 
16  L.  R.  A.  655;  Darnell  v.  Lyon,  85     Co.  v.  Ezell,  14  S.  C.  281;   Webb  «. 
Tex.  455;  Gait  v.  Swain,  9  Gratt.(Va.)     Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Md.  92; 
633,  s  c.  60  Am.  Dec.  311.  Oler  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Md. 

2  Erie,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Patrick,  2    583;   East  Gloucestershire  R.  Co.  v. 
Abb.  App.  Cas.  72,  s.  c.  2  Keyes  (N.     Bartholomew,  L.  R.  3  Ex.  15. 

Y.)  256.  5  Haywood,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan, 

8  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892) ,  §§  8110,     6  Jones  L.  (N.  C.)  82. 
8517. 


160 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§106 


tion  and  that  it  may  waive  the  right  to  avoid  the  subscription 
for  this  cause,1  and  enforce  payment  thereof,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  the  statute,  if  literally  construed,  would  seem  to 
make  a  cash  deposit  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  subscrip- 
tion. In  some  of  the  states,  however,  this  defense  is  allowed, 
because  of  the  stringent  language  of  the  statute,2  but  even  in 
such  states  it  is  strongly  disapproved,8  and  is  restricted  to  the 
narrowest  possible  limits.*  Thus  a  few  subscribers  have  been 
permitted  to  pay  the  percentage  for  all  ;5  payment  by  check,6 
or  by  promissory  note,7  or  in  services  rendered  to  the  company 
under  a  contract,8  has  been  held  a  sufficient  compliance  with 
the  statute;  and  it  has  been  held  that  actual  payment  at  any 


1  Piscataqua  Ferry  Co.  v.  Jones,  39 
N.  H.  491;  Lake  Ontario,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
».  Mason,  16  N.  Y.  451;  Garrett  v. 
Dillsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Pa.  St.  465. 
Cases  cited  in  two  preceding  notes. 
But  see  McRea  v.  Russell,  12  Ired. 
(N.  C.)  224,  where  it  is  said  that  the 
provision  "was,  moreover,  meant  to 
protect  men  from  the  consequences  of 
making  such  subscriptions  under  the 
influence  of  momentary  excitement, 
which  they  could  not  fulfill." 

8  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blakely, 
SStrobh.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  245;  People  v. 
Chambers,  42  Cal.  201;  Taggart  v. 
Western  Md.  R.  Co.,  24  Md.  563; 
Wood  v.  Coosa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Ga. 
273;  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Van 
Horn,  57  N.  Y.  473;  Hibernia  T. 
Cor.  v.  Henderson,  8  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.) 
219,  B.  c.  11  Am.  Dec.  593;  Fiser  v. 
Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  32  Miss. 
359.  If  the  requirement  is  merely  in 
the  by-laws,  and  not  in  the'charter  or 
statute,  failure  to  comply  with  it  will 
not  vitiate  the  subscription  so  as  to 
prevent  its  enforcement  by  the  com- 
pany. Water  Valley,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sea- 
man, 53  Mieo.  655;  Piscataqua,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Jones,  39  N.  H.  491. 

8Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barton, 
16  N.  Y.  457  note ;  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 


Brown,  25  Pa.  St.  156.  In  Wood  t>. 
Coosa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra,  the  court 
based  its  decision  upon  the  positive 
language  of  the  statute  that  a  sub- 
scription without  a  preliminary  pay- 
ment should  be  void. 

4  See  note  to  Parker  v.  Thomas,  81 
Am.  Dec.  385,  397,  398. 

5  Ogdensburgh,etc.,  R.Co.r.Wooley, 
3  Abb.   Ct.  of  App.  398.     See,   also, 
Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris, 
36  Miss.  17. 

6  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gere,  4 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  392;  Be  Staten  Isl.,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  37  Hun  (N.  Y.)  422,  where  the 
check  was  certified ;  People  v.  Stock- 
ton, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  45  Cal.  306,  s.  c. 
13  Am.  R.  178,  when  it  was  shown 
that  the  check  would  have  been  paid 
if  presented. 

7  Ogdensburgh,etc.,  R.Co.w.Wooley, 
3  Abb.  Ct.  of  App.  398 ;  Vermont  Cent. 
R.  R.   Co.  v.  Clayes,  21  Vt.  30,  35; 
Greenville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wood- 
sides,  5  Rich,  L.   (N.  C.)  145,  s.  c.  55 
Am.  Dec.  708.     Contra  Boyd  v.  Peach 
Bottom  R.  Co.,  90  Pa.  St.  169 ;  Leighty 
v.  Susquehanna,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Serg.  & 
R.  (Pa.)  434. 

8  Beach  v.  Smith,  30  N.  Y.  116,  Aff'g 
same  case,  28  Barb.  254. 


§  107  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  161 

period  after  subscription  with  intent  to  effectuate  and  complete 
the  subscription  is  sufficient.1  Indeed,  acts  indicating  that  the 
subscriber  holds  himself  to  be  a  shareholder  may  amount  to  a 
waiver  of  this  defense.2  And  the  statute  is  held  to  apply  only 
to  subscriptions  expressly  mentioned  in  it,  and  not  to  embrace 
conditional  subscriptions,8  nor  subscriptions  taken  before  in- 
corporation,4 where  the  language  of  the  statute  is  general  as  to 
subscriptions  given  to  the  corporation.  So,  where  the  statute 
expressly  referred  only  to  subscriptions  taken  by  the  com- 
missioners, the  provision  was  held  to  apply  to  no  others.5 

§  107.  Who  may  subscribe  for  stock. — In  general  anyone 
may  subscribe  for  stock  who  is  competent  to  enter  into  an 
ordinary  contract.6  Married  women  are  enabled  by  statute  in 
England7  and  generally  in  the  United  States,8  to  become  sub- 
scribers for  stock.  An  infant's  subscription  is  subject  to  the 
same  rules  which  apply  to  his  other  contracts.9  And  the  gen- 
eral rules  applicable  to  agency  govern  contracts  made  by  the 
agents  of  the  subscriber10  or  of  the  corporation,"  or  by  persons 
assuming  to  act  as  such  in  case  their  acts  are  subsequently 

1  Black  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke,  6  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

25  N.  Y.  208;  Barrington  v.  Missis-  §63. 

sippi  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  32  Miss.  370.  7Mrs.  Matthewman's  Case,  L.  R.  3 

*Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  25  Pa.  Eq.  781;  Pugh  &  Sharman's  Case,  L. 

St.  156 ;  Everhart  v.  West  Chester,  etc.,  R.  13  Eq.  566. 

R.  Co.,  28  Pa.  St.  339.    See,  also,  Cole  8  Stimson's   Am.   St.  (1886),  §6450; 

v.  Satsop  R.  Co.,  9  Wash.  487,  s.  c.  43  Witter's  v.  Sowles,  32  Fed.  R.  767. 

Am.  St.  R.  858,  and  note  to  the  effect  9  See  Mitchell's  Case,  L.  R.  9  Eq. 

that  it  is  no  defense  to  subscribers  as  363;    Ebbett's  Case,   L.  R.  5  Chan, 

against  creditors,  that  part  of  the  nee-  302 ;  Baker's  Case,  L.  R.  7  Chan.  115 ; 

essary  amount  is  illegally  subscribed  Dublin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Black,  8  Exch. 

by  others,  if  they  knew  the  facts  at  the  181 . 

time  they  subscribed.  10  Musgrave  v.  Morrison,  54  Md.  161 ; 

•  Hanover,  etc.,  R.  Co.  tJ.Haldeman,  In  re  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  35  Hun 
82  Pa.  St.  36.  220;  In  re  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99 

•  Garrett  v.  Dillsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  N.  Y.  12 ;  Rhey  r.  Evensburgh,  etc., 
Pa.  St.  465,  construing  Pennsylvania  27  Pa.  St.  261;  Merrick,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
act  of  1868.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.    (Pa.),  8  All. 

6  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hick-    R.  794. 

man,  28  Pa.  St.  318.  "  Walker  c.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

Miss.  245. 


162 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§108 


ratified.1  The  corporation  itself  can  not  make  a  valid  sub- 
scription to  its  own  stock,2  and  one  corporation  can  not,  as  a 
general  rule,  subscribe  for  stock  in  another  corporation*  unless 
making  such  a  subscription  is  within  the  powers,  express  or 
implied,  conferred  by  its  charter  or  by  statute.4  It  has  been 
held,  howeyer,  that  a  construction  company  has  implied  power 
to  take  stock  in  a  railroad  which  it  is  building.5  Commission- 
ers to  take  subscriptions6  and  corporate  officers  may  take  stock 
where  the  subscriptions  are  fairly  made  and  no  advantage  is 
taken  of  the  public  or  of  other  subscribers.7  So  municipal 
corporations  are  frequently  given  authority  by  the  legislature  to 
aid  railroads  by  subscribing  to  their  stock.8 

§  108.  Presumption  that  one  whose  name  is  subscribed  is 
a  stockholder. — The  appearance  of  a  person's  name  on  the 
books  of  a  company  as  a  subscriber  or  stockholder,9  or  its  ap- 


1  Judah  v.   American,   etc.,   Co.,  4 
Ind.  333;    Musgrove  v.  Morrison,  54 
Md.  161;  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Harris,  36  Miss.   17;     Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cowell,  28  Pa.  St.  329; 
Mobile,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v.  Yandal,    5 
Sneed.  (Tenn.)  294;  1  Cook  on  Stock 
and  Stockholders,  §§67,  68. 

2  Holladay  v.  Elliott,  8  Ore.  84 ;  Alli- 
bone  v.  Hager,  46  Pa.  St.  48 ;  Preston 
v.  Grand  Colliery,  etc.,  Co.,  11  Sim. 
327. 

3  Maunsell  v.  Midland  Great  W.  R. 
Co.,    1    Hem.   &    M.    130;     Franklin 
Bank  v.  Commercial  Bank,  36  Ohio  St. 
350,   s.   c.   38   Am.  R.  594;  Berry  v. 
Yates,  24  Barb.  (N.   Y.)    199,    410; 
Zabriskie  v.  Railroad  Co.,  23  How. 
(U.S.)  381;    Valley   R.   Co.  v.  Lake 
Erie  Iron  Co.,  46  Ohio  St.  44,  s.  c.  1 
L.  R.  A.  412;  Peoples.  Chicago  Gas 
Trust  Co.,  130  111.  268,  s.  c.  17   Am. 
St.  R.  319 ;  Merz  Capsule  Co.  v.  United 
States,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Fed.  R.  414. 

4  White  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 
Barb.  N.  Y.  559.     See  Mayor,  etc.,  v. 
Baltimore,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Md.  50; 


Zabriskie  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
23  How.  (U.  S.)  381;  Matthews  v. 
Murchison,  17  Fed.  R.  760;  Ryan  v. 
Leavenworth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Kan. 
365;  Pearson  v.  Concord,  etc.,  R.  R*. 
Co.,  62  N.  H.  537,  s.  c.  13  Am.  St.  R. 
590,  13  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  102. 

5  In  re  Rochester,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  45 
Hun  126. 

6  Walker  v.  Devereaux,  4  Paige  229. 

7  Sims  v.  Street  R.  Co.,  37  Ohio  St. 
556.   See  Brower  v.  Passenger  R.  Co., 
3  Phila.  161. 

8  Sharpless  v.  Mayor,  21  Pa.  St.  147 ; 
Ex  parte  Selma,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  45 
Ala.  696,  s.  c.  6  Am.  R.  722;  Com- 
missioners v.  Miller,  7  Kan.  479,  s.  c. 
12  Am.  R.  425,  where  the  authorities 
are  collected  and  reviewed  ;  1  Thomp. 
Corp.,  §1118.     Post,  §— .     So,  a  state 
may  subscribe.     Curran  v.  Arkansas, 
15  How.  (U.  S.)  304;  Brady  v.  State, 
26  Md.  290;    Baltimore,   etc.,   R.  R. 
Co.  v.  State,  36  Md.  519. 

9 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co.  v.  Applegate, 
21  W.  Va.J72;  Turnbull  v.  Payson, 
95  U.  S.  418;  Hoagland  v.  Bell,  36 


$  109  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  163 

pearance  on  the  original  subscription  paper,1  or  books,1  or  its 
entry  in  the  books  kept  by  commissioners*  to  take  subscrip- 
tions is  said  to  be  prima  facie  evidence  that  he  is  a  stockholder.4 
But  it  is  not  conclusive  unless  shown  to  have  been  placed  there 
by  himself  or  by  his  authority.8  Where  the  books  are  lost  or 
destroyed,  a  certified  copy  of  the  list  of  stockholders  from  the 
files  or  records  of  a  public  office  is  held  to  be  evidence  in  like 
manner  as  the  books  themselves,  if  such  list  is  required  by 
law  to  be  so  filed  or  recorded,6  but  not  otherwise.7  The  erasure 
of  a  name  from  a  subscription  list  by  the  subscriber  will  not 
necessarily  end  his  liability,8  but  the  fact  that  he  became  bound 
may  be  proved  by  parol,  where  the  written  evidences  of  that 
fact  have  been  lost  or  destroyed.9 

§109.  Implied  promise  to  pay  subscription  —  Considera- 
tion.— An  action  by  the  corporation  to  recover  the  amount  sub- 
scribed may  be  maintained  upon  the  implied  promise  to  pay 
contained  in  a  subscription  to  its  capital  stock,10  and  the  right 
to  membership  in  the  corporation,  with  the  probable  advantages 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  57;  Iowa,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Co.,  96  Pa.   St.  391 ;  Bordentown  t>. 

v.  Perkins,  28  Iowa  281.  Imlay,  4  N.  J.  L.  285.     But  see  Burt 

1  Partridge  v.  Badger,  25  Barb.  (N.  v.  Farrar,  24  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  518,  to  the 
Y.)  146.  effect  that  a  subscriber  having  access 

2  Marlborough,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arn-  to  the  certificate  before  it  is  filed  may 
old,  9  Gray  (Mass.)   159;  Rockville,  erase  or  modify  his  subscription  even 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Van  Ness,  2  Cranch  C.  C.  though   he    has    previously    induced 
(U.  S.)  449.  others  to  subscribe. 

8  Wood  v.  Coosa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Ga.  9Galveston  Hotel  Co.  v.  Bolton,  46 

273.  Tex.  633;  Haynes  v.  Brown,  36  N.  H. 

4  The  presumption  arising  from  his  545. 

name  being  entered  in  the  books  may  10  Upton  v.  Tribilcock,  91  U.  S.  45; 

be    overcome  by  proof.     Mudgett  P.  Hawley  v.  Upton,  102  U.  S.  314;  Mil- 

Horrell,  33  Cal.  25.  ler  v.  Wild  Cat,  etc.,  Co.,  52  Ind.  51 ; 

6  New   Brunswick,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coppage   v.   Hutton,   124    Ind.    401; 

Muggeridge,  4  H.  &  N.   160;  Water-  Windsor  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Tandy, 

ford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pidcock,  SExchq.  66  Vt.    248,  29  All.    R.  248;    Lake 

279.  Ontario,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mason,  16  N. 

•Cleveland*.  Lurnham,  55  Wis.  Y.  451 ;    Chase    ».  East  Tennessee, 

598.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Lea  (Tenn.)  415;  note 

7Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kerr,  17  Barb,  to  Parker  v.  Thomas,  81   Am.   Dec. 

(N.  Y.)  581,  600.  385,  393,    394;    Cook  on  Stock  and 

•Johnson  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  Co.,  16  Stockholders,  §71. 
Ind.  389;  Greer  v.  Chartiers,  etc.,  R. 


164 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§110 


to  be  derived  from  such  membership,  is  a  sufficient  considera- 
tion to  support  the  action.1  Indeed,  a  consideration  arising 
from  the  mutual  obligations  entered  into  by  the  subscribers,2 
will,  it  seems,  be  conclusively  implied  by  law  from  the  fact 
of  the  subscription.8  A  subscription  to  the  capital  stock  of  a 
corporation  amounts  to  an  agreement  to  take  the  stock  at  its 
par  value,  and  where  a  land-owner  agrees  to  take  vthe  stock  of 
a  railroad  company  in  payment  of  damages  to  his  land  caused 
by  the  construction  of  the  road,  he  can  not  demand  the  stock 
at  its  market  value.* 

§  110.   Payment  of  subscription — Trust  fund  doctrine. — As 

already  stated,  a  subscription  to  corporate  stock  is,  in  effect,  a 
contract  to  pay  for  it  in  the  mode  prescribed,  although  it  con- 
tains no  express  promise  to  pay.5  The  fund  contributed  and 
agreed  to  be  contributed  by  the  stockholders  constitutes,  in 
equity,  a  trust  fund  for  the  benefit  or  security  of  the  corporate 
creditors,6  and  the  general  rule,  therefore,  is  that  subscriptions 


'Bullock  v.  Falmouth,  etc.,  Co.,  85 
Ky.  184,  s.  c.  3  S.  W.  R.  129;  Selma, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Tipton,  5  Ala.  787, 
s.  c.  39  Am.  Dec.  344;  Walter  A. 
Woods  Harvester  Co.  v.  Robbins,  56 
Minn.  48, 57  N.W.R.317 ;  New  Albany, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Fields,  10  Ind.  187; 
Osborn  ».  Crosby,  63  N.  H.  583 ;  Lake 
Ontario,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mason,  16  N. 
Y.  451;  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Robbins,  23  Minn.  439.  In  most  of 
the  New  England  States,  however, 
it  is  held  that  the  only  remedy  avail- 
able to  the  corporation  is  to  declare 
the  shares  forfeited,  unless  the  sub- 
scriber expressly  promises  to  pay,  or 
the  charter  expressly  provides  that  a 
subscription  on  his  part  shall  bind 
him  to  pay  for  the  shares  subscribed. 
Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  60  Me. 
561;  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bailey,  24  Vt.  465,  s.  c.  58  Am.  Dec. 
181 ;  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Welling- 
ton, 113  Mass.  79;  White,  etc.,  R. 


Co.  v.  Eastman,  34  N.  H.  124;  Russell 
v.  Bristol,  49  Conn.  251. 

2  Northern,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.v.  Miller,. 
10  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  260;    Twin  Creek, 
etc.,   Co.  v.   Lancaster,  79  Ky.  552; 
Belton  Compress  Co.  v.  Saunders,  70 
Tex.  699,  s.  c.  6  S.  W.  R.  134;  West  v. 
Crawford,  80  Cal.  19,  s.  c.  21  Pac.  R. 
1123.     But  see  Cottage,  etc.,  Church 
v.  Kendall,  121  Mass.  528,  s.  c.  23  Am. 
R.  286.      " 

3  East    Tennessee,   etc.,   R.   Co.   0- 
Gammon,  5  Sneed  (Tenn.)  567. 

*  Hoffman  v.  Bloomsburg,  etc.,   R. 
Co.,  157  Pa.  St.  174. 

5  Ante,§  109 ;  1  Morawetz  Priv.  Corp., 
§128.    Beach  Priv.  Corp.,  §555;  note 
to  Winston  v.  Brooks,  4  L.  R.  A.  507. 

6  Adler  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  13- 
Wis.  57 ;  Wood  t>.  Dummer,  3  Mason, 
(U.  S.)  308 ;  Sawyer  v.  Hoag,  17  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  610;   Upton  ».  Tribilcock,  91 
U.  S .  45 ;  Germantown  Pass.  Ry.  «. 
Fitler,  60  Pa.  St.  124,  s.  c.  100  Am. 


§  110 


SUBSCRIPTIONS. 


165 


must  be  paid  in  money  or  "money's  worth."1  But  this  does 
not  mean  that  stock  must  necessarily  be  paid  for  in  cash  at  the 
time  it  is  issued.2  Unless  otherwise  provided,  payment  may  be 
made  in  notes,8  checks,4  or  municipal  bonds,5  where  the  munic- 
ipality is  authorized  to  issue  them  for  that  purpose.  So,  it 
may  be  made  in  labor  or  services.6  And  property  which  is 


Dec.  546  and  note;  Graham v.  Rail- 
road Co.,  102  U.  S.  148,  161;  Camden 
v.  Steuart,  144  U.  S.  104,  s.  c.  12  Sup. 
Ct.  R.  585;  2  Thomp.  Corp.,  §  1569;  2 
Morawetz  Priv.  Corp.,  §820,  et  seq. 
This  doctrine,  which  is  not  found  in 
the  old  English  cases,  is  now  too  well 
settled  in  this  country  to  need  the 
citation  of  all  the  authorities.  They 
are  collected  and  reviewed  in  the  note 
to  Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav.  Bank,  3 
Am.  St.  Rep.  797,  808,  and  in  1  Beach 
Priv.  Corp.,  §  116  et  seq.  For  explana- 
tions of  the  general  doctrine  and  lim- 
itations upon  another  phase  of  it  see 
Rollins^.  Brierfield,  etc.,Co.,  150  U.S. 
371;  Worthen  v.  Griffith,  59  Ark.  562, 
s.  c.  43  Am.  St.  Rep.  50,  and  note; 
Hendersons.  Indiana  Trust  Co. ,(Ind.) 
40  N.  E.  Rep.  516;  Chattanooga,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  Evans,  66  Fed.  Rep.  809; 
First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Dovetail,  etc.,  Co., 
^Ind.)  40  N.  E.  Rep.  810;  O'Bear, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Volfer,  (Ala.)  17  So.  Rep. 
525. 

1  Drummond's  case,  L.  R.,  4  Ch.  772 ; 
Marshall  Foundry  Co.  v .  Killian,  99 
N.  Car.  501,  s.  c.  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  539; 
Wetherbee  v.  Baker,  35  N.  J.  Eq.  501 ; 
note  to  Winston  v.  Brooks,  4  L.  R.  A. 
507. 

2  "Where  a  share  is  issued,  if  the 
price  be  paid  in  cash,  so  much  is  added 
to  the  working  capital,  thereby  en- 
hancing the  creditor's  security.   If  the 
price  be  not  paid,  the  purchaser's  in- 
debtedness may  be  looked  to  for  a  like 
effect."      Chouteau  v.   Dean,   7  Mo. 
App.  210,  214.     "Unpaid  stock   is  as 
much  a  part  of  this  pledge  (that  the 


capital  stock  shall  constitute  a  trust 
fund  for  the  creditor) ,  and  as  much  a 
part  of  the  assets  of  the  company,  as 
the  cash  which  has  been  paid  in  upon 
it,  creditors  have  the  same  right  to 
look  to  it  as  to  anything  else,  and  the 
same  right  to  insist  upon  its  payment 
as  upon  the  payment  of  any  other 
debt  due  the  company."  Sanger  v. 
Upton,  91  U.  S.  56,  60,  61,  and  author- 
ities there  cited. 

8  Goodrich  v.  Reynolds,  31  111.  490, 
s.  c.  83  Am.  Dec.  240;  Ogdensburg, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.v.  Wooley,  3  Abb.  App. 
Dec.  (N.  Y.)  398;  Stoddard  v.  She- 
tucket,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Conn.  542;  Ver- 
mont Cent.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Clayes,  21  Vt. 
30;  Hardy  v.  Merriweather,  14  Ind. 
203;  Blunt  v.  Walker,  11  Wis.  334,  s. 
c.  78  Am.  Dec.  709 ;  Pacific  Trust  Co. 
v.  Dorsey,  72  Cal.  55.  And  see 
Mitchell  v.  Beckman,  64  Cal.  117; 
Union  Cent.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Curtis,  35 
Ohio  St.  343;  McDowell  v.  Chicago 
Steel  Works,  124  111.  491. 

*  In  re  Staten  Island,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
37  Hun  (N.  Y.)  422;  Syracuse,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  Gere,  4  Hun  (N.  Y.)392; 
People  v.  Stockton,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  45 
Cal.  306,  s.  c.  13  Am.  Rep.  178. 

5  See  2  Beach  Priv.  Corp.,  §556;  15 
Am.  and  Eng.  Enc'y  of  Law,  1242,  and 
authorites    there    cited.      See,    also, 
Southern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lanier,  5  Fla. 
110,  a.  c.  58  Am.   Dec.  448;   Valk  v. 
Crandall,  1  Sandf.  Ck.  (N.  Y.)  179; 
Leavitt  v.  Pell,  27  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  322. 

6  Cincinnati,  Q.  &  C.  R.  R.  Co.  c. 
Clarkson,    7     Ind.    595;     Liebke    v. 
Knapp,  79  Mo.  22,  s.  c.  49  Am.  Rep. 


166 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§110 


necessary  to  the  corporation  in  carrying  out  its  legitimate  busi- 
ness, or  which  it  is  authorized  to  purchase,  may  likewise  be- 
received  in  payment.1  It  has  also  been  held  that  stock  may  be 
issued  in  satisfaction  of  a  debt  due  from  the  corporation.2  But 
the  transaction  must  be  bona  fide,  and  the  overvaluation  of  ser- 
vices or  property  received  in  payment  may  be  so  grossly  exces- 
sive as  to  raise  a  presumption  of  fraud.8  Yet  the  courts  will 
usually  treat  that  as  a  payment  which  the  parties  have  agreed 
shall  be  payment,4  and  it  will  make  no  difference,  in  the  absence 
of  fraud,  that  the  property  afterwards  turns  out  to  be  of  less 
value  than  was  supposed.5  The  doctrine  which  we  have  been 


212;  Beach  v.  Smith,  30  N.  Y.  116; 
Rich  v.  State  Nat.  Bank,  7  Neb.  201, 
s.  c.  29  Am.  Rep.  382 ;  State  v.  Timken, 
48  N.  J.  L.  87,  s.  c.  2  Atl.  Rep.  783 ;  and 
note  in  19  Am.  and  Eng.  Corp.  Cas. 
258.  Upon  principle,  where  the  cor- 
poration has  authority  to  pay  its  of- 
ficers salaries  or  compensation  for  spe- 
cial services,  there  seems  to  be  no 
valid  reason  why  the  indebtedness  of 
the  corporation  to  them  may  not  be 
used  to  pay  for  stock  issued  to  him  in 
good  faith.  2  Thomp.  Corp.,  §  1652. 
But  see  Ex  parte  Daniell,  1  De  G.  and 
J.  372. 

1  Coffin  v.  Ransdall,  110  Ind.  417; 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  17.  Cramer,  23  Ind. 
490;  New  Haven  Nail  Co.  v.  Linden 
Spring  Co.,  142  Mass.  349;  Philadel- 
phia, etc.,  R.  R.Co.  v.  Hickman,  28  Pa. 
St.  318 ;  Liebke  v.  Knapp,  79  Mo.  22,  s. 
c.  49  Am.  R.  212 ;  Clark  v.  Farrington, 
11  Wis.  306;  Beach  v.  Smith,  30  N.  Y. 
116;  Frenkel  v.  Hudson,  82  Ala.  158, 
s.  c.  60  Am.  R.  736;  Bedford  County 
v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co  ,  14  Lea 
(Tenn.)  525;  Branch  v.  Jesup,  106  U. 
S.  468,  s.  c.  1  Sup.  Ct.  R.  495.  Contra, 
Henry  v.  Vermilion,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
17  Ohio  187;  Neuse,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Com- 
missioners, 6  Jones  (N.  Car.  L.)  204. 

2Lohman  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  2  Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  39;  Reedw. 


Hayt,  51  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  R.  121 ; 
Carr  v.  LeFevre,  27  Pa.  St.  413 ;  Apple- 
yard's  Case,  49  L.  J.  Ch.  290;  Wood- 
fall's  Case,  3  DeG.  &  Sm.  63.  So,  it 
has  been  held  that  it  may  be  issued 
in  payment  of  damages.  Philadel- 
phia, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hickman,  28 
Pa.  St.  318. 

3  Douglass  v.  Ireland,  73  N.  Y.  100 ; 
Boynton  v.  Andrews,  63  N.  Y.  93; 
Carr  v.  LeFevre,  27  Pa.  St.  413;  Ely- 
ton  Land  Co.  v,  Birmingham,  etc., 
92  Ala.  407,  9  So.  R.  129;  Boulton, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Mills,  78  Iowa  460,  s.  c.  6 
Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  417.  See,  also, 
National  Tube  Works  Co.  v.  Gilfillan, 
124  N.  Y.  302;  Chisholm  v.  Forny,  65 
Iowa  333;  Osgood  v.  King,  42  Iowa 
478.  And  in  a  few  states  the  property 
must  be  taken  at  its  true  value  in 
order  to  amount  to  a  complete  pay- 
ment as  against  a  creditor.  Libby  v. 
Tobey,  82  Me.  397,  s.  c.  19  Atl.  R.  904; 
Shicklec. Watts,  94  Mo.  410,  2  Thomp. 
Corp.,  §1616. 

*  Phelan  v.  Hazard,  5  Dill.  (U.  S.) 
45,  s.  c.  6  Cent.  L.  J.  109;  Coffin  v. 
Ransdell,  110  Ind.  417;  Brant  v. 
Ehlen,  59  Md.  1;  Peck  v.  Coalfield 
Coal  Co.,  11  111  App.  88. 

5Coit  v.  North  Carolina,  etc.,  Co., 
14  Fed.  R.  12,  affirmed  in  119  U.  S. 
343,  s.  c.  7  Sup.  Ct.  R.  231 ;  Young  v. 


§  111  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  167 

considering  would  seem  to  prevent  a  corporation,  at  least  as 
against  creditors,  from  issuing  paid-up  stock  and  releasing  the 
subscriber  upon  payment  in  money  of  less  than  its  par  value;1 
but  where  all  the  other  stockholders  consent,  and  it  is  not  for- 
bidden by  the  charter  or  statute,  such  a  transaction  is  binding 
upon  the  company,  and  it  can  not  collect  the  difference  between 
the  amount  paid  and  the  face  value  of  the  stock  for  its  own 
benefit.2  And  in  a  recent  case,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  went  still  further  and  held  that  an  active  corpora- 
tion might  issue  stock  and  sell  it  upon  the  market  for  far  less 
than  its  par  value,  in  order  to  obtain  money  to  prosecute  its 
business  and  pay  its  debts,  and  that  creditors  could  not  compel 
the  purchaser  to  pay  its  face  value.3  This  case,  however,  has 
met  with  much  criticism,4  and  the  rule  therein  announced 
should  not  be  extended  in  its  application  to  a  different  state  of 
facts. 

§  111.  Conditional  subscriptions. — A  subscription  may  be 
made  upon  a  condition  precedent,  in  which  case  it  can  only  be 
enforced  after  the  performance  of  the  condition.5  The  courts, 

Erie,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  65  Mich.  Ill;  4  McCrary   (U.  S.)   264.     See,   also, 

Arapahoe,   etc.,    Co.    v.   Stevens,    13  Higgins  v.  Lansingh,  154  111.  301,  40 

Colo.  534,  22  Pac.  R.  823;  Coe  v.  East  N.  E.  R.  362;   Foster  v.  Seymour,  23 

&  West  R.  R.  Co.,  52  Fed.  R.  531;  Fed.  R.  65;   Stewart  v.  Railroad  Co., 

Grant  v.  East  &  AVest  R.  R.  Co.,  54  41  Fed.  R.  736;    St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  R. 

Fed.  R.  569;  Schenck  v.  Andrews,  57  Co.  v.  Tiernan,  37  Kan.  606,  s.  c.  15 

N.  Y.  133;  DuPont  v.  Tilden,  42  Fed.  Pac.  R.  544. 

R.  87 ;  Brickley  v.  Schlag,  46  N.  J.  Eq.  3  Handley  v.  Stutz,  139  U.  S.  417,  s. 

533,  20  Atl.  250.  c.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  530.    See,  also,  cases 

1  See  Chouteau  v.  Dean,  7  Mo.  App.  cited  in  Grant  v.  East  &  West  R.  R. 

210;  Williams  v.  Evans,  87  Ala.  725,  Co.,  54  Fed.  R.569,  575,  and  Van  Cott 

s.  c.  6  So.  R.  702;    Upton  v.  Tribil-  v.  Van  Brunt,  82  N.  Y.  535. 

cock,  91  U.  S.  45;  Sawyer  v.  Hoag,  17  4  See  article  by  R.  C.  McMurtrie  in 

Wail.   (U.  S.)   610;     Bates  v.  Great  25  Am.  L.  Rev.  749;  2Thomp.  Corp., 

Western  Tel.  Co.,  134  111.  536,  s.  c.  25  §  1665. 

N.  E.  R.  521;    Gogebic,   etc.,   Co.  v.  5Taggart  v.  Western  Md.  R,  Co.,  24 

Iron  Chief,  etc.,  Co.,  78  Wis.  427,s.  c.  Md.  563;  Lowe  v.  Edgefield,  etc.,  R. 

47  N.  W.  R.  726;  Taylor  on  Corp.,  Co.,  1  Head  (Tenn.)  659;  Ashtabula, 

§702;    2  Beach  Priv.   Corp.,   §§561,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  15  Ohio  St.  328; 

562.  Porter  v.   Raymond,  53  N.   H.   519; 

8Scovill  v.  Thayer,   105  U.  S.  143;  Montpelier,  etc.,  R.  Co.  77.  Langdon,  46 

Harrison  v.  Arkansas  Valley  Ry.  Co.,  Vt.  284 ;  Bucksport,etc.,  R.Co. v.  Buck, 


168 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§111 


however,  lean  toward  a  construction  of  the  subscription  which 
will  hold  any  conditions  expressed  therein  to  be  conditions 
subsequent,1  in  which  case  the  subscription  is  held  to  be  abso- 
lute,2 and  the  condition  subsequent  a  separate  contract  on  the 
part  of  the  corporation  to  be  enforced  like  other  contracts.3 
Subscriptions  made  before  incorporation  and  taken  for  the 
purpose  of  raising  the  capital  required  to  secure  incorporation 
under  a  general  statute,  must  be  absolute.*  Advance  sub- 
scriptions made  upon  condition  are  held  void  in  New  York,5 
while  the  condition  only  is  held  void  in  Pennsylvania,6  and 
the  subscription  is  upheld  as  an  absolute  one.  But  the  cases 
generally  agree  that  a  conditional  subscription  is  not  to  be 


68  Me.  81 ;  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pres- 
ton, 35  Iowa  115;  Chartiers,  etc.,  R.  v. 
Hodgens,  85  Pa.  St.  501 ;  Milwaukee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Field.  12  Wis  340;  All- 
man  v.  Havana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  111. 
521 ;  Monroe  v.  Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  28  Mich.  272;  North,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Winfree,  51  Ga.  318 ;  note  to  Parker 
v.. Thomas,  81  Am.  Dec.  385,  398. 

1  Swartwout  v.  Michigan  Air  Line  R. 
Co.,  24  Mich.  389;  Chamberlain  v. 
Painesville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Ohio  St. 
225.  The  electors  of  a  county  voted 
to  subscribe  for  stock  in  the  plaintiff's 
railroad  and  issue  the  bonds  of  the 
county  for  the  same,  on  condition  that 
the  railroad  should  be  completed  and 
in  operation  in  the  county,  by  lease 
or  otherwise,  from  a  connection  with 
existing  roads  in  the  state,  and,  also, 
conditioned  that  the  acceptance  of 
the  bonds  issued  in  payment  of  the 
stock  should  constitute  a  covenant 
binding  upon  the  railroad  company, 
its  lessees  or  assigns,  to  maintain  and 
operate  said  line  of  road,  by  lease  or 
otherwise,  over  its  route  for  a  term  of 
99  years.  The  court  held  that  an 
agreement  by  the  railroad  company, 
executed  after  such  subscription,  to 
sell  and  transfer  its  road  after  it  was 
completed,  in  order  to  obtain  money 


for  its  construction,  did  notjdischarge 
or  release  the  county  from  the  pay- 
ment of  its  subscription.  Southern 
Kan.  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Tower,  41  Kan. 
72. 

2  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  60 
Me.  561,  576;  Henderson,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Leavell,  16  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  358; 
Paducah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parks,  86 
Tenn.  554;  Miller  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  40  Pa.  St.  237;  Johnson  v. 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ga.  725. 

3 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§78. 

4  Boyd  v.  Peach  Bottom  R.  Co.,  90 
Pa.  St.  169,  s.  c.  1  Am.  &  Eng.  R.   R. 
Cas.  651 ;  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newton, 
8  Gray  (Mass.)  596;   Chamberlin  v. 
Painesville,  etc.,  R.   R.  Co.,  15  Ohio 
St.  225;  Brand  v.  Lawrenceville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  77  Ga.  506,  1  S.  E.  255 ;   New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunt,  39  Conn.  75 ; 
Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tibbits,  18-Barb. 
(N.  Y.)297;   Ellison  v.  Mobile,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  36  Miss.  572. 

5  Troy,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Tibbits,  18 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  297. 

6  Boyd  «.  Peach  Bottom  R.  Co.,  90 
Pa.   St.   169;    Caley  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  80  Pa.  St.  363.    See, 
also,  Burke  v.  Smith,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
390,  396. 


§  111 


SUBSCRIPTIONS. 


169 


counted  in  estimating  the  stock  subscribed,1  and  the  better 
reason  and  weight  of  authority  would  seem  to  be  that,  when 
made  for  this  purpose,  only  absolute  subscriptions  are  valid 
and  enforceable  by  either  the  subscriber  or  the  corporation.* 
Yet,  a  condition  in  a  preliminary  subscription  that  the  organ- 
ization shall  not  be  completed  until  a  certain  amount  of  stock 
has  been  subscribed,  is  valid.8  And  such  a  provision  in  the 
charter  constitutes  a  condition  precedent  annexed  to  every 
subscription.4 


1  Caley  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  80  Pa.  St.  363;  California,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Russell,  88  Cal.  277 ;  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hunt,  39  Conn.  75; 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wellington, 
113  Mass.  79;  Brand  v.  Lawrence- 
ville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  77  Ga.  506. 
Nor  colorable  or  fictitious  subscrip- 
tions. Memphis  Branch  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Sullivan,  57  Ga.  240.  Nor  subscrip- 
tions by  persons  having  BO  reasonable 
expectation  of  being  able  to  pay. 
Holman  v.  State,  105  Ind.  569;  Bel- 
fast, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Inhabitants  of 
Brooks,  60  Me.  568. 

2 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§  79,  note. 

3Penobscot,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn, 
39  Me.  587 ;  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Hickman,  28  Pa.  St.  318.  And,  ac- 
cording to  the  weight  of  authority, 
there  is  even  at  common  law,  an  im- 
plied condition  that  all  the  required 
stock  shall  be  subscribed  before  a  sub- 
scription shall  become  due.  Ander- 
son v.  Middle  &  EastTenn.  Cent.  R.  R. 
Co.,  91  Tenn.  44,  52  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 
Cas.  149,  151;  Denny  Hotel  Co.  v. 
Schram,  6  Wash.  134,  s.  c.  32  Pac.  R. 
1002 ;  Salem  Mill  Dam  Corp.t).  Ropes,  6 
Pick. (Mass. )23 ;  Livesey  v. Omaha  Ho- 
tel Co.,  5  Neb.  50,  and  authorities  there 
cited ;  Peoria,etc.,  R.  R.Co.  v.  Preston, 
35  Iowa  115 ;  New  Hampshire  Cent.  R. 
R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  30  N.  H.  390,  s.  c. 
64  Am.  Dec.  300, 23  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency. 


of  Law  840,  and  authorities  cited  in 
note.  But  see  Astoria,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Hill,  20  Ore.  177;  Newcastle, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bell,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
584;  Chubb  v.  Upton,  95  IT.  S.  665; 
Cheraw,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  •».  White,  14 
S.  Car.  51 ;  Stewart  ».  Minnesota, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  36  Minn.  355  (as  to 
rights  of  creditors).  See,  also,  ante, 
§18. 

4  Memphis  Branch  R.  Co.  v.  Sulli- 
van, 57  Ga.  240;  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Preston,  35  Iowa  115 ;  New  Hamp- 
shire, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  SON. 
H.  390;  Somerset  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke,  61 
Me.  379.  Subscribers  for  stock  of  an 
incorporated  company,  whose  capital 
is  fixed  at  a  certain  sum,  whose  shares 
are  limited  to  a  certain  number,  and 
whose  charter  provides  that  payment 
shall  be  made  as  may  be  determined 
by  the  board  of  directors,  can  not  be 
compelled  to  pay  until  the  whole  cap- 
ital has  been  subscribed  for  and  the 
board  has  called  for  payment,  unless 
it  is  shown  that  by  their  acts  they 
have  waived  their  rights  in  those  re- 
gards. Exposition  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Canal  St.  E.  R.  Co.,  42  La.  Ann.  370. 
This  is  the  common  law  rule  where 
the  charter  does  not  otherwise  pro- 
vide, but  such  defense  may  be  waived 
by  the  subscriber.  Masonic  Temple 
Ass'n  v.  Channell,43  Minn.  353 ;  Inter- 
national,etc.,  Ass'n  v.  Walker,  83  Mich. 
386, 3  Lewis'  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  731 1 


170 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§112 


§  112.  Valid  and  invalid  conditions. — Where  the  condition 
is  that  the  capital  stock  shall  be  limited  to  a  certain  amount, 
a  subscription  in  excess  thereof  can  not  be  enforced  by  the  cor- 
poration.1 Parol  conditions  annexed  to  an  absolute  subscrip- 
tion are  held  void  as  a  fraud  upon  the  corporate  creditors  and 
other  subscribers  who  are  injured  thereby,2  and  the  subscrip- 
tion is  enforceable  according  to  its  terms.  It  can  not  even  be 
varied  by  a  separate  written  contract  executed  at  the  time  the 
subscription  was  made,  if  such  separate  contract  was  unknown 
to  other  subscribers  and  creditors.8  But  any  condition  which 
can  be  legally*  performed  or  complied  with  by  the  corporation,5 
may  be  annexed  to  a  subscription  given  for  stock  in  a  corpora- 
tion which  is  already  organized,  if  such  condition  be  expressed 


47  N.  W.  R.  338.  Such  a  condition 
is  waived  if  the  subscriber,  with 
knowledge  that  the  required  propor- 
tion of  the  stock  has  not  been  sub- 
scribed attends  the  meetings  of  the 
company  and  participates  in  its  or- 
ganization, but  not  if  he  acted  in 
ignorance  of  the  fact  that  the  required 
stock  had  not  been  subscribed.  Fair- 
view,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spillman,  23  Ore. 
587;  Auburn  Opera  House,  etc.,  v. 
Hill  (Cal.),  32  Pac.  R.  587;  Interna- 
tional, etc.,  Ass'n  v.  Walker,  97  Mich. 
159. 

furrows  v.  Smith,  10  N.  Y.  550; 
Oler  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  41 
Md.  583;  Clark  v.  Turner,  73  Ga.  1; 
Merrill  v.  Gamble,  46  Iowa  615.  See, 
also,  Laredo  Imp.  Co.  v.  Stevenson,  66 
Fed.  R.  633. 

2  New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fields, 
10  Ind.  187;  Kishacoquillas,  etc.,  T. 
R.  Co.  v.  McConaby,  16  Serg.  &  R. 
(Pa.)  140;  Robinson  v.  Pittsburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.  32  Pa.  St.  334;  Connecticut, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bailey,  24  Vt.  465; 
Preston  v.  Grand  Collier  Dock  Co.,  2 
Eng.Rail  &  Canal  Cas.335 ;  Davidson's 
Case,  3  De  G.  &  S.  21 ;  Mann  v.  Cooke, 


20  Conn.  178;  Chouteau  Co.  v.  Floyd, 
74  Mo.  286;  Mississippi,  etc-.,  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Cross,  20  Ark.  443. 

3  Brownlee  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 
Ind.  68;  White  Mountains  R.  Co.  v. 
Eastman,  34  N.  H.  124 ;  Meyer  v.  Blair, 
109  N.  Y.  600,  s.  c.  4  Am.  St.  R.  500. 

*  As  to  the  effect  of  an  ultra  vires 
condition  in  a  subscription,  see,  Pel- 
iatt's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  527 ;  Thigpen  v. 
Mississippi,  etc.,  R.Co.,  32  Miss.  347. 
See,  also,  Morrow  v .  Nashville,  etc., 
Co.,  87  Tenn.  262,  3  L.R.A.  37 ;  Laredo 
Imp.  Co.  v.  Stevenson,  66  Fed.  R. 
633. 

5  Penobscot,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v:  Dunn,  39 
Me.  587;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Sumner,  106  Ind.  55,  60;  Ashtabula, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  15  Ohio  St.  328; 
McMillan  v.  Maysville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 
B.  Monroe  (Ky.)  218;  Dayton,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  1  Disney  (Cin.  Super. 
Ct.)  84;  Lake  Ontario  Shore  R.  Co.  v. 
Curtiss,  80  N.  Y.  219.  See  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Aurora,  99  111.  205,where 
it  is  held  that  a  town  may  issue  rail- 
road aid  bonds,  payable  upon  a  con- 
dition which  can  not  legally  be  ful- 
filled. 


§113 


SUBSCRIPTIONS. 


171 


therein.1  A  condition  will  be  presumed  to  have  been  made 
when  the  subscription  was  given,  in  the  absence  of  proof,8  and 
will  be  held  valid  when  annexed  to  the  subscription  after  it 
was  given,  if  done  with  the  consent  of  all  the  parties,  and  for 
a  consideration.' 


§  113.  Conditional  subscription  is  a  mere  offer  until  ac- 
cepted.— A  conditional  subscription  usually  constitutes  only  an 
offer  on  the  part  of  the  subscriber  until  it  is  accepted  by  the 
corporation,*  after  which,  upon  performance  of  the  condition, 
it  has  the  binding  force  of  any  other  subscription,5  but  it  has 
been  held  that  such  a  subscription  may  be  recalled  if  there  is 
an  unreasonable  delay  in  accepting  it.6  So,  a  gratuitous  sub- 
scription with  only  one  signer  is  said  to  be  an  offer,  which, 
until  accepted  by  the  promisee  in  express  terms,  or  by  a  per- 

1  For  conditions   which   have  been    the  company  to  issue  stock   in  ex- 
held  valid  see  1  Cook  on  Stock  and    change  for  it  before  the  subscriber 


Stockholders,  §83;  23  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ency.  of  Law,  836,  837. 

2  Robinson  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
32  Pa.  St.  334. 

8  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stewart, 
41  Pa.  St.  54 ;  New  Hampshire  Cent. 
R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  30  N.  H.  390;  Ton- 
ica,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stein,  21  111.  96. 

*  Junction  R.  Co.  v.  Reeve,  15  Ind. 
236.  See,  also,  Cass  v.  Pittsburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  80  Pa.  St.  31 ;  Taggart  v.  West- 
ern Md.  R.  Co.,  24  Md.  563,  s.  c.  89  Am. 
Dec.  760.  But  see  Mansfield,  etc.,  R. 


will  be  bound.  An  acceptance  by  less 
than  a  quorum  of  the  directors  will 
not  bind  him.  Junction  R.  Co.  v. 
Reeve,  15  Ind.  236. 

5  New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Cormick,  10  Ind.  499;  Ashtabula,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  15  Ohio  St.  328; 
Armstrong  f.Karshner,  47  Ohio  St.276, 
s.  c.  24  N.  E.  Rep.  897;  Webb  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Md.  92,  54  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  202.  Immediately  upon 
performance  of  the  condition,  a  prom- 
ise on  the  part  of  the  subscriber  to 


Co.  v.  Stout.  26  Ohio  St.  241,  to  the  ef-    pay,  and  of  the  company  to  issue  its 
feet  that  the  question  of  acceptance    stock  upon  such  payment,  is  implied. 


is  immaterial  where  the  corporation 
has  fully  performed  the  condition  im- 
posed. The  death  of  the  subscriber 
before  acceptance  of  a  conditional 
subscription  amounts  to  a  revocation. 
Wallace  v.  Townsend,  43  Ohio  St.  537 ; 


Mansfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  26 
Ohio  St.  223 ;  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Robbins,  23  Minn.  439. 

6  Taggart  v.  Western  Md.  R.  Co.,  24 
Md.  563.  See,  also,  Wood's  Case,  L.  R. 
15  Eq.  236,  holding  that  notice  of  such 


Sedalia,   etc.,   Ry.  Co.   v.  Wilkinson,    recall  may  be  given  to  the  secretary. 
83  Mo.  235.     Where  the  acceptance    That  a  conditional  subscription  may 


must  be  formal,  as  in  an  offer  to  give 
land  in  payment  for  stock,  it  must  be 
by  the  board  of  directors,  or  a  spe- 
cially authorized  agent,  so  as  to  bind 


be  revoked  while  still  in  the  hands  of 
the  corporate  agent,  see  Lowe  v.  Edge- 
field,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Head  (Tenn.)  659. 


172  THE    CORPORATION.  §  114 

formance  of  the  conditions  stipulated  therein,  is  but  a  nudum 
pactum,  and  can  not  be  enforced,  against  the  will  of  the  sub- 
scriber, by  an  action  at  law.1 

§  114.  Subscriptions  in  escrow — Parol  evidence. — A  con- 
tract of  subscription  to  capital  stock,  absolute  on  its  face,  may, 
like  any  other  contract,  be  delivered  to  a  third  person  to  be 
held  in  escrow  until  the  performance  of  certain  conditions. 
But  if  delivered  to  the  railroad  company  it  becomes  valid  and 
binding,  and  the  delivery  is  effectual  to  convey  title  to  the 
company.2  Where  a  subscription  is  delivered  in  escrow,  parol 
evidence  is  admissible  to  show  the  conditions  upon  which  it  is 
held.8  But  such  evidence  is  not,  as  a  rule,  admissible  to 
establish  an  escrow  in  the  Jtiands  of  the  company,*  although  it 
has  been  held  admissible  to  show  that  a  subscription  left  with 
a  soliciting  agent  was  not  to  be  delivered  until  the  subscriber 
should  have  made  an  investigation  and  directed  its  delivery, 
and  that,  upon  the  investigation  proving  unsatisfactory,  he 
had  at  once  notified  the  agent  to  withhold  and  cancel  it.5  If  a 
subscription,  delivered  to  a  committee  of  citizens  to  be  held  as 
an  escrow  to  await  the  performance  of  certain  parol  conditions 
annexed  thereto,  be  delivered  to  the  company  before  the  con- 
dition is  fulfilled,  such  delivery  is  ineffective,  and  the  sub- 

1  Broadbent    v.  Johnson,   2    Idaho  the  subscriber,  on  the  investigation 
300,  13  Pac.  Rep.  83.  proving  unsatisfactory,   immediately 

2  Cass  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  80  notified  the  agent  to  withhold  andean- 
Pa.  St.  31;  Wight  v.  Shelby  R.  Co.,  eel  it,  the, subscriber  did  not  become  a 
16  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  4,  s.  c.  63  Am.  Dec.  stockholder  and  was  not  liable  there- 
522,   where  delivery  was  made  to  a  on.  Great  Western  Tel.  Co.  v.  Loewen- 
commissioner  to  take   subscriptions,  thai,  154  111.  261,  40  N.  E.  R.  318. 
But  a  director  not  authorized  to  take  3  Ottawa,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v.   Hall,   1 
subscriptions   directly  may  hold  one  Bradw.  (111.)  612;  Great  Western  Tel . 
in  escrow.  Ottawa,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  Co.  v.  Loewenthal,  154  111.  261,  40  N. 
1  Bradw.  (111.)  612.     And  it  has  been  E.  R.  318. 

held  that  where  the  subscription  was  *  Wight  v.  Shelby  R.  Co.,  16  B.  Mon. 

left  in  the  hands  of  an  agent  to  solicit  (Ky.)  4. 

subscription  with  directions,  to  which  5  Great  Western  Tel.  Co.  v.  Loewen- 

he  assented,  to  hold  it  until  the  sub-  thai,  154  111.  261,  40  N.  E.  R.  318.    See, 

scriber  made  investigations  and  not  also,  Cass  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

to  deliver  it  to  the  company  until  the  80  Pa.  St.  31. 

subscriber  directed  him  to  do  so,  and 


§  115 


SUBSCRIPTIONS. 


173 


scription  can  not  be  enforced.1  When  a  subscription  is  given 
on  a  separate  paper,  parol  evidence  is  admissible  to  show  that 
it  was  to  be  annexed  to  the  books  only  on  the  performance  of 
certain  conditions.*  So,  on  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  held 
that  where  a  subscription  is  in  the  name  of  a  party  as  "trustee" 
it  may  be  shown  by  parol  evidence  that  he  acted  as  agent  for 
others,  and  creditors,  or  a  receiver  appointed  at  their  instance, 
may  maintain  an  action  to  recover  the  subscription  from  the 
real  parties  in  interest.1 

§  115.  Waiver  of  conditions. — The  condition  may  be  waived 
by  the  subscriber,  by  express  agreement,*  by  acting  as  an  offi- 
cer of  the  corporation,5  by  paying  the  whole  subscription,6  or 
giving  an  absolute,  promissory  note  therefor,7  or  by  any  act 


1  Beloit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Palmer,  19 
Wis.  574.  The  same  is  true  if  it  be 
put  into  the  hands  of  a  special  agent 
of  the  company  to  be  delivered  only 
upon  the  performance  of  conditions 
annexed.  Saginaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Chappell,  56  Mich.  190. 

2Bucher  v.  Dillsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
76  Pa.  St.  306;  Tonica,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Stein,  21  111.  95. 

3  Cole  v.  Satsop  R.  Co.,  9  Wash.  487, 
s.  c.  43  Am.  St.  R.  858.     But  see  as 
to  the  inadmissibility  of    parol  evi- 
dence generally,  Smith  v.  Tallahassee, 
etc.,  Co.,  30  Ala.  650 ;  Martin  v.  Pensa- 
cola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Fla.  370,  s.  c.  73 
Am.  Dec.  713;    New  Albany,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Fields,  10  Ind.  187;  Wight  v. 
Shelby  R.  Co.,  16  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  4, 
s.  c.  63  Am.  Dec.  522 ;  Kennebec,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Waters,  34  Me.  369;   Miller 
v.  Hanover,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Pa.  St.  95, 
s.  c.  30  Am.  R.  349. 

4  Hanover  Junction,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Haldeman,  82  Pa.  St.  36.    The  condi- 
tion implied  by  law  in  subscriptions 
to  stock,  that  payment  shall  not  be 
enforced  until  all  the  stock  is  sub- 
scribed is  waived  by  the  subscribers 
to  the  stock  of  a  railroad  company  ex- 


pressly agreeing,  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  the  company  to  build  a  cer- 
tain part  of  its  road,  to  pay  their  sub- 
scriptions; and  if  the  company  acts 
upon  this  agreement  and  constructs 
the  road,  the  subscribers  making  such 
an  agreement  must  pay,  though  others 
do  not.  Anderson  v.  Middle,  etc., 
Tenn.  Cent.  R.  Co.,  91  Tenn.44,  52 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  149.  As  to  waiver 
of  such  condition  by  express  agree- 
ment, see,  also,  Skowhegan,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  t>.  Kinsman,  77  Me.  370. 

5  Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  1 
Disney  (Gin.  Super.  Ct.)  84;  Lane  v. 
Brainerd,  30  Conn.  565. 

6  Parks  v.  Evansville,   etc.,  R.  Co., 
23  Tnd.  567. 

7  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  17 
Ind.  603;  Slipher  v.  Earhart,  83  Ind. 
173;  Chamberlain  v.  Painesville,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  15  Ohio  St.  225.    But  when 
the  company's  agent  induces  the  sub- 
scriber to  execute  the  notes  by  means 
of  falsely  representing  that  the  con- 
dition has  been  complied  with,  their 
execution  is  not  a  waiver.    Taylor  v. 
Fletcher,  15  Ind.  80.     See,  also,  Par- 
ker v.  Thomas,    19  Ind.    213.     And 
where  payments  are    made  under  a 


174  THE    CORPORATION.  §  115 

which  shows  an  intention  to  hold  himself  to  be  an  absolute 
shareholder  in  the  enterprise.1  So,  as  a  general  rule,  any  acts 
on  the  part  of  the  subscriber  which  have  induced  others  to  act 
in  reliance  upon  the  fact  that  he  was  a  stockholder  will  be 
sufficient  to  establish  such  a  waiver  without  any  necessity  for 
showing  that  either  the  corporation  or  any  other  subscriber 
has  in  fact  been  influenced  by  such  acts.2  The  rule  as  to 
waiver  of  the  implied  condition  that  no  subscription  shall  be 
payable  until  all  of  the  capital  stock  has  been  subscribed  is 
well  stated  in  a  recent  case,  as  follows:  "The  courts,  in  stat- 
ing what  will  estop  the  subscriber,  or  prevent  his  being  heard 
to  make  the  objection  (that  the  full  capital  stock  of  the  corpo- 
ration has  not  been  subscribed)  refer  only  to  his  acts,  and  do 
not  include  the  fact  that  they  did  influence  others.  If  a  tech- 
nical estoppel  were  required  to  prevent  a  subscriber  withdraw- 
ing his  subscription  on  this  ground  much  fraud  might  be 
committed;  for,  if  it  must  be  shown  that  the  corporation  or  some 
subscriber,  of  whom  there  may  be  many  hundreds  or  even 
thousands,  was  in  fact  influenced  by  the  acts  of  the  subscriber 
who  seeks  to  withdraw,  it  might  be  impossible  to  prove  the 
fact,  even  though  it  exist.  The  safer  rule  in  such  a  case  is 
that,  if  his  acts  are  of  such  a  character  that  either  the  corpo- 
ration or  subscribers  may  have  been  induced  by  them  to  act, 
and  will  be  prejudiced  if  he  be  permitted  to  withdraw,  he  shall 
be  held  to  have  waived,  or  to  be  estopped  to  assert  the  defense. 
It  is  immaterial  which  word  is  used,  except,  perhaps,  for  the 

mistaken  belief  induced  by  false  and  annexed  to  it.  O'Donald  v.  Evans- 
fraudulent  representations  that  the  ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Ind.  259. 
condition  has  previously  been  per-  1  Parks  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
formed,  such  payment  is  not  a  waiver.  23  Ind.  567 ;  Parker  v.  Thomas,  19  Iml . 
Ridgefield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brush,  43  213;  Willamette  Freighting  Co.  v. 
Conn.  86;  Somerset,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stannus,  4  Ore.  261.  Delay  in  can- 
Cushing,  45  Me.  524;  Morris,  etc.,  Co.  celling  a  subscription  may  bind  one 
v.  Nathan,  2  Hall  (N.  Y.)  239.  The  where  it  shows  an  intention  to  become 
note  given  subsequent  to  the  contract  an  absolute  stockholder.  Wheatcroft's 
of  subscription  can  not  be  regarded  Case,  29  L.  T.  R.  324. 
as  forming  a  part  of  such  contract  2  Railway  Co.  v.  Lacey,  3  Younge  & 
and  so  is  not  subject  to  the  conditions  J.  80. 


§  116  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  175 

sake  of  strict  verbal  accuracy."1  A  waiver  will  generally  be 
implied  if  the  subscriber  consents  to  the  letting  of  contracts, 
the  creation  of  debt,  or  the  doing  of  any  corporate  act  involv- 
ing the  necessity  of  calling  in  the  subscribed  stock,  unless  the 
charter  expressly  forbid  the  doing  of  any  corporate  act  until 
the  requisite  capital  is  subscribed.2  An  express  condition  may 
also  be  waived  or  qualified  by  another  clause  of  the  agreement 
\vhich  is  inconsistent  with  it.3  But  a  subscriber's  mere  silence,4 
or  a  part  payment,5  or  soliciting  subscriptions  and  permitting 
himself  to  be  chosen  to  a  corporate  office,  without  acting  as 
such,6  is  not  necessarily  such  a  waiver.  Nor,  in  general,  is 
participation  in  any  acts  done  for  perfecting  the  organization 
and  setting  it  on  its  feet  for  business,  such  as  preparing  and 
procuring  the  execution  of  the  articles,  procuring  subscriptions 
to  its  stock,  preparing  by-laws  for  its  government,  and  the 
like,  to  be  considered  a  waiver  of  the  condition  that  the  corpo- 
ration shall  not  begin  business  until  the  capital  stock  is  all 
subscribed,  for  these  things  are  proper,  and  to  some  extent 
necessary  to  be  done,  although  the  subscriptions  are  incom- 
plete.7 If  the  annexed  condition  be  a  reserved  right  to  with- 
draw the  subscription,  this  right  must  be  exercised  within  a 
reasonable  time  or  it  will  be  held  to  be  waived.8 

§  116.   When  conditional  subscription  becomes  payable. — 

Where  certain  acts  are  to  be  done  within  a  specified  time,  the- 

1  Masonic  Temple  Ass'n  v.  Chan-  entitle  the  subscriber  to  demand  his 
nell,  43  Minn.  353.  stock  and  preclude  the  company  from 

2  Anderson  v.  Middle,  etc.,  Tenn.  denying  that  he  is  a  stockholder.  Ap- 
Cent.   R.  Co.,  91  Tenn.  44,  52  Am.  &  peal  of  Mack,   (Pa.)   7  Atl.  R.  481. 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  149.  See,  also,  Parks  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R. 

8  Woonsocket  Union  R.  Co.  v.  Sher-    Co.,  23  Ind.  567. 
man,  8  R.  I.  564.  6  Ridgefield,   etc.,   R.    Co.  v.   Rey- 

4  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boest-    nolds,  46  Conn.  375. 

ler,  15  Iowa  555;  Bucksport,  etc.,  R.  'Gillfillan,  C.  J.,inMasonicTemple 

Co.  w.  Inhabitants,  etc.,  67  Me.  295.  Ass'n  v.  Channell,  43  Minn.  353;  Old- 

5  Jewett  v.  Lawrenceburgh,  etc.,  R.  town,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Veazie,39Me. 
Co.,  10  Ind.  539;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  571 ;  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  t>.  Sul- 
Co.  c.  Stewart,  41  Pa.  St.  54.    But  see  liran,  57  Ga.  240. 

Klein  v.  Alton,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  13  111.        8  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t>.  Robe- 
514.     The  distinction  is  made  as  to    son,  5  Ired.  (N.  C.)  391. 
whether  the  payments  are  such  as  to 


176  THE    CORPORATION.  §  116 

expiration  of  the  time  without  performance  will  generally  op- 
erate to  discharge  the  subscriber  from  liability,1  at  least  where 
they  are  conditions  precedent  and  time  is  of  the  essence.  A  sub- 
scription made  on  condition  that  the  road  shall  be  "  perma- 
nently "  located  on  a  certain  route  becomes  payable  when  that 
route  is  adopted  by  the  directors,2  but  a  change  in  the  poute  so 
that  it  does  not  fulfill  the  conditions,  after  part  of  the  money 
is  paid,  may  enable  the  subscriber  to  recover  his  money.* 
Whether  the  conditions  have  been  performed  is  a  question  of 
fact  which  may  be  proved  by  parol,*  as  may  fraud  or  bad 
faith  on  the  part  of  the  corporation  or  its  officers  in  this  con- 
nection.5 Where  the  agreement  leaves  the  question  as  to  when 
the  condition  has  been  performed  to  the  judgment  of  the  direc- 
tors, their  decision,  if  made  in  good  faith,  is  final.6  Notice  of 
such  performance  must  usually  be  given  to  the  subscriber,  and 
payment  demanded  before  the  subscription  will  become  pay- 
able.7 But  a  formal  notice  of  performance  is  not  necessary  be- 
fore suit,  where  the  subscriber  has  actual  knowledge  that  the 
condition  has  been  fulfilled.8  Propert}^  subscribed  in  payment 

'Freeman  v.  Matlock,  67  Ind.  99;  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  39  Me.  587.    And  tke 

Moore  v.   Campbell,     111    Ind.   328;  burden  is  usually  upon  the  company. 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  Santa  Cruz  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Schwartz,  53 

24  Kan.  170;  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cal.  106;  Bucksport,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 

Inhabitants,  etc.,  58  Me.  23.    Where  Buck,  65  Me.  536;  Chase  v.  Sycamore, 

performance   of    the    condition    was  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  38  111.  215. 

completed  soon  after  the  expiration  of  5New  York  Ex.   Co.  v.  De  Wolf,  31 

the  time,  and  the  subscriber  neglected  N.  Y.  273. 

to  take  his  name  off  the  books,  he  was  6Cass  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

held  bound.  Leev.  Imbrie,  11  Pac.  R.  Pa.  St.  31. 

270,13  Ore.   510.     And  see  Missouri  7  Chase  v.  Sycamore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Tygard,  84  Mo.  263.  See,  111.  215 ;  Trott  v.  Sarchett,  10  Ohio  St. 

however,  Freeman  v.  Matlock,  68  Ind.  241 ;  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

99.  §  89.     Contra,    Spartanburg,    etc.,  R. 

*  Smith  v.  Allison,  23  Ind.  366.  Co.  v.  De  Graffenreid,  12  Rich.  L.  (S. 

3  Jewett  v.  Lawrenceburgh,  etc.,  R.  C.)  675. 

Co.,  10  Ind.  539.  "New  Albany,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 

4  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ri  Co.  v.  Eakins,  Cormick,  10  Ind .499.  See,  also,  Nichols 
30  Iowa  279;  Jewett  v.  Lawrenceburgh,  v.   Burlington,     etc.,    Co.,   4  Greene 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Ind.  539.  See,  also,  To-  (Iowa)   42;  Spartanburg,  etc.,  R.  R. 
ledo,  etc.,R.R.Co.t?.  Johnson,  49  Mich.  Co.  v.  De  Graffenreid,  12  Rich.  L.  (P. 
148.     In  some  cases  proof  is  made  by  Car.)  675. 

the  corporate  records.  Penobscot,  etc., 


§  117 


SUBSCRIPTIONS. 


177 


for  stock  taken  must  be  specially  demanded  by  the  corporation, 
if  no  time  is  fixed  for  delivery.1  And  upon  the  failure  of  the 
subscriber  to  furnish  the  property,  the  subscription  becomes 
payable  in  cash.2 

§  117.  Construction  of  conditional  subscriptions — What  is 
a  sufficient  compliance  with  condition  as  to  time  of  beginning 
and  completing  road. — The  conditions  most  commonly  annexed 
to  subscriptions  to  the  stock  of  a  railroad  company  relate  to  the 
time  of  beginning  and  completing  the  road,  or  to  the  route  over 
which  the  road  shall  run.  Where  the  condition  requires  the  rail- 
road to  be  begun  or  finished  before  a  certain  date,  it  is  held  that 
time  is  of  the  essence  of  the  contract,8  and  the  subscriber  may 
be  discharged  from  liability  by  a  failure  to  comply  with  the 
condition.  But  a  substantial  compliance  is  sufficient,4  while  a 
mere  colorable  compliance  with  a  condition  that  the  road  should 
be  completed  and  a  train  run  over  the  road  by  laying  a  tempo- 
rary track,  over  which  an  engine  and  a  few  cars  are  run,  but 


1  Ohio,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Cramer,  23 
Ind.  490.     See  McClure  v.  People's  R. 
Co.,  90  Pa.  St.  269. 

2  Hay  wood,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan, 
6  Jones  L.    (N.   Car.)  82;  Speny  v. 
Johnson,  11  Ohio  452. 

s  Jackson  v.  Shortridge,  29  Tex.  394 ; 
Ticonic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lang,  63  Me.  480; 
Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boestler, 
15  Iowa  555;  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Thompson,  24  Kan.  170;  Freeman  v. 
Matlock,  67  Ind.  99.  But  see  Johnson 
v.  Kessler,  76  Iowa  411,  s.  c.  41  N.  W. 
R.  57. 

•Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Tygard, 
84  Mo.  263;  Hall  v.  Sims,  (Ala.),  17 
So.  R.  534;  Southern  Kansas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Towner,  41  Kan.  22;  Free- 
man v.  Matlock,  67  Ind.  99;  Brocaw 
v.  Board,  etc. ,  73  Ind.  543 ;  Fort  Worth, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  (Tex.)  18 
S.  W.  R.  206.  Williams  v.  Ft.  Worth, 
etc.,  S.  Co.,  82  Tex.  553.  The  road 

CORP.  12 


may  be  subtantially  built  to  a  certain 
point,  although  a  depot  has  not  been 
erected  nor  a  station  agent  employed. 
Ogden  v.  Kirby,  79  111.  555.  The  court 
held  it  a  substantial  compliance  where 
the  road  was  not  finally  completed  for 
two  and  a  half  months  after  the  stipu- 
lated time.  De  Moines  Valley  R.  Co. 
v.  Graff,  27  Iowa  99,  s.  c.  1  Am.  R.  256. 
A  condition  in  the  vote  of  bonds  by  a 
county  in  aid  of  a  railroad  company, 
that  it  shall  establish  and  maintain  a 
division  terminus  at  a  point  situated 
between  two  named  cities  in  the  coun- 
ty, is  substantially  complied  with  if 
the  terminus  is  established  at  a  point 
on  the  line  of  the  road  between  the 
two  cities  a  few  rods  off  from  a  direct 
line  between  them.  Chicago,  K.  & 
W.  R.  Co.  v.  (Board,  etc.)  Harris,  49 
Kan.  399,  30  Pac.  R.  456.  See,  also, 
Wullenwaber  ».  Dunigan,  30  Neb.  877. 


178 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§117 


which  must  be  replaced  by  another  before  regular  trains  can  be 
run,  would  not  be  sufficient  to  bind  the  subscriber.1  A  condi- 
tion that  "cars  shall  run  to  B,  upon  a  completed  railroad  from 
B,"  is,  however,  sufficiently  complied  with  by  running  leased 
cars  over  the  road.2  Where  payment  is  to  be  made  upon  com- 
pletion of  a  portion  of  the  road,  it  is  not  necessary  that  it  be 
made  a  first-elass  road  before  payment  can  be  enforced,  but  the 
specified  portion  must  be  substantially  finished  and  capable  of 
being  operated  for  the  transaction  of  railroad  business.8  Upon 


1  Freeman  u.Matlock,67  Ind.  99 ;  Bro- 
caw  v.  Board,  etc.,  73  Ind.  543;  Paris, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson,  89  111.  86. 
The  condition  is  not  fulfilled  by  mak- 
ing a  temporary  arrangement  by  which 
cars  are  run  to  the  required  Jerminus 
over  a  portion  of  another  company's 
track.  Lawrence  v.  Smith,  57  Iowa 
701;  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Holmes,  101  Ind.  348.  A  person  sub- 
scribed $5,000  in  aid  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany, "one  half  of  said  sum  to  be  due 
and  payable  when  said  company  shall 
construct  or  secure  a  continuous  line 
of  railway  from  T.  to  M."  Trains  ran 
from  T.  into  M.  over  the  road  in  the 
specified  time,  but  the  road  belonging 
to  the  company  only  extended  to  D., 
and  from  D.  to  T.  trains  were  run 
over  the  road  of  another  company 
under  an  arrangement  by  which  the 
track  was  to  be  used  by  the  new  com- 
pany, but  in  subordination  to  the  use 
of  the  company  owning.  The  court 
held  that  there  was  no  performance 
under  which  the  subscriber  could  be 
held  upon  his  subscription.  Brown  v. 
Dibble,  65  Mich.  520,  32  N.  W.  656. 
See,  also,  Tabor,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.v.  Mc- 
Cormick,  (Iowa)  57  N.  W.  R.  949. 
But  see  People  v.  Holden,  82  111.  93, 
where  the  company  used  one  mile  of 
track  and  terminate  belonging  to 
another  railroad  company  in  order  to 
reach  one  of  the  townfc  named  in  the 
condition,  and  it  was  held  to  be  a 


sufficient  compliance  to  render  the 
subscriber  liable.  A  notice  of  elec- 
tion stated  that  the  question  to  be  sub- 
mitted was  whether  aid  should  be 
voted  for  the  construction  of  a  rail- 
road between  W.  and  a  point  on  the 
W.  R.  Co.  in  W.  county,  the  petition 
stated  that  the  •  road  should  be  com- 
pleted so  that  trains  could  be  run  from 
W.  to  L.  on  the  line  of  the  "W.  R.  Co. 
by  a  stated  time.  It  was  held  that 
the  company  was  not  required  to  build 
an  independent,  continuous  line  to  L., 
but  a  junction  with  the  W.  R.  Co.  was 
sufficient.  Young  v.  Webster  City  & 
S.  W.  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa  140. 

2  Courtright  v.  Deeds,  37  Iowa  503. 

8  Armstrong  v.  Karshner,  47  Ohio 
St.  276.  When  the  company  has  con- 
structed a  road  which  is  reasonably 
safe,  fit  and  convenient  for  the  public 
use  and  accommodation,  as  new  rail- 
roads are  ordinarily  used  in  similar 
localities,  it  has  complied  with  a  con- 
dition in  a  vote  of  a  municipal  cor- 
poration granting  aid  in  the  construc- 
tion of  the  railroad,  that  it  shall  be 
paid  when  the  road  is  completed  for 
use.  Where  an  act  providing  for  the 
issuance  of  bonds  for  the  purpose  of 
aiding  a  railroad  authorizes  preferred 
stock  to  be  issued  to  the  county  ex- 
tending the  aid  when  the  road  is 
completed,  the  county  will  be  estoppe.d 
to  deny  that  the  road  is  completed  if 
it  receives  and  retains  stock.  Lan- 


118 


SUBSCRIPTIONS. 


179 


such  a  completion  of  the  specified  part  of  the  road  the  sub- 
scription becomes  an  absolute  one.1 

§  118.  Subscriptions  payable  as  work  progresses,  or  upon 
expenditure  of  a  certain  amount. — Subscriptions  are  some- 
times made  payable  as  the  work  progresses,  or  upon  the  con- 
struction of  a  certain  portion  of  the  work,  or  the  expenditure 
of  a  certain  sum  or  percentage.  Such  a  stipulation  in  the  con- 
tract of  subscription  may  operate  as  a  waiver  of  the  implied 
condition  that  all  the  stock  shall  be  subscribed  before  any  sub- 
scription can  be  collected,  and  an  agreement  by  subscribers  to 
pay  their  subscription  as  the  work  progresses,  in  order  to  en- 
able the  company  to  build  a  certain  portion  of  the  road,  will 
operate  as  such  a  waiver  and  render  such  subscribers  liable  to 
pay  their  subscription  as  the  specified  portion  of  the  work  is 
done  under  the  agreement.8  Where  a  subscription  when  made 


caster  County  v.  Cheraw  &  C.  R.  Co., 
28  S.  C.  134,  5  S.  E.  338. 

1  Webb  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
77  Md.  92,  54  A.  &  E.  R.  Cas.  202. 
The  entire  road  need  not  be  com- 
pleted in  such  a  case  before  the  sub- 
scription can  be  collected.    Gardner 
v.  Walsh,  95  Mich.  505,  s.  c.  59  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  1. 

2  Anderson  v.  Middle  &  East  Tenn. 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  91  Tenn.  44,  52  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Co.  149.    In  this  case  subscrib- 
ers to  the  capital  stock  of  a  railroad 
chartered    to   run   from  Gallatin   to 
Knoxville,  a  distance  of  one  hundred 
and  fifty  miles,  signed  an  agreement  to 
pay  their  subscriptions  "  as  fast  as  the 
work  progressed,"  upon  a  section  of 
the  road  eleven  and  one-half  miles 
long,  extending  from  Hartsville  to  a 
point  on  the  Chesapeake  and  Nashville 
railroad,  eight  and  one-half  miles  from 
Gallatin,  which  they  agreed  should  be 
constructed  before  the  company  had 
procured  sufficient  finances  to  build 
the  whole  road.  They  were  held  liable 
to  pay  their  subscriptions  upon  suit 


brought  to"  enforce  payment  when 
seventy  per  cent,  of  the  work  had 
been  done  upon  such  section  of  the 
road,  although  the  company  was  in- 
solvent, and  wholly  unable  to  com- 
plete the  road  as  originally  contem- 
plated, and  although  the  subscribers 
were  business  men  of  Gallatin,  whose 
object  in  taking  stock  was  to  secure  an 
outlet  from  their  city  to  Knoxville.The 
court  said  that  they  were  estopped  by 
their  express  agreement  to  deny  their 
liability  as  subscribers,  for  by  such  an 
agreement  they  waived  the  conditions, 
express  and  implied,  annexed  to  their 
original  contract  of  subscription.  A 
company,  having  accepted  a  donation 
from  a  city,  in  consideration  that  it 
permanently  establish  its  terminus, 
main  office,  shops  and  car  works  in 
said  city,  has  fulfilled  its  obligation 
when  the  terminus,  office,  shops  and 
car  works  have  been  established 
therein  without  any  intention  of  re- 
moving them,  and  the  company  can 
not  be  compelled  to  keep  them  there 
when  the  interests  of  the  road  and  of 


180  THE    CORPORATION.  § 

was  unauthorized  and  invalid  because  the  company  had  not, 
at  that  time,  expended  ten  per  centum  of  its  authorized  capi- 
tal in  the  construction  of  its  road,  nor  obtained  actual  bona  fide 
subscriptions  to  its  capital  stock,  to  the  amount  of  twenty  per 
cent,  thereof,  as  required  by  statute,1  it  was  held  that  such 
subscription  could  be  enforced  against  the  subscriber,  after  the 
company  had  fully  complied  with  its  conditions.8  Although 
originally  invalid,  it  constituted  a  continuing  offer  by  the  sub- 
scriber to  pay  the  company  the  amount  subscribed,  upon  the 
performance  by  it  of  the  prescribed  conditions,  which,  when 
not  withdrawn  before  the  conditions  were  fully  complied 
with,  became  an  absolute  subscription,  and  was  no  longer  open 
to  the  objection  that  the  company  was  without  corporate  ca- 
pacity to  receive  it.  But  a  requirement  in  the  subscription 
that  certain  things  be  done  must  clearly  appear  to  be  intended 
as  a  condition  precedent,  or  it  will  not  be  construed  to  have 
that  effect.3 

§  119.  Failure  to  perform  parol  condition  will  not  defeat 
subscription. — A  condition  will  not  be  permitted  to  defeat  a 
subscription  unless  clearly  required  by  what  is  set  forth  in  the 
writing,4  for,  in  the  absence  of  fraud,  or  mistake,  the  written 
subscription  can  not,  as  a  rule,  be  varied  or  controlled  by 
parol  evidence.5  Thus,  it  was  held  in  a  recent  case,  that  '''it 
is  no  defense  in  an  action  on  a  railroad  aid  subscription,  con- 
ditioned on  the  completion  of  the  road  to  Iowa  Falls,  by  Sep- 
tember 1,  1884,  that  the  company  had  broken  an  oral  promise, 
which  was  part  of  the  consideration,  to  complete  the  line  from 

the  public  require  a  removal.    The  Johnson  v.  Kessler,  76  Iowa  411,  s.  c. 
city  is  relegated  to  its  remedy  for  a  41  N.  W.  Rep.  57. 
breach  by  action  for  damages.     Texas  *  Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Delap,  7  Brad. 
&  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Marshall,  136  U.  S.  393,  (111.)  60;   Johnson  v.   Georgia  Mid- 
34  L.  Ed.  385,   8  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  land,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ga.  725. 
162,  10  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  846,  42  Am.  &  5  Low  v.  Studabaker,  110  Ind.  57 ; 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  637.  Johnson  v.  Georgia  Midland,  etc.,  R. 

'Rev.  Stat.  Ohio,  §  3298.  Co.,   81   Ga.  725;  Tabor,  etc.,  R.  R. 

2  Armstrong  v.  Karshner,  47  Ohio  Co.  v.  McCormick,  (Iowa),  57  N.  W. 

276,  s.  c.  24  N.  E.  Rep.  897.  R.  949.    But  compare  Lake  Manawa 

•Armstrong    v.    Karshner,    supra;  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Squire,  (Iowa),  57  N.  W. 

R.  307. 


•§   1'20  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  181 

Iowa  Falls  to  Forest  City  within  one  year  from  the  date  fixed 
in  the  contract  for  the  completion  of  the  road  to  Iowa  Falls, 
and  that  the  company  had  abandoned  the  project  of  building 
the  line  between  those  points.  The  rights  of  the  parties  are 
governed  by  the  written  contract,  and  parol  evidence  is  not 
admissible  to  show  a  condition  not  embodied  in  the  written 
agreement."1 

§  120.  Conditions  in  notes. — A  note  payable  two  years  after 
the  road  is  completed  and  trains  are  running  to  a  certain  point 
and  expressed  to  be  in  consideration  of  the  completion  of  the 
line  within  sixty  days,  is  not  defeated  by  a  failure  to  complete 
it  within  such  time,8  and  a  note  payable  when  the  track  is  laid 
and  cars  run  thereon  can  not  be  defeated  by  showing  that  the 
consideration  for  such  note  was  that  the  track  should  be  so 
laid  within  three  years  of  its  date.8  But  a  long  delay  in  con- 
structing the  road  may  defeat  a  note  given  upon  this  condi- 
tion.* The  words  "  the  road  to  be  finished  by  September  1, 
1872,"  in  such  a  note  will  not  imply  a  condition  precedent.6 
Notes  made  payable  when  the  railroad  between  two  points 
"with  the  privilege  of  entering  Atlanta,  Ga.,  on  the  track  of 
any  railroad  having  terminal  facilities  there,"  is  graded  and 
ready  for  the  cross-ties,  trestles  and  bridges,  were  held  paya- 
ble when  the  grading  was  done,  although  the  road  had  not  yet 
acquired  such  privilege.6  And  when  the  notes  were  payable  at 
specified  times  "as  the  work  progressed  through  the  county, 

1  Blair  v.  Buttolph,  72  Iowa  31,  33  5  Davis  v .  Cobban,  39  Iowa  392. 

X.  W.  R.  349.  6  Johnson  v.  Georgia  Midland,  etc., 

2Traert;.  Stuart,  46  Iowa  15.  R.  Co.,  81  Ga.  725,  s.  c.  8  S.  E.  R. 

3  Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t?.  Delap,  7  Brad.  531.    The  court,  by  Bleckly,   C.  J., 
<I11.  App.)  60.  says:  "There  was  no  stipulation  that 

4  A  period  of  fourteen  years  is  not  the  privilege  of  entering  Atlanta  was 
"a  reasonable  time"  within  which"  to  to  be  secured  before  the  notes  became 
build  a  railroad,  where  it  is  the  evident  payable.    The  clause  relating  to  that 
intent  of  the  parties  that  the  road  privilege  was  introduced  to  describe 
should  be  completed  within  "a  reason-  the  railroad  as  it  was  to  be  ultimately, 
able  time,"  so  as  to  render  subscribers  not  as  it  was  to  be  at  the  maturity  and 
to  capital  stock  liable  on  notes  pay-  payment  of  the  subscriptions  to  the 
able  when    cars    shall    be    running,  capital  stock." 

Blake  v.  Brown,  80  Iowa  277. 


182  THE    CORPORATION.  §  121 

provided  the  company  establish  a  depot"  at  a  certain  place, 
the  condition  to  erect  a  depot  was  held  not  a  condition  pre- 
cedent.1 

§  121.  Subscriptions  conditioned  upon  location  or  construc- 
tion of  the  road. — A  subscription  conditioned  upon  the  loca- 
tion of  the  railroad  through  a  certain  town  becomes  absolute 
when  such  location  is  permanently  made,  although  the  road, 
has  not  been  constructed.2  So,  where  the  subscription  was 
payable  at  such  times  and  in  such  installments  as  the  directors 
should  prescribe,  provided  the  road  should  be  "permanently 
located"  on  a  certain  route,  and  a  "freight  house  and  depot  be 
built"  at  a  certain  point,  the  provision  that  the  buildings  be 
erected  was  held  to  be  a  stipulation  merely,  and  not  a  condi- 
tion precedent,  to  be  performed  before  the  subscription  could 
be  collected.3  And  so  a  stipulation  that  the  road  should  be 
operated  independently  of  an  existing  railroad  was  held  to  re- 
late to  what  should  be  done  after  payment  was  made  and  the 
road  was  completed.*  Where  the  subscribers  promised  to  pay 
the  sums  set  opposite  their  names,  in  equal  installments  at  six, 
twelve  and  eighteen  months  from  a  certain  date,  to  be  used 
only  toward  paying  the  damages  and  costs  in  acquiring  the 
right  of  way,  if  the  plaintiff's  railroad  should  be  permanently 
located  and  constructed  through  Lexington,  it  was  held  that 
the  construction  of  the  road  was  not  a  condition  precedent.5 
It  is  generally  held,  in  accordance  with  the  authorities  already 
cited,  that  a  subscription,  made  upon  the  express  condition  that 

1  Paducah,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Parks,  86    structed") ;  Berryman  v.  Cincinnati 
Tenn.  554;  Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.    Southern   Ry.,    14    Bush    (Ky.)    755 
v.  Williams,  (Tex.)  18  S.  W.  R.  206;     (same  as  last  case). 

Williams  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Chamberlain  v.  Painesville,  etc.,  R. 

82  Tex.  553.  Co.,  15  Ohio  St.  225 ;  Ashtabula,  etc., 

2  Smith  v.  Allison,  23  Ind.  366 ;  Me-  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  15  Ohio  St.  328. 
Millan  v.  Maysville,  etc.,   R.  R.  Co.,  *  Johnson  v.  Georgia  Midland,  etc., 
15  B.   Mon.  (Ky.)  218,  s.  c.  61  Am.  R.  Co.,  81  Ga.  725,  8  S.  E.  R.  531. 
Dec.  181 ;  North  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  R.  5  Berryman  v.   Cincinnati,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Winkler,  29  Mo.  318;  Miller  v.  Co.,  14  Bush  (Ky.)  755.    But  see  Bur- 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  40  Pa.  St.  lington,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Boestler,  15 
237,  s.  c.   80  Am.  Dec.   570  (where  Iowa  555. 

subscription  said  "located   and  con- 


§  121  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  183 

the  company  shall  locate  and  construct  its  railroad  to  a  certain 
point,  becomes  payable  at  the  time  or  times  mentioned  in  the  con- 
tract of  subscription,  if  the  railroad  shall  have  been  located  at  that 
point,  and  that  the  construction  of  the  road,  unless  expressly 
made  so,  is  not  a  condition  precedent  to  the  payment  of  the 
subscription.1  Where  the  subscription  is  made  upon  condi- 
tion that  the  road  be  "built"  to  a  certain  point,  the  money  is 
payable  upon  call  when  the  road  is  permanently  located,  in 
good  faith,  upon  the  designated  route.2  And  the  same  rule  ap- 
plies where  the  condition  is  that  the  railway  shall  "pass" 
through  a  certain  country.8  Payment  of  such  a  subscription 
may  be  enforced,  it  seems,  although  work  upon  the  road  has 
been  suspended  from  lack  of  means  to  prosecute  it.  To  per- 
mit the  subscriber  to  set  up  such  a  suspension  as  a  defense  in 
a  suit  to  collect  the  subscription  would  be  to  permit  him  to 
take  advantage  of  his  own  wrong  and  bad  faith  in  refusing  to 
pay  what  he  agreed  to  pay  at  a  time  fixed  in  order  that  the  com- 
pany might  have  means  with  which  to  build  the  road.4  It  is  now 
established  by  the  decided  weight  of  authority  that  stock  may  be 
subscribed  or  money  donated  to  a  railroad  company  upon  con- 
dition that  it  will  locate  or  build  its  road  upon  a  specified  route 
not  inconsistent  with  its  charter,  and  which  does  not  plainly 
conflict  with  the  interests  of  the  public;  and  that  any  such 
agreement  to  take  stock  or  to  pay  money  will  become  binding 
when  the  road  is  so  located.5 

1  Miller  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  *  Miller  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

Pa.  237,  s.    c.  80  Am.  Dec.  570;  Me-  Pa.  St.  237,  s.  c.  80  Am.  Dec.  570. 

Millan  v.  Maysville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  B.  5  Jewett  v.  Lawrenceburgh,  etc.,  R. 

Moh.  (Ky.)  218.  Co.,  10  Ind.  539;  Missouri  Pacific  R. 

z  Warner  v.Callender,20  OhioSt.190 ;  Co.  ».  Taggard,  84  Mo.  263 ;  Tygard  v. 

Swartwout  v.  Michigan  Air  Line  R.  Western  Md.  R.  Co.,  24  Md.  563,  s.  c. 

Co.,  24  Mich.  389 ;  Woonsocket  Union  89  Am.  Dec.  760 ;  Connecticut,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.  v.  Sherman,  8  R.  I.  564.     In  Co.  v.  Baxter,  32  Vt.  805;  Cumberland 

this  latter  case  the  subscription  was  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Baab,  9  Watts  (Pa.) 

payable  "if  the  road  is  built"  through  458 ;  Mansfield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown, 

a  certain  village.  26  Ohio  St.  223 ;  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R. 

3Ashtabula,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Smith,  Co.  v.  Graff,  27  Iowa  99;  Nashville, 

15  Ohio  St.  328;  Chamberlain  e.Paines-  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  2  Cold. (Tenn.) 

ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Ohio  St.  225;  574;  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boest- 

North  Missouri  R.  Co.  v.  Winkler,  29  ler,  15  Iowa  555;  Swartwout  v.  Michi- 

Mo.  318.  gan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Mich.  389;  Paris, 


184 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  122 


§  122.  Effect  of  alteration  in  route  fixed  by  charter. — Gen- 
erally, if  a  subscription  be  made  to  a  railroad,  whose  route  is 
fixed  by  its  charter,  any  material  alterations  in  such  route, 
made  without  his  consent,  will  release  the  subscriber  from  lia- 
bility.1 In  a  Georgia  case  where  the  southern  terminus  was 
changed  by  act  of  the  legislature,  passed  upon  application  of 
the  corporation,  from  Hawkinsville  to  Thomasville,  and  the 
authorized  capital  was  greatly  increased,  the  court  held  that  a  dis- 
senting subscriber  was  released  by  such  alterations,  although, 
when  he  subscribed,  the  general  law  under  which  the  first  char- 
ter was  obtained  authorized  amendments  to  be  made  to  the  char- 
ter, the  route  to  be  changed,  and  the  capital  stock  to  be  increased.8 
The  same  is  true  if  the  subscription  paper  specifies  the  route 
and  termini,  and  material  alterations  are  made  in  them  after  it 


etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson,  89  111.  89; 
Martin  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 
Fla.  370;  Bucksport,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Brewer,  67  Me.  295;  Agricultural, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winchester,  13  Allen 
(Mass.)  29;  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Blakely,  3  Strobh.  (S.  C.)  245;  Woon- 
socket,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sherman,  8  R. 
I.  564;  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pottle, 
23  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  21 ;  McMillan  v. 
Maysville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)  218,  s.  c.  61  Am.  Dec.  181;  Ra- 
cine Co.  Bank  v.  Ayres,  12  Wis.  512; 
Rose  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 
Tex.  49;  Moore  v.  Hanover  Junction 
R.  Co.,  94  Pa.  St.  324;  Cedar  Rapids, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spafford,  41  Iowa  292; 
Cayuga  Lake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kyle,  5 
T.  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  659.  Post,  §§  362, 363. 
But  see  Pacific  R.  Co.  v.  Seely,  45  Mo. 
212; Woodstock  Iron  Co.  v.  Richmond, 
etc.,  Extension  Co.,  129  TJ.  S.  643,  s.  c. 
9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  402 ;  Florida,  etc.,R.Co.  v. 
State^  31  Fla.  482,  s.  c.  13  So.  R.  103 ;  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mathers,  104  111. 
257 ;  St.  Joseph,  etc.,R.  Co.  v.  Ryan,  11 
Kan.  602.  An  agreement  to  pay  a 
stated  suai  to  secure  the  location  of 
a  railroad  upon  a  specified  route  was 


upheld  and  enforced  on  the  ground 
that  the  public  interest  was  not  op- 
posed to  the  location  required  by  the 
condition,  in  First  National  Bank  v. 
Hendre,  49  Iowa  402.  A  condition 
involving  the  location  of  the  proposed 
route  of  a  turnpike  company's  road 
has  been  held  void  in  New  York  as  an 
attempt  to  influence  by  improper 
means  the  decision  of  a  question  in 
which  public  interests  are  involved, 
and  therefore  against  public  policy. 
Butternuts,  etc.,  T.  Co.  v.  North,  1 
Hill  (N.  Y.)  518;  Fort  Edwards,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Payne,  15  N.  Y.  583;  Macedon, 
etc.,  Plank  R.  Co.  v.  Snediker,  18 
Barb.  317.  See  to  the  same  effect  as 
to  railroads,  TJtica,  etc.,  R.  Co.  P. 
Brinckerhoff,  21  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  139. 
But  see  later  New  York  cases  cited, 
supra. 

'Caley  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  80  Pa.  St.  363 ;  Buckfield,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.  v.  Irish,  39  Me.  44;  Danbury, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  22  Conn. 
435. 

2  Snook  c.  Georgia  Imp.  Co.,  83  Ga. 
61. 


§  123  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  185 

is  signed  ;  and  passing  a  resolution  to  make  such  a  change  will 
"be  evidence  of  an  abandonment  of  the  route  as  originally  con- 
templated.1 "Where  a  subscription  is  made  upon  a  condition 
as  to  location,  the  subscriber  may  show  that  the  alterations 
made,  though  very  slight,  are  material  alterations  as  to  him. 
Thus,  where  the  road  is  constructed  1,200  feet  from  the  sub- 
scriber's mill,  instead  of  500  feet,  as  required  by  the  condition 
annexed  to  the  subscription,  it  has  been  held  that  the  sub- 
scriber may  show  that  his  interests  are  so  injuriously  affected 
by  the  change  that  he  would  have  no  inducement  to  subscribe 
stock  in  a  road  on  the  new  location.*  And  building  a  railroad 
twenty-four  hundred  feet  from  a  certain  point,  with  a  branch 
passing  over  the  route  mentioned  in  the  condition,  will  not 
fulfill  a  requirement  that  the  road  shall  be  built  within  twelve 
hundred  feet  of  the  designated  point.8  But  a  condition  that 
the  road  should  be  constructed  from  Stockton  up  the  valley  of 
the  San  Joaquin  river,  in  the  direction  of  another  town  lying 
to  the  south,  was  held  to  be  substantially  complied  with  by  the 
construction  of  the  road  toward  the  east  across  the  valley  for 
the  first  few  miles,  and  then  up  the  valley  toward  the  town 
named.4  Where  the  charter  empowers  the  corporation  to 
change  its  route  or  termini,  a  subscription  must,  however,  as 
a  general  rule,  expressly  make  the  construction  of  the  road  to 
a  given  point  operate  as  a  condition  precedent  or  the  subscrip- 
tion will  be  construed  to  be  absolute  and  such  changes  as 
are  deemed  necessary  may  be  made  without  affecting  the  sub- 
scriber's liability.5  The  same  rule  applies  to  a  note  given  for 
donated  aid,  even  where  an  improper  motive  prompted  the 
change,  if  it  was  legally  made.8 

§  123.   Effect  of  abandonment  or  sale  of  road.— The  fact 

1  Caley  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Stockton,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  City  of 

80  Pa.  St.  363.  Stockton,  51  Cal.  328. 

1  Caley  ».  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Jewett  v.  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  34  Ohio 

80  Pa.  St.  363.  St.  601 ;  Armstrong  v.  Karshner,  47 

•Virginia  &  Truckee  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ohio  St.  276. 

Commissioners,  6  Nev.  68.  6  Greenville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
son, 8  Baxter  (Tenn.)  332. 


186  THE    CORPORATION.  §  124 

that  the  corporation  has  abandoned  a  part  of  its  road,1  or  has 
not  completed,  and  apparently  has  no  intention  of  completing 
it,*  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for  the  payment  of  a  subscrip- 
tion, unless  the  completion  of  the  road  is  clearly  made  a  con- 
dition precedent.  Neither  is  the  sale  of  a  portion  of  the  road 
under  authority  of  a  statute,8  which  provides  that  any  dissent- 
ing stockholder  may  exchange  his  shares  for  shares  in  the 
purchasing  company.*  In  Indiana  it  is  provided  by  statute,5 
that  in  case  of  a  sale  of  any  railroad  by  virtue  of  any  mortgage 
foreclosure,  and  the  formation  by  the  purchasers  of  a  new 
corporation  to  operate  the  road,  all  subscribers  to  the  original 
stock  of  said  railroad  company  shall  be  released  and  discharged 
from  all  their  unpaid  subscriptions.  "Recognizing  the  fact 
that  stock  in  an  insolvent  railway  company,  the  property  of 
which  has  been  sold  in  a  foreclosure  or  other  judicial  proceed- 
ing, is  worthless,  this  statute  was  intended  to  protect  subscrib- 
ers by  canceling  all  obligations  to  pay  unpaid  subscriptions 
to  such  stock  in  all  cases  where  there  shall  not  have  been  an 
adjustment  by  agreement  or  compromise.  In  other  words,  the 
statute  was  intended  to  enact  into  a  law  the  rule  of  fair  deal- 
ing, that  no  one  should  be  required  to  pay  something  for 
nothing."6 

§  124.  Condition  as  to  terminus  —  Question  of  intention 
for  jury. — Where  a  condition  requires  the  road  to  run  to  a 
certain  named  place,  and  there  are  both  a  township  and  a  vil- 
lage of  that  name,  it  is  a  question  of  intention  as  to  which  is 
meant.  And  this  is  true  though  the  village  is  not  incorpo- 
rated, if  it  is  commonly  designated  by  that  name.7  The  ques- 
tion as  to  which  is  meant  in  such  a  case  is  to  be  determined 
by  the  jury  upon  evidence  offered,  like  any  other  question  of 
fact.8 

1  Armstrong  v.  Karshner,  47  Ohio  St.  *  Armstrong  v.   Karshner,  47  Ohio 

276;  Dorman  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  St.  276,  S.  C.  24  N.  E.  R.  897. 

Co.,  7  Fla.  265;    Ogden  v.  Kirby,  79  5Rev.  Stat.  Ind.,  §3947. 

111.  555.  6  Zollars,  J.,  in  Board,  etc.,  v.  State, 

'Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gifford,  87  ex  rel.,  115  Ind.  64,  88. 

N.  Y.  294,  22  Hun  359.  '  Ogden  v.  Kirby,  79  111.  555. 

3  Rev.  Stat.  Ohio,  §  3409.  8  Connecticut ,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v  Baxter, 

32  Vt.  805. 


§  125  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  187 

§  125.   What  is  sufficient  compliance  with  condition  as  to 
terminus  or  location  of  depot  at  a  certain  place — Illustrative 

cases. — Where  subscriptions  to  the  capital  stock  of  a  railroad 
company  were  to  be  paid  when  the  road  "is  completed  and 
cars  running  from  T.  to  M.,"  it  was  held  that  payment  could 
not  be  enforced  when  the  road  had  been  built  to  a  point  nine 
hundred  and  fifty  feet  from  the  limits  of  T.  and  in  another 
county,  at  which  place  its  terminal  facilities  were  located.  The 
fact  that  the  company  had  built  a  track  leading  from  its  main 
line  into  the  town  of  T.,  where  it  had  built  a  platform  and 
transacted  some  business,  did  not,  it  was  held,  constitute  a 
compliance  with  the  condition  of  the  subscription,  where  it 
was  shown  that  such  track  was  built  upon  ground  leased  for 
one  year,  and  the  plaintiff's  president  had  stated  that  it  was 
not  intended  to  be  permanent.  Such  a  condition  in  a  sub- 
scription to  the  capital  stock  of  a  railroad  company  chartered 
to  build  a  railroad  from  one  town  to  another,  requires  that  the 
principal  business  at  the  latter  should  be  transacted  at  a  point 
within  its  corporate  limits.1  Where  the  subscription  is  made 
upon  condition  that  a  depot  be  established  within  a  certain 
distance  of  a  town,  the  distance  may  be  measured  in  a  straight 
line  from  the  corporate  limits  without  regard  to  buildings  or 
improvements,2  or  from  the  recorded  plat,  as  it  was  at  the  time 
the  subscription  was  made,  and  is  not  affected  by  a  subsequent 
annexation  of  adjoining  territory.8  The  measurement  of 
distance  is  not  controlled  by  the  traveled  route  between  the 
two  points.'  The  location  of  the  depot  at  the  designated  point, 
fulfills  the  condition,  although  the  side  tracks  and  switches  are 
placed  at  a  greater  distance  away  from  the  town.5  A  subscrip- 
tion made  on  condition  that  the  depot  shall  be  located  at  the 
nearest  practicable  point  within  one  mile  of  the  court-house,  is 
not  violated  by  a  failure  to  locate  it  at  the  nearest  possible 

'Tabor,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCormick,  «  Cedar  Falls,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rich., 

(Iowa)  57  N.  W.  949.  33  Iowa  113. 

!!Courtright  v.  Strickler,   37    Iowa  8Courtright  v.   Strickler,  37  Iowa 

382.  382. 

"Davenport,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers, 
39  Iowa  298. 


188  THE    CORPORATION.  §  126 

point ;  but  the  company  has  fulfilled  the  condition  when  it  has 
built  a  depot  at  the  nearest  point  within  one  mile  of  the  court- 
house at  which  it  could  be  located  at  a  reasonable  cost,  with 
reference  to  all  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  to  be 
done.1  An  agreement  to  subscribe  a  certain  amount  of  stock 
upon  condition  that  the  railroad  company  shall  locate  a  depot 
at  a  certain  point  is  held  to  become  an  absolute  subscription, 
of  which  payment  may  be  enforced  according  to  its  terms  upon 
the  location  of  the  depot.*  Where  the  condition  is  that  the 
road  shall  be  "permanently  located  to  and  within  the  town  of 
W.,  with  a  station  at  the  same,"  the  condition  is  not  fulfilled 
by  the  construction  of  the  road  through  the  town  with  a 
depot  just  outside  its  limits.8 

§  126.  General  rule  of  construction — Performance  of  con- 
dition by  consolidated  company. — Generally,  where  it  can  be 
done  without  doing  violence  to  the  language  used,  any  condi- 
tions imposed  will  be  given  such  a  construction  as  will  further 
the  enterprise.  And  a  condition  relating  to  the  construction 
of  the  road  may  be  so  far  complied  with  by  another  company 
which  builds  it,  as  to  hold  the  subscriber  ;*  for  it  is  usually  of  no 
importance  to  the  subscriber  who  builds  the  road,  if  it  is  built  in 
pursuance  of  the  plan  existing  when  the  subscription  was  made. 
But  the  subscriber  can,  of  course,  limit  his  subscription  to  a 
single  company,  by  express  stipulation.  And  the  consolida- 

1Wooters  v.  International  R.  Co.,  nal  company.  Board  of  Commis- 

54  Tex.  294.  sioners  v.  State,  115  Ind.  64.  A  prom- 

8  North  Missouri  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  ise  to  pay  money  upon  the  completion 

31  Mo.  19.  of  a  railroad  described  in  the  contract 

3  Davenport,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Con-  as  the  Delphos,  Bluffton  and  Frankfort 
ner,  40  Iowa  477.  Railroad,  can  only  be  enforced  by  the 

4  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bacon,  33  promisee  upon  proof  that  the  railroad 
Mich.  466.     See,  also,  Merrill  v.  Gam-  named  has  been  completed,  and    it 
ble,  46  Iowa  615;  Muscatine,  etc.,  R.  will  not  be  sufficient  to  entitle  the 
Co.  v.  Horton,  38  Iowa  33.    The  pur-  promisee  to  a  recovery  to  prove  that  a 
chaser  of  a  railroad,  under  a  decree  of  railroad  has  been  built,  for  it  must  be 
foreclosure,  after  one  installment  on  a  shown  that  the  railroad  described  has 
township  subscription  to  the  railroad  been  built.     Low  v.  Studabaker,  110 
has  been  paid,  acquires  no  interest  in  Ind.  57. 

the  money  subscribed   to  the    orij?i- 


§  126  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  189 

tion  of  the  railroad  company  with  another  made  after  the  sub- 
scription, but  before  the  stock  was  issued  under  a  power  exist- 
ing when  the  subscription  was  made,  has  been  held  not  to  re- 
lease a  town  from  liability  upon  bonds  issued  in  payment  of  such 
a  subscription.1  The  liability  upon  such  a  subscription  can  not 
be  denied  where  the  municipality  took  an  active  part  in  bringing 
about  the  consolidation.2  But  where  the  consolidated  company  has 
a  longer  route  and  different  termini  than  the  company  to  which 
the  subscription  was  made,  and  the  consolidation  is  entered 
into  without  the  consent  of  the  subscriber,  it  has  been  held 
that  the  subscription  can  not  be  enforced.3  Such  contracts  are 
interpreted  by  the  same  rules  as  other  contracts,  with  reference 
to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  parties  ;  and  in  order  to 
ascertain  such  intent  and  meaning,  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  agreement  was  made  maybe  shown.*  The  condition, 
to  be  valid,  must  be  expressed  in  the  subscription.  Secret 
agreements  between  the  subscriber  and  the  officers  of  the  com- 
pany afford  110  protection  to  the  subscriber,  but  the  subscrip- 
tion will  usually  be  enforced  as  an  absolute  one.6 

1Menashai7.  Hazard,  102  U.  S.  81;  Before  the  bonds  were  issued,  the  C. 

City  of  Mt.Vernoni?.Hovey,52Ind.563.  &  O.  consolidated  with  an  Iowa  com- 

The  subscription  of  a  county  to  bonds  pany,  and  the  consolidated  company 

in  aid  of  a  railroad  is  not  annulled  by  proceeded  to  construct  and  operate  a 

consolidation  of  such  railroad  com-  road  from  St.  Louis,  by  way  of  C.,  to 

pany  with  another,  under  a  law  pro-  Council  Bluffs,  Iowa,  and  Omaha,  and 

viding  that    the    railroad    company  the  bonds  were  issued  to  the  consoli- 

might    consolidate  with    other  com-  dated  company.    The  court  held  that 

panics  with  the  approval  of  two-thirds  as  consolidation  was  necessary,  in  or- 

of  the  stock  held  in  each  company,  der  to  carry  out  the  purpose  for  which 

Chicago,  K.  &  W.   R.  Co.    v.   Board,  the  C.  &  0.  Co.  was  organized,  the 

etc.,  36  Kan.  121,  12  Pac.  Rep.  593.  existing  statutory  provision  therefor 

2  County  of  Tipton    v.  Locomotive  became  a  part  of  the  contract  with  the 

Works,  103  TJ.  S.  523.    A  township  in  township,  and  the  issuance  of  bonds 

Missouri  voted  bonds  in  aid  of  the  C.  to    the    consolidated    company    was 

&O.Ry.  Co.,  whose  road  was  not  then  valid.      Livingston    County*.   First 

built,  and  whose  articles  of  association  Nat.  Bank,  128  U.  S.  102,  9  Sup.  Ct. 

declared  that  its  object  was  to  con-  Rep.  18. 

struct  and  operate  a  railroad  from  C.  8  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cuyler,  7 

to    such  point  on  the  line  between  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  431 . 

Missouri    and    Iowa    as    should    be  *  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t?.  Starnes,  38 

deemed  the  best  route  for  operating  a  Mich.  698. 

road  between  C.   and  Omaha,   Neb.  *  York  Park,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Barnes,  39 


190  THE   CORPORATION. :  §  127 

§  127.  Fraudulent  representations  in  obtaining  subscrip- 
tions. —  A  subscription  to  capital  stock  is  understood  to  be 
made  upon  the  implied  condition  that  the  representations  of 
the  company  or  its  officers  and  authorized  agents  and  of  the 
promoters  as  to  the  financial  condition  of  the  enterprise,  the 
amount  and  kind  of  property  which  it  owns,  or  any  other  exist- 
ing facts  that  would  influence  subscriptions,  upon  the  faith  of 
which  such  subscription  is  made,  shall  be  true  and  made  in 
good  faith.1  And  not  only  is  this  true,  but  where  statements 
are  made  to  induce  subscriptions  there  must  be  a  full  and  fair 
statement  of  all  material  facts,  which  it  is  the  duty  of  the  cor- 
poration or  its  agents  to  disclose.  A  suppression  of  part  of 
the  truth  will  often  amount  to  a  misrepresentation.2  But  rep- 
resentations, in  order  to  be  so  far  binding  upon  the  corporation 
as  to  avoid  the  subscription  in  case  they  prove  to  be  false, 
must  generally  relate  to  some  fact  existing  either  in  the  past 
or  present  time  which  has  an  influence  upon  the  status  of 
the  corporation.8  And  it  must  appear  that  the  representations 

Neb.  834,  58  N.  W.   Rep.  440;  Great  money  was  paid  for  it  was  held  to  be 

Western  Tel.   Co.  v.   Haight,  49  111.  a    fraudulent    suppression    of    facts. 

App.  633;  Downie  v.  White,  12  Wis.  Directors,  etc.,  v.  Kisch,  supra.    An 

176,  s.  c.  78  Am.  Dec.  731 ;  Robinson  omission  to  state  in  a  prospectus  how 

r.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Pa.  St.  many  shares  have  been  taken  by  the 

334,  s.  c.  72  Am.  Dec.  792 ;  Madison,  directors  is  not.    Directors,   etc.,   v. 

etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Stevens,  6  Ind.  379;  Kisch,  supra;  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Cunningham  r.Edgefield, etc.,  R.  Co.,  Hodnett,   36    Ga.   669;     Pulsford    v. 

2  Head  (Tenn.)  23;  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Richards,   17  Beav.  87,  17  Jur.   865; 

Co.  v.  Davis,  40  Minn.  110,  s.  c.  12  Heymann  v.  European,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Am.  St.  Rep.  701.     See  article  in  28  L.  R.  7  Eq.  154. 
Am.  Law  Reg.  (N.  S.)  306.  'Edgington  v.   Fitzmaurice,  L.  R. 

1 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  29  Ch.  Div.  459.     A  person  induced 

Ch.  9.  to  give  a  note  for  subscription  to  the 

2  New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  capital  stock  of  a  railroad  by  repre- 
Muggeridge,  1  Dr.  &  Sm.  363,  381 ;  sentations  that  only  a  certain  amount 
Directors,  etc.,  of  Central  R.  v.  Kisch,  of  stock  would  be  issued  when  there 
L.  R.  2  H.  L.  Cas.  99;  Oakes  v.  had  already  been  issued  a  larger 
Turquand,  L.  R.  2  H.  L.  Cas.  325,  2  amount,  is  relieved  from  his  sub- 
Pom.  Eq.  Jur.,  §§901,  902.  Where  the  scription.  Weems  v.  Georgia,  M.  & 
prospectus  set  forth  the  ownership  by  G.  R.Co.,  84Ga.  356, 11  S.  E.  R.  503.  So 
the  corporation  of  a  piece  of  property  is  o»e  who  is  induced  to  subscribe  by 
claimed  to  be  of  great  value,  the  omis-  means  of  a  false  statement  that  cer- 
eion  to  state  that  a  very  large  sum  of  tain  stock  has  been  subscribed.  Ami- 


§  127 


SUBSCRIPTIONS. 


191 


were  relied  upon  as  true  by  the  subscriber,  and  formed  an  in- 
ducement to  make  the  subscription.1  Any  representations  as  to 
the  future  policy  or  intentions  of  the  corporation2  or  any  parol 
promises  or  agreements  as  to  what  the  corporation  will  or  will 
not  do  can  not  be  interposed  as  a  defense  to  an  absolute  sub- 
scription,8 even  though  made  with  a  fraudulent  intent  by  the 


eon  v.  Smith,  59  L.  T.  R.  627 ;  Spellier, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Leedom,  149  Pa.  St.  185. 
Or  that  a  government  guaranty  has 
been  obtained.  Kisch  v.  Central  R., 
etc.,  34  L.  J.  (Ch.)  545.  So,  a  repre- 
sentation that  a  certain  prominent 
business  man  has  subscribed  for  a 
large  amount,  when  it  was  given  to 
him  without  the  payment  of  any  pur- 
chase price  therefor,  is  sufficient  to 
render  voidable  any  subscription  in- 
duced by  such  representation.  Coles 
v.  Kennedy,  81  Iowa  360.  And  so  is 
a  false  representation  that  certain 
property  has  been  purchased  and  is 
owned  by  the  company,  and  that  the 
company  is  in  good  condition  and  is 
earning  on  the  completed  portion  of 
the  road  four  and  one-half  per  cent, 
on  the  entire  cost  of  the  road,  when 
the  agent  knew  that  the  company 
was  almost  bankrupt,  having  neither 
money  nor  credit,  and  that  its  stock 
was  almost  worthless.  Waldo  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Wis.  575. 

1  Authorities  cited  in  preceding 
note.  Jennings  v.  Broughton,  22  L. 
J.  (N.  S.)  Ch.  585:  Mitchell  v.  Deeds, 
49111.  416;  Melendy  v.  Keen,  89  111. 
395;  Oregon  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Scoggin,  3  Ore.  161 ;  Sinnett  v.  Moles, 
38  Iowa  25;  2  Pom.  Eq.  Jur.,  §890. 
See  Crump  v.  U.  S.  Mining  Co.,  7 
Gratt,  (Va.)  352.  It  is  said  that  the 
misrepresentations  must  not  only  be 
made  without  an  honest  belief  in  their 
truth,  but  must  have  been  intended 
for  the  subscriber  to  act  upon,  and  he 
must  have  acted  in  reliance  upon 
them.  Woods'  Railway  Law,  116. 


But  the  authorities  do  not  bear  out 
this  rule  any  further  than  that  the 
subscriber  must  have  been  so  far  in- 
fluenced by  the  misrepresentations  as 
to  material  facts  concerning  the  enter- 
prise that  it  would  operate  as  a  fraud 
upon  him  to  hold  him  to  a  contract 
into  which  he  would  not  knowingly 
have  entered,  although  there  are 
many  dicta  which  go  much  further. 
In  an  action  on  a  note  given  for  sub- 
scription to  the  stock  of  a  railroad, 
defendant  claimed  that  plaintiff  when 
soliciting  the  subscription  represented 
that  the  road  would  be  stocked  and 
bonded  only  to  a  certain  amount  per 
mile,  whereas  it  was  stocked  and 
bonded  to  a  much  larger  amount  per 
mile,  but  he  did  not  testify  that  he 
would  not  have  subscribed  and  given 
his  note  if  he  had  known  how  much 
stock  and  bonds  had  been  or  would  be 
issued,  and  it  appeared  that  other  true 
representations  were  the  chief  induce- 
ment to  his  subscription.  He  was 
held  bound  by  his  subscription. 
Weems  v.  Georgia  Midland  &  G.  R. 
Co.,  88  Ga.  303,  14  S.  E.  R.  583. 

2  McAllister  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  15Ind.  11;  Topeka,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Hale,  39  Kan.  23,  17  Pac.  R.  601; 
Jefferson  v.  Hewitt,  95  Cal.  535; 
Weston  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
90  Ga.  289,  s.  c.  15  S.  E.  R.  773 ;  An- 
derson v.  Middle  &  East  Tenn.  Cent. 
R.  R.  Co.,  91  Tenn.  44,  52  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  149. 

8  White  Mts.  R.  Co.  v.  Eastman,  34 
N.  H.  124;  LaGrange,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Mays,  29  Mo.  64 ;  Clem  t>.  Newcastle, 


192 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§127 


company's  agents  in  order  to  procure  the  subscription.  Nor  will 
any  statement  as  to  the  legal  effect  of  the  contract  of  subscrip- 
tion, or  as  to  the  legal  rights  and  liabilities  assumed,  prove  a 
defense,  for  every  one  is  bound  to  know  the  law.1  Statements 
of  facts,  however,  need  not,  ordinarily,  be  made  with  knowl- 
edge of  their  falsity;  for,  if  the  corporation  or  its  agents  mis- 
lead a  subscriber  by  statements  recklessly  made  in  ignorance 
of  the  truth,  it  may  not  take  advantage  of  the  acts  induced  by 


etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Ind.  488;  Smith  v. 
Tallassee  Branch,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 
Ala.  650;  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Gammon,  5Sneed.(  Tenn.)  567 ;  Gross- 
man??. Penrose  Ferry  Bridge  Co., 26  Pa. 
St.  69;  Walker  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
34  Miss.  245;  Ogilvie  v.  Knox  Ins. 
Co.,  22  How.  (U.  S.)  380;  Swatara 
R.  Co.  v.  Brune,  6  Gill.  (Md.)  41; 
Jewett  v.  Valley  R.  Co.,  34  Ohio  St. 
601 ;  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gere,  4 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  392;  Oregon  Central  R. 
Co.  v.  Scoggin,  3  Ore.  161 ;  Wight  v. 
Shelby  R.  Co.,  16  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  4; 
Dill  v.  Wabash  Valley  R.  Co.,  21  111. 
91;  Vicksburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
McKean,  12  La.  Ann.  638 ;  Milwaukee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Field,  12  Wis.  340;  N. 
E.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Rodrigues,  10  Rich. 
(S.  C.)  278.  Proof  that  the  execution 
of  the  contract  was  procured  by  false 
and  fraudulent  representations  by  the 
company  that  the  means  were  already 
provided  for  the  construction  of  the 
road  between  two  points  within  the 
time  specified,  where  the  subscription 
was  made  upon  condition  that  another 
portion  of  the  road  should  be  con- 
structed within  that  time  was  held 
insufficient  to  constitute  a  defense 
to  an  action  on  the  subscription. 
Blair  v.  Buttolph,  72  Iowa  31,  33 
N.  W.  R.  349.  A  representation 
that  payment  will  not  be  demanded 
until  certain  work  is  completed  does 
not  bind  the  company.  LaGrange, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mays,  29  Mo.  64;  Clem 


v.  Newcastle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Ind.  488. 
Nor  does  a  representation  that  the 
road  will  be  extended  to  a  certain 
point.  Low  v.  Studabaker,  110  Ind. 
57,  s.  c.  10  N.  E.  R.  301.  Or  that  a 
branch  road  will  be  built.  McAllister 
v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Ind. 
11;  Guarantee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Weil,  141 
Pa.  St.  511,  21  Atl.  R.  665.  But  it  is  said 
that  if  a  person  is  induced  to  subscribe 
for  stock  by  means  of  an  agreement 
made  by  an  officer  of  the  corporation 
within  the  scope  of  his  authority,  the 
subscriber  may,  upon  a  failure  of  the 
corporation  to  perform  the  agreement, 
cancel  his  subscription  and  recover 
back  the  sums  paid  on  the  stock.  Weed- 
en  v.  Lake  Erie  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Ohio 
563;  Grossman  v.  Penrose  Ferry 
Bridge  Co.,  26  Pa.  St.  69.  The  fact 
that  the  subscription  was  made  in  re- 
liance upon  the  statement  of  the 
company's  agent  who  procured  the 
subscription  that  the  road  would  be 
economically  built,  and  that  the  stock 
would  prove  a  good  investment,  is  no 
defense  to  an  action  to  enforce  pay- 
ment. Westonv.  Columbus  Southern 
R.  Co.,  90  Ga.  289,  s.  c.  15  S.  E.  R.  773. 
1  Clem  v.  Newcastle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 
Ind.  488;  Parker  v.Thomas,  19  Ind. 
213;  Upton  v.  Tribilcock,  91  U.  S.  45; 
N.  E.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Rodrigues,  10 
Rich.  (S.  C.)  278;  Pom.  2  Eq.  Jur., 
§  877.  But  see  Upton  v.  Englehart,  3 
Dill.  (U.  S.)  496,  where  a  misrepre- 
sentation as  to  the  legal  liability  of 


§  127  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  193 

its  own  misstatements.1  Statements  which  amount  only  to  an 
expression  of  opinion,  if  honestly  made  without  intent  to  de- 
ceive, or  if  made  in  relation  to  matters  equally  open  to  the 
knowledge  of  both  parties,  will  not  amount  to  fraudulent  rep- 
resentations.2 Thus,  a  representation  that  a  sufficient  amount 
of  solvent  stock  was  subscribed  to  complete  the  road  within 
two  years,  and  that  the  company  was  able  and  would  complete 
it  within  that  time,  does  not  amount  to  a  fraudulent  repre- 
sentation even  though  untrue.8  Nor  would  a  statement  that 
the  construction  company,  which  had  undertaken  to  build  and 
equip  the  road,  was  able  to  complete  it  by  the  use  of  its  own 
resources,  without  any  advance  from  the  company.*  Repre- 
sentations made  by  an  agent  of  a  railroad  company  in  refer- 
ence to  the  value  of  a  donation  of  land  made  by  congress  to 
the  company,  and  in  relation  to  the  amount  of  assets  of  the 
company,  and  its  ability  to  complete  the  road  within  a  certain 
time,  and  the  probable  cost  and  profits  of  the  road,  though 
false  and  exaggerated,  and  made  to  induce  persons  to  sub- 
scribe for  the  stock,  were  held  to  be  but  expressions  of  opinion, 
and  not  to  amount  to  fraudulent  representations.5  And  repre- 
sentations that  the  road  would  be  constructed  over  a  certain 
route  within  a  certain  time,  although  offered  as  an  inducement  to 
subscribe  for  stock,  and  operating  as  such,  have  been  held  to  be 

the  stockholders  in  a  corporation  or-  ma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  51  Miss, 

ganized  in  another  state  was  held  to  829;  Cunningham  v.  Edgefield,  etc., 

Toe  a  defense.  R.  Co.,  2  Head.  (Tenn.)  23. 

1  Henderson  v.  Railroad  Co.,  17  Tex.  2  Montgomery,     etc.,    R.    Co.     v. 

560 ;  Reese  River,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  L.  Matthews,   77  Ala.  357;    Walker   r. 

R.  4H.L.64;Edgingtonv.Fitzmaurice,  Mobile  R.  Co.,  34  Miss.  245;  2  Pom. 

L.    R.  29   Ch.   Div.   459;  2  Pom.  Eq.  Eq.  Jur.,  §878. 

Jur.,  §887.    The  courts  incline  very  8Brownlee  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

strongly,  to  uphold  subscriptions  to  Ind.  68;  Weston  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R. 

capital  stock,  and  many  cases  inti-  R.  Co.,  90  Ga.  289,  s.  c.  15  S.  E.  R. 

mate    that    the    person  making   the  773. 

statement  must  have  had  a  fraudu-  *  Andrews  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

lent  purpose,  or  such  knowledge  as  Ind.  169. 

would  impute  such  fraudulent  pur-  5  Walker  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

pose  to  him.    Nugent  v.  Cincinnati,  Miss.  245.     See,    also,    Union    Nat. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Disney  (Ohio)  302;  Sel-  Bank  v.  Hunt,  76  Mo.  439. 

CORP.  13 


194  THE    CORPORATION.  §  128 

no  defense  to  an  action  for  payment  of  the  subscription.1  Where 
the  directors,  in  good  faith  and  by  honest  mistake  of  judgment, 
added  to  the  assets  certain  debts  which  proved  not  to  be  col- 
lectible, and  thereby  showed  the  company  to  be  solvent,  when  the 
loss  of  the  money  represented  by  such  debts  threw  it  into  insol- 
vency, it  was  held  not  a  fraudulent  misrepresentation.8  The  same 
holding  was  made  where  it  was  stated  in  good  faith  that  the 
corporation  had  a  valid  government  contract,  but,  upon  liti- 
gation, this  was  found  to  be  untrue.3  And  it  has  even  been 
held  that  a  representation  that  title  to  land  was  good  when  in 
fact  it  was  bad,  if  made  in  good  faith  with  an  honest  belief 
that  it  is  true  is  not  a  fraudulent  misrepresentation.4  The 
mere  intent  on  the  part  of  the  company  to  deceive  and  defraud 
by  misrepresentations  is  immaterial  if  it  does  not  cause  any 
damage  to  the  subscriber.5  Representations,  false  when  made, 
but  which  become  true  by  the  force  of  intervening  events 
before  the  subscription  is  completed,  can  not  afterward,  it 
seems,  be  complained  of  by  the  subscribers.6 

§  128.  Misrepresentations  in  prospectus  and  by  agents  gen- 
erally.— The  fraudulent  representations  which  will  avoid  a  sub- 
scription may  be  made  by  statements  contained  in  a  prospectus 
issued  by  the  authority  of  the  directors  or  the  stockholders  of  a 
corporation  if  they  induced  the  subscription  to  be  made.7  Or 

1  Montgomery,    etc.,     R.     Co.     v.  5  Keller  v.  Johnson,  11  Ind.  337 ; 

Matthews,   77  Ala.   357.    The  court,  Cunningham  v.  Edgefield,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

by  Stone,  C.  J.,  says:    "The  repre-  2  Head  (Tenn.)  23;  2  Pom.  Eq.  Jur., 

sentations  set  forth  in  each  of  the  §  898. 

special  pleas  *  *  *  could  be  nothing  6Ship  v.  Crosskill,  L.  R.  10  Eq.  Cas. 

but  opinion.     These  pleas  are  fatally  73. 

bad,  because  they  do  not  aver  that  7Oakes  v.  Turquand,  L.  R.  2  H.  L. 
Kirkpatrick  did  not  honestly  enter-  Cas.  325.  See,  also,  Bosher  v.  Rich- 
tain  the  opinions  he  expressed.  See,  mond,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Va.  455, 16  S.  E.  R. 
also,  Blair  •».  Buttolph,  72  Iowa  31,  360;  2  Pom.  Eq.  Jur.,  §881.  But  due 
33  N.  W.  R.  349.  allowance  must  be  made  for  high 

8  Jackson  v.  Turquand,  L.  R.  4  H.  coloring  and  some  exaggeration  due 

L.  305.  to  the  sanguine  expectations  of  the 

8  Kennedy  v.  Panama,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  promoters.    Directors,    etc.,    Central 

R.  2  Q.  B.  580.  R.  Co.  v.  Kisch,  L.  R.  2  H.  L.  Cas.  99. 

4  New  Brunswick,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  The  language  of  the  prospectus  will 

Conybeare,  9  H.  L.  Cas.  711.  be  construed  in  favor  of  the  validity 


§  128  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  195 

they  may  be  contained  in  a  report  made  by  the  corporate  offi- 
cers to  the  stockholders;  for  a  person  may  rely  upon  such  a 
report  when  subscribing  for  stock.1  And  the  corporation  is 
chargeable  with  the  frauds  and  misrepresentations  of  its  author- 
ized agents  to  procure  subscriptions.2  It  was  formerly  held  in 
England  that  the  corporation  was  only  bound  by  such  repre- 
sentations as  the  agent  was  authorized  to  make.*  But  the  rule 
is  said  to  be  now  well  established  both  in  that  country  and  in 
this  that  a  corporation  can  not  claim  or  retain  the  benefit  of  a 
subscription  obtained  through  the  fraud  of  its  agents.4  And 
the  fact  that  the  person  making  the  fraudulent  representations 
had  no  express  authority  from  the  corporation,  or  exceeded  such 
authority,  will  not  affect  this  rule,  provided  he  was  legally 
connected  with  the  taking  of  the  subscription.6  If  the  corpora- 
tion adopts  a  subscription  taken  without  authority,  it  must 
also  adopt  the  representations  by  which  that  subscription  was 
procured.6  But  false  representations  by  persons  who  have  no 
authority  from  the  company  and  who  do  not  take  the  sub- 
scription for  its  benefit  can  not  affect  the  binding  force  and 

of  the  subscription.     1  Cook  on  Stock  358;  Wight  v.   Shelby  R.  Co.,  16  B. 

and  Stockholders,  §143.  Mon.  (Ky.)  4;  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

JNew    Brunswick,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  v.  Gere,  4  Hun  (N.  Y.)   392;  North 

Conybeare,  9  H.  L.  Cas.  711 ;  National,  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  Leach,  4  Jones  L. 

etc.,  Co.  v.  Drew,  32  Eng.  Law  and  (N.  C.)  340. 

Eq.  1.  3Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

2  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mat-  §139.  In  Pennsylvania  the  corpora- 
thews,  77  Ala.  357 ;  Ranger  v.  Great  tion  is  held  bound  only  when  it  has 
Western  R.  Co.,  5  H.  L.  Cas.  72.  If  clothed  the  agent  with  actual  or  ap- 
the  president  had  no  authority  to  take  parent  authority  to  make  representa- 
subscriptions  and  did  not  in  fact  take  tions.  Custar  v.  Titusville,  etc.,  Co., 
the  subscription,  the  subscriber  can  63  Pa.  St.  381. 

not  charge  the  company  with  fraud  *  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

because  of  any  representations  he  may  §  140. 

have    made.    Rives  v.    Montgomery  5  Cramp  v.  United  States  Min.  Co., 

South  Plank  R.  Co.,  30  Ala.  92~    And  7  Gratt.  (Va.)  352,  a.  c.  56  Am.  Dec. 

the  subscriber  is  bound  to  know  that  116;  Waldo  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.Co., 

commissioners  with  statutory  powers  14  Wis.  575. 

to  take  subscriptions  can  not  bind  the  6  Crump  v.  United  States  Min.  Co., 

corporation   by    any  representations  7  Gratt.  (Va.)  352.     See,  also,  Walker 

which  they  may  make.     Bavington  v.  v.   Mobile,  etc.,  R.   R.  Co.,  34  Miss. 

Pittsburgh,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  34  Pa.   St.  245. 


196  THE    CORPORATION.  §  129 

validity  of  the  subscriptions.1  Parol  declarations  and  repre- 
sentations made  by  an  officer  of  the  corporation  at  a  public 
meeting,  though  false  and  made  with  intent  to  deceive,  will  not 
ordinarily  so  far  bind  the  corporation  as  to  release  a  subscrip- 
tion made  in  reliance  upon  them.2  The  subscriber  must  be 
presumed  to  know  that  an  officer  has  received  no  authority 
from  the  corporation  to  bind  it  in  this  manner;8  and  there  could 
be  but  little  security  for  the  creditors  of  a  corporation  if  it 
were  held  answerable  for  all  the  declarations  of  its  officers  made 
outside  the  scope  of  their  authority.4  The  question  as  to 
whether  the  person  making  the  false  representations  had  au- 
thority from  the  corporation  to  act  as  its  agent  is  usually 
a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury.5 

§  129.  Fraud  may  be  shown  by  parol  evidence. — The  fraud 
may  be  established  by  parol  evidence,6  since  this  only  goes  to 
show  that  no  contract  was  formed,  and  not  to  vary  it  as  made.7 
This  rule  does  not,  therefore,  conflict  with  the  general  rule 
that  parol  evidence  is  not  admissible  to  alter  or  vary  the  terms 
of  a  written  contract.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  in  accord  with 

1  Cunningham  v,  Edgefield,  etc.,  R.    583,  where  the  question  was  submit- 
Co.,   2  Head.  (Tenn.)  23.    See,  also,    ted  to  the  jury. 

Miller  v.  Wild  Cat,  etc.,  Co.,  57  Ind.  3  Smith  v.  Tallassee    Branch,   etc., 

541,  holding  that  an  agent  taking  sub-  R.  Co.,  30  Ala.  650. 

scriptions  before  the  incorporation  of  4  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKean, 

the  company  can  not  bind  it  by  his  12  La.  Ann.  638. 

misrepresentations.     An  agent  must  5  Kelsey  v.   Northern,   etc.,  Co.,  45 

at    least   have  implied  or    apparent  N.  Y.  505 ;   Crump  v.  United  States 

authority    before    he    can    bind   his  Min.  Co.,  7  Gratt.  (Va.)  352. 

principal.    2  Pom.  Eq.  Jur.,  §  909.  6  Jewett  v.  Valley  R.  Co.,  34  Ohio  St. 

2  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dudley,  14  601 ;  N.  Y.  Exchange  Co.  v.  De  AVolf, 
N.  Y.  336;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Hur-  31  N.  Y.  273;  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R. 
ford,  29  Iowa  579.     A  different  rule  is  Co.  v.Williams,  16  La.  Ann.  315 ;  Hen- 
announced  in  Wisconsin  and  Georgia,  derson  v.  R.  R.  Co.,  17  Tex.  560;  Wert 
but  the  rule  in  the  text  is  most  con-  v.   Crawfordsville,   etc.,  Co.,  19  Ind. 
sonant  with  the  current  of  authority.  242 ;  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.   R.  Co.    v 
See  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Hodnett,  Bailey,  24  Vt.  465,  s.  c.  58  Am.  Dec. 
36   Ga.   669;    McClellan  v.   Scott,  24  181. 

Wis.  81.  See,  also,Weems  v.  Georgia,  72  Beach  on  Priv.  Corp.,  §  530; 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  88  Ga.  303,  14  S.  E.  R.  "  Subscriptions  to  Capital  Stock,"  by 

James  M.  Kerr,  6  Ry.Corp.  L.  J.  422. 


§  130  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  197 

the  rule  that  parol  evidence  is  admissible,  especially  in  case  of 
fraud,  to  show  that  there  never  was,  in  reality,  a  valid  agree- 
ment.1 

§  130.  Subscriber  must  be  free  from  negligence,  in  order  to 
be  released  upon  the  ground  of  fraud. — In  order  to  secure  a 
release  from  his  subscription  upon  the  ground  that  his  sub- 
scription was  induced  by  fraud,  the  subscriber  must  show  that 
he  was  not  misled  by  his  own  negligence  in  not  making  pru- 
dent inquiries.2  For  where  both  parties  have  equal  access  to 
the  means  of  information,  the  subscriber  has  no  right  to  rely  en- 
tirely upon  the  representations  of  the  agent,  unless  some  means 
or  artifices  are  used  to  prevent  investigation.8  A  subscriber 
who  reads  contradictory  statements  in  different  documents  can 
not  rely  upon  a  part  only  of  such  representations  without  in- 
vestigation.* But  where  the  facts  are  such  as  are  within  the 
knowledge  of  the  corporation  and  its  agents,  the  subscriber  is 
only  bound  to  exercise  reasonable  caution  in  accepting  as  true 
the  representations  made.5  He  is  not  bound  to  pursue  inde- 
pendent inquiries,  even  though  they  would  have  shown  him 
the  falsity  of  the  statements  made  by  the  agent  or  contained  in 
the  prospectus.6 

§  131.  Subscription  induced  by  fraud  is  merely  voidable. 
— When  it  will  be  enforced. — A  subscription  induced  by 
fraudulent  representations  is  voidable  only,  and  not  void;7  and 

1  Clark  on  Contracts,  569,  570;    2  8New  Brunswick,    etc.,    R.  Co.  v. 
Rice  on  Ev.  259,  292.  Muggeridge,  1  Dr.  &  Sm.  363;  Upton 

2  Upton  v.  Englehart,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.)  v.  Englehart,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.)  496;  Di- 
496;  Hughes  v.  Antietam  Mfg.  Co.,  34  rectors,  etc.,  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Kisch, 
Md.  316 ;  Davis  v.  Dumont,  37  Iowa  47 ;  L.  R.  2  H.  L.  Cas.  99. 

Custar  v.  Titusville,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Pa.  6  Documents  referred  to  in  the  pros- 

St.  381;  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  pectus  need  not  be  examined,  even 

Bailey,  24  Vt.  465,  s.  c.  58  Am.  Dec.  though  they  would  show  the  falsity  of 

181.  statements  made  therein.  Kisch  v. 

8  Walker  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Central  R.  Co.,  34  L.  J.  fCh.)  545 ;  Di- 

Miss.  245;  Jennings  v.  Braughton,  22  rectors,  etc.,  Central  R.  Co.  ».  Kisch, 

L.  J.  (Ch.)  585.  L.  R.  2  H.  L.  Cas.  99. 

•Scholey  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  9  'Upton  v.  Englehart,  3  Dill.  (U.  S.) 

Eq.  Cas.  267,  n.  496;  Reese  River  Min.  Co.  v.  Smith, 


198  THE    CORPORATION.  §132 

is  binding  on  both  parties  unless  disaffirmed  or  rescinded.1  If 
fraud  is  established,  however,  no  action  can  be  maintained  by 
the  corporation  to  recover,  either  upon  the  original  subscrip- 
tion or  upon  a  note  given  therefor,2  unless  the  subscriber  has 
ratified  it  or  in  some  way  become  estopped,  and  the  subscriber 
may  recover  back  whatever  money  he  has  paid  before  discov- 
ery of  the  fraud.8  Where,  however,  his  subscription  was  made 
in  pursuance  of  a  fraudulent  purpose  he  may  not  complain 
that  his  strict  legal  liabilities  are  enforced.*  A  subscription,  abso- 
lute on  its  face,  made  under  a  secret  agreement  with  the  direct- 
ors of  the  company,  by  which  the  subscriber  was  to  be  permit- 
ted to  reduce  the  number  of  shares  taken  after  it  had  operated 
as  an  inducement  to  others  to  subscribe,  should  be  enforced  ac- 
cording to  its  terms.5  And,  in  general,  a  secret  agreement  be- 
tween the  company  and  subscriber,  lessening  his  liability  and 
changing  the  ostensible  terms  of  the  subscription,  can  neither 
be  enforced  nor  successfully  used  as  a  defense  to  defeat  his 
subscription.  To  release  the  subscriber  would  operate  as  a 
fraud  upon  the  other  subscribers  and  the  corporate  creditors.6 

§132.   Ratification  and  estoppel  —  Rescission. — The  sub- 

L.  R.  4  H.   L.  64 ;   Cunningham  v.  v.  Hixon,  5  Ind.  165,  169.  See  County 

Edgefield,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Head  (Tenn.)  of  Crawford  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

23.  32  Pa.  St.  141;  Downie  v.  White,  12 

1  Tennent  v.  City  of  Glasgow  Bank,  Wis.  176. 

L.  R.  4  App.  Cas.  615.  5  White  Mountain  R.  Co.  v.   East- 

z  1.  Occidental  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ganzhorn,  man,  34  N.  H.  124. 

2  Mo.  App.  205.  But  an  innocent  third  6  Meyer  v.  Blair,  109  N.  Y.  600,  a. 

person  may  enforce  such  a  note  where  c.  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  500 ;  York  Park,  etc., 

it  is  negotiable  and  is  taken  by  him  Ass'n  v .  Barnes,  39  Neb.  834,  9  Lewis 

upon  a  valuable  consideration  in  the  Am.  R.  R.  and  Corp.  Rep.  240,  244; 

usual  course  of  business.     Andrews  v.  Graff  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  31 

Hart,  17  Wis.  297.  Pa.  St.  489;  Miller  v  .  Hanover,  etc., 

8  Atkinson  v.  Pocock,  1  Exch.  796,  R.  R.  Co.,  87  Pa.  St.  95,  s.  c.  30  Am. 

12  Jur.  60;  Jarrett  v.  Kennedy,  6  C.  Rep.  349;  Melvin  v.  Lamar  Ins.  Co., 

B.  319;  Grangers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Turner,  80  111.  446,  s.  c.  22  Am.  Rep.  199.     See, 

61  Ga.  561.  also,   Chubb  r.   Upton,  95  U.  S.  665; 

*Litchfield  Bank  v.  Peck,  29  Conn.  Schaeffer  v.  Missouri  Home,  etc.,  Co., 

384.    The  subscribers   "could  not  be  46  Mo.  248;  Howard  v.  Glenn,  85  Ga. 

permitted  to  set  up  any  fraud  to  which  238,  s.  c.  11  S.  E.  Rep.  610 ;  2  Beach  on 

they  were  a  party,  as  a  ground  for  their  Priv.  Corp.,  §543;   2  Thomp.  Corp., 

own  discharge."   Southern  P.  R.  Co.  §  1400. 


§  132  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  199 

scriber  should  take  steps  to  have  his  subscription  cancelled 
within  a  reasonable  time  after  he  discovers  the  fraud;  for,  if 
he  permits  the  interests  of  other  subscribers  and  corporate 
creditors  to  attach  by  reason  of  his  delay,  his  own  laches  will 
be  a  bar  to  his  relief  in  equity.1  And  any  acts  on  his  part 
after  he  has  knowledge  of  the  fraud,  which  are  inconsistent 
with  an  intention  to  disaffirm  the  subscription  contract  will  be 
held  to  amount  to  a  ratification,  and  render  it  absolutely 
binding.2  He  may  also  be  guilty  of  laches  in  failing  to  inform 
himself  as  to  facts  which  would  give  him  notice  of  the  fraud 
that  has  been  practiced  upon  him.  It  is  held  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  a  person  taking  shares  in  a  company  to  inform  him- 
self as  to  the  provisions  of  the  articles  of  association,  they 
being  registered,  and  he  must  take  the  consequences  of  his 
neglect  to  do  so,s  and  if  they  show  that  the  representations  by 
which  he  was  induced  to  subscribe  were  untrue,  he  must 
rescind  within  a  reasonable  time  after  he  has  an  opportunity 
to  know  the  truth  by  consulting  them.  But  it  has  been  held 
that  he  is  not  guilty  of  laches  until  after  he  has  knowledge  of 
the  fraud,  or  of  facts  which  should  reasonably  put  him  on  in- 
quiry, and  that  he  is  not  chargeable  with  knowledge  of  facts 
disclosed  at  a  stockholders'  meeting  at  which  he  was  not  present 
but  was  represented  by  the  perpetrator  of  the  fraud,  to  whom  he 

1  Graff  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  483.     And  so  is  participa- 

31  Pa.  St.  489 ;  Chubb  v.  Upton,  95  U.  tion      in      stockholders'     meetings. 

S.  665;  Be  London,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  L.  Chaffin  v.  Cuminings,  37  Me.  76.    But 

R.  24  Ch.  Div.  149 ;  Heymann  v.  Euro-  attendance  on  a  meeting  has   been 

pean  Central  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  7  Eq.  Cas.  held  not  to  be   a  waiver.    Stewart's 

154;  Schaeffer  v.  Missouri  Home  Ins.  Case,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  App.  574.    And  the 

Co.,  46  Mo.  248;   Cook  on  Stock  and  same  has  been  held  as  to  voting  shares 

Stockholders,  §  161;  2  Thomp.  Corp.,  by  proxy.    Greenville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

§1438,  et  seq.  Coleman,  5  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  118;   Mc- 

2 Uptons.  Jackson,  1  Flipp.  (U.  S.)  Cully  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 
413;   Chubb  v.  Upton,  95  U.  S.  667;  -Pa.  St.  25.   Paying  a  call  after  knowl- 

City  Bank  v.  Bartlett,  71  Ga.  797;   2  edge  of  the  fraud  is  held   to  be  a 

Thomp.  Corp.,  §  1377.   Selling  part  of  waiver.     Scholey  v.  Central  R.  Co., 

his  stock  is  a  waiver.    Ayre's  Case,  L.  R.  9  Eq.  267,  n. 

25  Beav.  513.    So,  also,  is  instructing  •  Oakes  v.  Turquand,  L.  R.  2  H.  L. 

his  broker  to  sell.    Ex  parte  Briggs,  325. 


200 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§132 


had  given  his  proxy.1  If  he  elects  to  rescind  the  contract,  he 
must  do  so  in  toto,  and  must  generally  tender  back  his  stock 
certificates.8  In  England,3  and  apparently  by  the  weight  of 
authority  in  this  country,4  it  is  held  that  a  subscription  can  not 
be  rescinded  on  the  ground  that  it  was  induced  by  fraudulent 
representations  unless  proceedings  are  begun  before  the  cor- 
poration becomes  insolvent,  or,  at  least,  while  it  is  a  "going 


concern. 

1  Virginia  Land  Co.  v.  Haupt,  (Va.) 
19  S.  E.  R.  168,  s.  c.  9  Lewis's  Am.  R. 
R.  &  Corp.  Rep.  235. 

2  Parks  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 
Ind.  567.     A  subscriber  to  stock  can 
not  rescind  for  fraud,  when  he  has  had 
the  stock  transferred  to  his   infant 
children,  unless  their  right  thereto  is 
also  tendered  back.    Francis  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N.  Y.  93.    But 
compare  Ex  parte  West,  56  Law  Times 
R.  (N.  S.)  622. 

3  Tennent  v.  City  of  Glasgow  Bank, 
L.  R.  4  App.  Cas.  615 ;    Reese  River 
Co.  v.  Smith,  L.  R.  4  H.  L.  64;  Oakes 
v.  Turquand,    L.   R.    2    H.    L.   Cas. 
325 ;  Kent  v.  Freehold,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R. 
3  Ch.  App.  493. 

4  Duffield  v.  Barnum,   etc.,  Works, 
64  Mich.  293,  31  N.  W.310;  Saffold  v. 
Barnes,    39    Miss.    399;     Ruggles    v. 
Brock,  6  Hun  (N.  Y.)  164;  Chubb  v. 
Upton,  95  U.  S.  665 ;  Ogilvie  v.  Knox 


Ins.  Co.,  22  How.  (U.  S.)  380;  Clarke 
v.  Thomas,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Ohio  St.  46. 

5  This  was  the  rule  in  our  bank- 
ruptcy courts  under  the  bankrupt  act 
of  1867.  Farrar  v.  Walker,  13  Nat. 
Bankr.  Reg.  82.  See,  also,  Upton  v. 
Tribilcock,  91  U.  S.  45;  Turner  v. 
Grangers,  etc.,  Co.,  65  Ga.  649,  s.  c.  38 
Am.  R.  801 ;  Cunningham  v.  Edge- 
field,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  2  Head  (Tenn.) 
23.  Certainly  this  is  true  where  there 
is  unreasonable  delay  and  the  rights 
of  creditors  are  ihvolved.  In  Bosher 
v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Va.  455,  s. 
c.  16  S.  E.  R.  360,  where  several  sub- 
scriptions had  been  obtained  by  means 
of  fraudulent  representations  in  a 
prospectus,  it  was  held  that  such  sub- 
scribers had  a  common  interest,  and 
several  might  join  in  a  bill  for  the 
benefit  of  themselves  and  others 
similarly  situated,  to  set  aside  their 
subscriptions. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 


CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS. 


§  133.   When   payment   of    subscrip-     §  145. 
tion  must  be  made. 

134.  Calls— Nature  and  effect  of.  146. 

135.  Directors  may  make  calls — 

Delegation  and  ratification.        147. 

136.  Directors  must  act  as  a  body — 

De  facto  board— Illegal  calls. 

137.  Discretion  of  board  in  making        148. 

calls. 

138.  Charter  and  statutory  limita- 

tions upon  discretion — Peri-        149. 
odical  installments. 

139.  Call  should  affect  all  alike- 

Motive  and  expediency.  150. 

140.  Subscription  payable  upon  de- 

mand— Notice.  151. 

141.  Requisites  of  notice.  152. 

142.  Constructive  notice. 

143.  Waiver  by  stockholder  of  no-        153. 

tice  and  formalities  of  call —        154. 
Estoppel. 

144.  Demand  and  suit  for  assess- 

ment. 

§  133.    When  payment  of  subscription  must  be  made. — 

Where  a  subscription  contains  a  promise  to  pay  upon  a  certain 
day,  the  subscriber  is  bound  to  pay  at  that  time  without  fur- 
ther notice  or  he  is  liable  to  suit  immediately  upon  his  de- 
fault,1 and  he  is  also  bound,  in  the  absence  of  any  provision 


Assignment  of  right  to  collect 
subscription  or  assessment. 

When  courts  may  compel  call 
and  payment. 

Extent  of  stockholder's  liabil- 
ity for  assessments — Agree- 
ments as  affecting  liability. 

Construction  of  charter  and 
statutory  provisions  regard- 
ing assessments. 

Remedies  where  stockholder 
fails  to  pay  subscription  or 
assessment — Forfeiture . 

Cumulative  remedies  —  Elec- 
tion. 

Effect  of  forfeiture. 

Statutory  method  of  forfeiture 
must  be  pursued. 

Notice  of  forfeiture. 

Defeating  and  annulling  for- 
feiture— Estoppel. 


1  Estell  v.  Knightstown,  etc.,  Turnp. 
Co.,  41  Ind.  174;  Beckner  v.  River- 
side, etc.,  Turnp.  Co.,  65  Ind.  468; 
Waukon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dwyer,  49 


Roberts  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 
Miss.  373.  Even  though  the  statute 
fixes  the  time  of  payment.  Iowa,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Perkins,  28  Iowa  281.  See, 


Iowa  121.     A  subscription  may  regu-    also,  West  v.  Crawford,  80  Cal.  19,  s. 
late  the  time  of  payment.    N.  J.  Mid-    c.  21  Pac.  Rep.  1123. 
land  R.  Co.  v.  Strait,  35  N.  J.  L.  322 ; 

(201) 


202 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§133 


in  the  subscription,  if  the  charter  or  a  general  statute  specifies 
the  time  of  payment,  to  pay  at  the  designated  time.1  The  same 
is  true  where  the  subscription  is  made  payable  upon  the  hap- 
pening of  a  certain  event  and  at  stated  periods  thereafter.  The 
subscriber  must  know  when  his  subscription  becomes  payable.2 
The  stockholder  may  pay  his  subscription  as  soon  after  the 
corporation  is  organized  as  he  may  choose,  without  awaiting 
the  formality  of  a  call,3  if  he  act  in  good  faith.4  But  where 
the  capital  stock  is  to  be  paid  at  such  times  and  in  such  install- 
ments as  may  be  required  by  the  president  and  directors,  such 
a  requirement,  being  an  uncertain  event,  forms  a  condition 
which,  as  between  the  corporation  and  the  stockholder,  sus- 
pends the  obligation  to  pay  until  it  is  made.5  And  an  ordi- 
nary subscription  made  without  any  designated  time  for  pay- 
ment, is  generally  held  to  become  payable  only  after  a  formal 
declaration  to  that  effect  by  the  corporate  authorities.6 


1  Phoenix  Warehousing  Co.  v.  Bad- 
ger, 67  N.  Y.  294. 

2Breedlove  v.  Martinsville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  12  Ind.  114,  where  the  subscrip- 
tion was  payable  in  installments  of 
ten  per  cent,  every  sixty  days  after 
the  work  was  put  under  contract. 

3  Marsh  v.  Burroughs,  1  Woods  463 ; 
Poole,  Jackson  &  Whyte's  Case,  L.  R. 
•9  Ch.  D.  322.  Where  the  corporation 
owes  money  to  the  subscriber,  it  is 
freqaently  applied  to  discharge  his 
.indebtedness  without  awaiting  a  call. 
Adamson's  Case,  L.  R.  18Eq.  Cas.  670. 

*  If  it  be  merely  a  colorable  payment 
to  escape  liability  in  case  of  insolv- 
ency he  will  not  be  permitted  to  claim 
a  release  from  indebtedness  on  his 
subscription.  Syke's  Case,  L.  R.  13 
Eq.  Cas.  255;  Barge's  Case,  L.  R.  5 
Eq.  Cas.  420. 

5Purton  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  La.  Ann.  19.  See,  also,  Will- 
iams v.  Taylor,  120  N.  Y.  244. 

6Spangler  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
21  111.276;  Braddock  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  J.  L.  363;  Alabama, 


etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rowley,  9  Fla.  508.  A  call 
is  not  applicable  to  stock  which  was 
subscribed  for  after  the  call  was  made. 
Pike  a.  Bangor,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Me.  445. 
Some  cases  in  New  York  have  asserted 
the  rule  that  unless  the  contract 
provides  for  calls,  the  subscription  is 
payable  absolutely  and  at  once.  Lake 
Ontario,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mason,  16  N.  Y. 
451 ;  Phoenix,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Badger,  67  N. 
Y.  294.  But  the  point  was  not  decided 
in  either  of  these  cases  and  other  cases 
in  that  state  recognize  the  doctrine  of 
the  text.  Mann  v.  Pentz,  3  N.  Y.  415 ; 
Seymour  v.  Sturgess,  26  N.  Y.  134; 
Williams  v.  Meyer,  41  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
545.  See,  also,  Williams  v.  Taylor, 
120  N.  Y.  244;  South  Georgia,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ay^es,  56  Ga.  230.  In  a 
suit  on  a  subscription  to  the  capital 
stock  of  a  company  which  provided 
that  the  subscriptions  should  be  paid 
"in  such  installments  and  at  such 
times  as  may  be  decided  by  a  majority 
of  the  stockholders  or  board  of  direct- 
ors, or  a  trustee  empowered  for  the 
purpose  by  a  majority  of  the  stock- 


§  134 


CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS. 


203 


§  134.  Calls — Nature  and  effect  of. — Such  a  declaration  as 
that  referred  to  in  the  preceding  section  is  termed  a  "call,"1 
and  the  sum  of  money  so  rendered  payable  may  be  payable  in 
one  or  more  installments,  where  the  directors  are  invested  with 
entire  discretion  and  there  is  no  contract  to  the  contrary,  ac- 
cording to  the  terms  of  the  resolution.8  Any  declaration  or 
resolution  to  the  effect  that  the  whole,8  or  a  certain  part,4  of  the 
unpaid  subscriptions  shall  be  paid  in,  though  informal  and  ir- 
regular,5 will  be  a  valid  call  if  it  be  sufficient  to  show  a  clear 
official  intent  to  render  payable  so  much  of  the  subscription 
as  is  embraced  by  the  terms,6  and  is  susceptible  of  legal  proof.7 
The  resolution  need  not  state  the  time  or  place  of  payment,8 
but  these  may  be  left  to  be  fixed  by  the  administrative  officers 


holders,"  no  proof  was  offered  to  show 
that  any  provisions  as  to  the  amount 
of  the  installments  or  the  time  of  pay- 
ment of  such  had  ever  been  so  made, 
nor  that  any  call  for  payment  had  ever 
been  made  in  said  manner,  and  it  was 
held  that  there  should  be  a  judgment 
of  non-suit  against  the  plaintiff.  North 
&  S.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Spullock,  88  Ga.  283, 
14  S.  E.  R.  478. 

1  Braddock  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  45  N.  J.  L.  363;  Newry  and  En- 
niskillen  R.   Co.   v.  Edmunds,  2  Ex. 
R.  118;  Spangler  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  21  111.  276;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Clarke,  29  Pa.  St.    146.    The 
term  may  also  refer  to  a  notice  given 
of  such  resolution,   or    to  the    time 
which  it  names  as  the  time  of  pay- 
ment.    Ambergate,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Mitchell,  4  Ex.  R.  540. 

2  Northwestern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Michael,  6  Ex.  273;  Birkenhead,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Webster,  6  Ex.  277 ;  Hays  v. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Pa.  St.  81 ; 
Rutland,  etc.,  R  Co.  v.  Thrall,  35  Vt. 
536;  Haun  v.  Mulberry,  etc.,  Road,  33 
Ind.  103.    But  it  is  said  that  debt  will 
not  lie  for  one  of  such  installments 
until  all  are  due  and  payable.   Birken- 
head, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Webster,  supra. 


3  Fox  v.  Allensville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 
Ind.  31 ;  Haun  v.  Mulberry,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  33  Ind.  103. 

*  Spangler  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
21  111.  276;  Ross  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  6  Ind.  297. 

5  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hick- 
man,  28  Pa.   St.   318;    Southampton 
Dock  Co.  v.  Richards,  2  Eng.  Railw.  & 
Canal  Cas.  215,234.   Irregularities  may 
be  waived.  Hays  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,38  Pa.  St.  81 ;  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Vason,  57  Ga.  314.    But  see  Grosse 
Isle  Hotel  Co.  v.  I'  Anson,  43  N.  J.  L. 
442. 

6  Budd  v.  Multnomah  St.  R.  Co.,  15 
Ore.  413,  s.  c.  15  Pac.  R.  659. 

7  An  entry  in  the  minutes  of  the 
corporation  is  sufficient  proof.    Fox  v. 
Allensville,  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.,  46  Ind. 
31.    The   passage   of  the   resolution 
may  be  proven  though  no  entry  was 
made  in  the  minutes.    Hays  v.  Pitts- 
burgh,  etc.,    R.    Co.,38  Pa.  St.  81; 
See  Bavington  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  34  Pa.  St.  358. 

8  Andrew  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 
Ind.  169;  Great  North,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Biddulph,  7  M.  &  W.  243;  Marsh  v. 
Burroughs,  1  Woods  (U.  S.)  463;  Rut- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thrall,  35  Vt.  536. 


204  THE    CORPORATION.  §  135 

of  the  corporation.1  It  is  perfectly  competent  for  the  directors 
to  determine  these  matters  at  the  same  or  a  subsequent  meet- 
ing. And  it  has  been  held  that  they  may  order  that  at  a  cer- 
tain future  time  a  call  payable  at  a  later  date  shall  be  made.2 
Where  no  place  is  designated,  the  resolution  requiring  payment 
will  import  a  requirement  that  the  payments  should  be  made 
to  the  treasurer  of  the  corporation  at  his  office.3 

§  135.  Directors  may  make  calls — Delegation  and  ratifica- 
tion.— In  general,  the  directors  are  the  proper  authorities  to 
make  calls,4  in  the  absence  of  any  other  provision  in  the  char- 
ter, or  in  any  statute  or  by-law.  Where  this  power  is  not  given 
to  the  directors,  it  is  usually  lodged  with  the  stockholders  at 
large,5  in  which  case  they  may  delegate  the  power  to  the  di- 
rectors ;6  and  it  has  been  held  in  such  a  case  that  even  without 
such  a  delegation  of  power,  the  directors  may  still  make  calls, 
if  not  expressly  prohibited.7  But  the  directors  can  not  dele- 
gate such  a  special  authority  entrusted  to  them,8  though  they 
may  ratify  a  call  made  by  one  to  whom  they  have  attempted  to 
delegate  it,  and  so  render  such  call  valid.9  And  they  may,  it 
seems,  authorize  another  to  determine  the  amount  of  some  of 
the  installments  and  to  designate  the  times  of  payment.10  Thus 
it  is  said  that  they  may  make  a  general  declaration  that  the  stock 

'They  should  be  fixed  by  the  notice.  5  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

Andrew  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Ind.  §  109. 

169 ;  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  .  6  Rives  v.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

§115.     And    should    be    reasonable.  30  Ala.  92.     Contra,  Exparte  Winsoi, 

Fairfield  Co.  Turnp.   Co.  v.  Thorp,  13  3  Story  C.  C.  411. 

Conn.  173.  7Budd0.  Multnomah  St.  R.  Co.,  15 

2  Sheffield,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woodcock,  Ore.  413.    But  see  Marlborough,  etc., 
7  Mees.  &  W.  574.     See,  also,  Penob-  Co.  v.  Smith,  2  Conn.  579. 

scot  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dummer,  40  Me.  172,  8  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thrall,  35 

s.  c.  63  Am.  Dec.  654 ;  Heaston  v.  Cin-  Vt.  536 ;  Silver  Hook  R.  v.  Greene,  12 

einnati,  etc.,R.  R.  Co.,  16  Ind.  275,  s.c.  R.  I.  164 ;  Pike  v.  Bangor,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

79  Am.  Dec.  430.  68  Me.  445 ;  Banet  v.  Alton,  etc.,  R. 

3  Danbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  22  Co.,  13  111.  504. 

Conn.  435.  9  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thrall,  35 

4  Budd  v.  Multnomah  St.  R.  Co.,  15    Vt.  536;  Read  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  Co., 
Ore.  413,  s.  c.  15  Pac.  Rep.  659,  3  Am.    9  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  545. 

St.  Rep.  169,  172;  Ambergate.etc.,  R.  "Banet  v.  Alton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 
Co.  «.  Mitchell,  4  Ex.  Rep.  540.  111.  404. 


§  136  CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS.  205 

is  pay  able,  and  give  a  general  authority  to  the  treasurer  to  re- 
quire the  payment  of  the  stock,  and  calls  made  by  him  will  be 
valid,  even  though  the  resolutions  do  not  specify  the  amount 
of  each  installment  to  be  called  for.1 

§  136.  Directors  must  act  as  a  body— De  facto  board — Ille- 
gal calls. — A  valid  call  can  not  be  made  by  a  portion  of  the 
board  of  directors  in  the  absence  of  a  quorum  for  the  transac- 
tion of  business.8  But  that  a  de  facto  board  was  illegally 
elected  can  not  be  set  up  as  a  defense  to  a  call  regularly  made 
by  them.8  If  the  corporation  is  unauthorized  and  illegal,  calls 
made  by  it  can  not,  it  seems,  be  enforced.4  But  it  is  gen- 
erally held  that  the  implied  promise  to  pay  upon  call  contained 
in  a  subscription  to  the  capital  stock  of  a  legally  incorporated 
company  is  sufficient  to  support  an  action,  and  of  course  an 
action  may  be  maintained  on  an  express  promise  to  pay  for 
such  stock. 

§  137.  Discretion  of  board  in  making  calls. — The  corporate 
authorities  who  are  empowered  to  make  calls  are  the  sole  judges 
as  to  the  advisability  of  making  them,5  subject,  perhaps,  to 
the  condition  that  the  power  must  be  exercised  in  good  faith 
for  the  purpose  of  raising  money  for  the  use  of  the  corporation.' 

1  Hays  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  R.  763.    The  rule  in  England  seems 
Pa.  St.  81.     But  see  Silver  Hook  Road  to  be  opposed  to  the  doctrine  stated 
v.  Green,  12  R.  I.  164.  in  the  text.     Swansea  Dock  Co.   v. 

2  Price  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Levien,  20  L.  J.  (Ex.)  447. 

13  Ind.  58 ;  Bottomley's  Case,  L.  R.  16  *  Gillespie  v.  Ft.  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Ch.   Div.  681.    Possibly  such  an  act  17  Ind.  243. 

could  be  confirmed  by  the  majority.  5Judah  v.  American,  etc.,    Co.,  4 

Be  Phosphate  of  Lime  Co.,  24  L.T.  932.  Ind.  333;  Budd  v.  Multnomah  St.  R. 

3Eakright   v.   Logansport,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Ore.  413,  s.  c.  15  Pac.  Rep.  659; 

Co.,   13  Ind.  404;   Steinmetz  v.  Ver-  Chouteau  Ins.  Co.   v.   Floyd,  74  Mo. 

sallies,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Ind.  457;  Fair-  286;  Oglesby  v.  Attrill,  105  U.  S.  605. 

field,   etc.,  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Thorp,  13  6  Harbershon's  Case,   L.   R.  5  Eq. 

Conn.   173;   Macon,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  286.     But  where  the  money  is  raised 

Vason,   57  Ga.    314.     Contra,    How-  for  the  use  of  the  company,  equity 

beach,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Teague,  5  H.  &  N.  will  not  inquire  whether  such  use  is 

151.    And  see  People's  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  essential  to  its  best  interests.    Bailey 

r.Westcott,  14  Gray  (Mass.)  440, where  v.  Birkenhead,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Beav. 

a  call  by  directors  elected  at  a  meeting  433;  Yetts  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

without    notice    was    held    invalid.  De  G.  &  Sm.  293.    See,  also,  Oglesby 

Moses    v.  Tompkins,    (Ala.),    4    So.  v.  Attrill,  105  U.  S.  605. 


206  THE    CORPORATION.  §  138 

And  where  no  limitations  are  placed  upon  their  discretion  r 
they  may  require  the  whole  subscription  to  be  paid,  either  at 
one  time  or  in  installments.1 

§  138.  Charter  and  statutory  limitations  upon  discretion — 
Periodical  installments.  —  The  assessments  are  frequently 
required  by  charter  or  by  statute2  to  be  limited  to  not  more  than  a 
certain  per  centum  of  the  subscription  within  a  given  time.  And 
where  the  charter  provides  that  after  the  payment  of  a  certain 
per  cent.,  no  further  assessment  shall  be  made,  "  unless  with 
the  assent  of  three-fourths  of  the  stockholders,"  a  shareholder 
can  not  be  made  to  pay  the  balance  by  the  directors,  without  a 
three-fourths  vote  of  the  stockholders.8  It  has  also  been  held 
that  subscriptions  to  stock  which  is  to  be  called  for  in  propor- 
tions can  only  be  recovered  where  the  installments  were  called 
for  periodically,  and  that  an  attempt  to  make  all  the  assess- 
ments at  one  time,  without  having  given  any  notice  to  the  sub- 
scriber that  previous  assessments  were  payable  is  invalid.4  But 
where  the  subscription  was  made  upon  condition  that  not  more 
than  five  per  cent,  should  be  assessed  at  any  one  time,  it  was 
held  that  an  assessment  of  more  than  that  sum,  payable  in  in- 
stallments of  not  more  than  five  per  cent,  each,  must  be  levied 
by  a  single  vote  of  the  directors.5  The  corporation  can  not, 
however,  by  contract,  agree  to  postpone  a  carl  for  an  indefinite 
time.6 

§139.   Call  should  affect  all  alike — Motive  and  expediency. — 

A  call  in  order  to  be  valid  must  affect  all  similar  stock  of  the 
corporation  alike.7  But  the  fact  that  wrong  motives  induced 
the  directors  to  make  the  call  does  not  constitute  a  valid  objection 
to  it,8  where  the  assessment  is  equal  and  the  money  is  raised 

1  Haun  v.  Mulberry,  etc.,  Grav.  R.  Me.  172;  Penobscot  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  39 

Co.,  33  Ind.  103.  Me.  587. 

2Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §8601.  6McComb  v.  Credit  Mobilier,  etc.v 

-  3  Louisiana  Paper  Co.  v.  Waples,  13  Phil.  Rep.  468  r  Van  Allen  v.  111. 

3  Woods  (TJ.  S.)34.  Central  R.  Co.,  7  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  515. 

*  Spangler  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Pike  v.  Bangor,  etc.,  R.  Co. ,68  Me. 

21  III.  276.  But  see  Heaston  v.  Cin-  445;  Great  Western,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Burn- 

cinnati,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  16  Ind.  275,  s.  ham,  79  Wis.  47,  s.  c.  47  N.  W.  R.  373. 
c.  79  Am.  Dec.  430.  8  Oglesby  ».  Attrill,  105  U.  S.  605. 

5  Penobscot  R.  Co.  v.  Dummer,  40 


§140 


CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS. 


207 


ostensibly  for  corporate  uses.  Thus,  in  the  case  cited,  it  was 
held  that,  although  the  declaration  alleged  that  the  assessment 
was  unnecessary  and  was  made  in  pursuance  of  a  scheme  to 
embarrass  the  plaintiff  and  get  possession  of  his  stock  at  a 
nominal  price,  as  it  did  not  appear  to  be  in  excess  of  the  power 
of  the  directors  nor  for  an  object  foreign  to  the  purposes  of  the 
corporation,  the  court  would  not  inquire  into  the  motives  which 
prompted  it  or  the  expediency  of  making  it. 

§140.   Subscription    payable    upon    demand  —  Notice. — 

The  better  rule  seems  to  be  that  a  subscription  payable  at 
such  times  and  places  as  shall  be  directed  by  the  directors  of 
the  company  is  payable  upon  demand,1  that  a  suit  to  collect 
the  installment  called  for  is  a  sufficient  demand,8  and  that  no 
notice  of  such  a  call  need  be  given  before  suit,8  unless  it  is  re- 
quired by  the  charter  or  by-laws,  or  by  statute.*  In  accordance 


1  Ross  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 
Ind.  297 ;  New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co. 
v.  McCormick,  10  Ind.  499,  s.  c.  71 
Am.  Dec.  337,  and  note ;  Gray  v.  Mo- 
nongahela,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Watts  &  S.  Pa. 
156,  s.  c.  37  Am.  Dec.  500,  and  note. 
But  see  2  Thomp.  Corp.,  §§  1750,  1751, 
and  English  authorities  there  cited. 
The  statutes  of  nearly  all  the  states 
make  the  capital  stock  payable  in  such 
installments,  and  at  such  times  and 
places  as  the  directors  prescribe. 
Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §§8112, 
8601.  But  subject,  in  some  states,  to  a 
restriction  as  to  how  much  of  the 
capital  stock  may  be  called  for  within 
a  given  time.  Stimson's  Am.  Stat. 
(1892),  §§8112,  8601,  citing  laws  of 
Indiana,  Neveda,  Utah,  New  Mexico, 
Arizona,  Pennsylvania,  Montana.  A 
call  for  the  payment  of  a  subscription 
is  a  sufficient  acceptance  of  the  sub- 
scriber as  a  stockholder.  Danbury, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  22  Conn.  435; 
Wight  v.  Shelby  R.  Co.,  16  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)  4;  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dud- 
ley, 14  N.  Y.  336. 


2 Smiths.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 
Ind.  61. 

8  Wilson  v.  Wills  Valley  R.  Co.,  33 
Ga.  466;  Grubbs  v.  Vicksburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  50  Ala.  398;  Hill  v.  Nisbet,  100 
Ind.  341;  Grubb  v.  Mahoning  Nav. 
Co.,  14  Pa.  St.  302 ;  Lake  Ontario,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Mason,  16  N.  Y.  451,  464 ; 
Peake  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  18  111.  88. 

4  Notice  is  required  by  statute  in 
several  states.  Stimson's  Am.  Stat. 
(1892),  §8112.  The  Pennsylvania  R. 
R.  act  requires  notice  of  calls  to  be 
given.  McCarty  v.  Selinsgrove,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  35  Leg.  Intel.  410.  See,  also, 
Scarlett  v.  Academy,  43  Md.  203; 
Muskingum  Valley,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ward, 
13  Ohio  120,  2  Thomp.  Corp.,  §1756 
(notice  by  publication).  When  the 
trustees  of  a  corporation,  suing  on  a 
subscription  to  its  capital  stock,  show 
that  they  have  taken  steps,  which  the 
law  authorized  them  to  take,  the  pre- 
sumption is  that  they  have  taken  them 
regularly;  and,  if  there  is  any  by-law 
which  renders  their  action  irregular, 
it  is  matter  of  defense  and  should  be 


208  THE    CORPORATION.  §  141 

•with  this  doctrine,  where  no  such  requirement  is  found  in  the 
charter  or  general  laws,  a  judgment  for  an  installment  on  a 
subscription  will  be  sustained  even  though  it  does  not  appear 
that  the  defendant  had  any  notice  whatever  of  a  call  for  such 
installment.1  But  respectable  authority  holds  that  notice  of 
calls  must  be  given  before  suit  is  brought  to  collect  them,2 
since  all  stockholders  can  not  reasonably  be  presumed  to  know 
what  the  directors  do  without  notice  of  that  fact,8  which  is 
peculiarly  within  the  knowledge  of  the  corporate  authorities 
seeking  to  enforce  the  subscription  liability.4 

§  141.  Requisites  of  notice. — Where  notice  is  required,  it 
must  be  such  a  notice  as  will  give  the  shareholder  to  under- 
stand that  a  call  has  been  made,  and  that  he  is  required  to  pay 
the  amount  on  a  named  day,8  and  some  authorities  hold  that 
it  must  designate  the  place  of  payment.6  It  must  be  given 
the  full  number  of  days  prescribed  before  the  call  is  made  pay- 
able or  before  suit  is  brought,7  but  where  actual  personal  notice 
is  given  this  has  been  held  effectual,  although  the  charter,  statute 
or  by-laws  provide  for  some  other  form  of  notice.8  Actual  notice 

so  pleaded.     Puget  Sound,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Ward,  13  Ohio  120,   holding  that  it 

v.  Ouillette,   7   Wash.  265,  34  Pac.  R.  does.     And  see  Danbury,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

929.  v.  Wilson,  22  Conn.  435,  where  it  is 

1  Wilson  v.  Mills  Valley  R.  Co.,  33  held  that  a  call  is  impliedly  payable 
Ga.  466.  to  the  treasurer  at  his  office  unless 

2  Wear  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  otherwise  provided  in  the  resolution. 
24  111.  594;   Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.        'Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gaster, 
Thrall,  35  Vt.  536 ;  Edinburgh,  etc.,  R.  20  Ark.  455.  Fifty-nine  days  is  insuffi- 
Co.  v.  Hebblewhite,  6  M.  &  W.  707;  cient    where    the    statute    prescribes 
Miles  v.  Bough,  3  Ad.   &  El.   (N.  S.)  sixty  days.     Macon,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
845;  Lindley  Comp.  L.  (5th  ed.)  417.  Vason,  57  Ga.  314. 

8  Hughes  v.  Antietam  Mfg.  Co.,  34  8  Mississippi  etc.,  R.  Co.  P.  Gaster, 

Md.  316.  20  Ark.   455,  where  the  statute  pro- 

4  This  rule  is  commended  by  Cook  vided  for  sixty  days'  notice  by  publi- 
inhis  work  on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  cation.     Schenectady,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
§  118.  Thatcher,  11  N.  Y.  102,  where  the  de- 

5  Shackleford  v.  Dangerfield,  L.  R.  fendant  aided  in  sending  out  by  mail 
3  C.  P.  407.  notices  required  by  charter.   See,  also, 

6  Dexter,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Millerd,  3  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chandler, 
Mich.  91,  holding  that  a  notice  to  pay  13  Mete.  (Mass.)  311.     Contra,   Tom- 
to  the  treasurer  does  'not  sufficiently  lin  v.  Tonica,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  111.  429 
indicate  the  place  of  payment.     But  (374). 

see  Muskingum  Valley  Turnp.  Co.  v. 


§  142  CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS.  209 

will  be  presumed  where  the  subscriber  expressly  promises  to 
pay  a  call  which  has  already  been  made.1  Notice  by  mail  has 
been  held  to  be  effective  only  if  actually  received,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  special  provision  for  notice  of  this  kind,2  and  it  is  for 
the  jury  to  decide  whether  it  was  so  received.1 

§  142.  Constructive  notice. — Where  constructive  notice  is 
relied  upon  proof  must  be  made  of  a  strict  compliance  with  the 
provisions  of  the  statute,  charter,  or  by-law  conferring  author- 
ity to  give  notice  by  publication  or  otherwise.*  Publication 
must  be  made  the  full  number  of  days  required  before  the  call 
is  payable,5  but  one  publication  has  been  held  sufficient  unless 
more  are  expressly  required.6  It  has  been  held  that  this  mode 
of  giving  notice  of  matters  in  which  many  persons  are  inter- 
ested, such  as  a  call  by  the  directors  of  a  corporation,  has  so 
long  been  an  universal  usage,  and  of  a  notoriety  equal  to  that 
of  the  publication  of  newspapers  themselves,  that  the  custom  of 
doing  so  has  become  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land,7  and  that 
such  a  notice  is  sufficient  where  the  mode  of  notice  is  left  un- 
determined by  express  provision  of  law.8  But  the  better 
authority  seems  to  hold  that  such  a  notice  would  bind  only  those 

1  Miles  v.  Bough,  3  Ad.  &  El.  (N.|S.)  must  be  put  in  evidence.     Rutland, 
845 ;  Fairfield  Co.  Turnp.  Co.  v. Thorp,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thrall,  35  Vt.  536.    But 
13  Conn.  173.  may  be  supplemented  by  the  testi- 

2  Hughes  v.  Anteitam,  etc.,  Co.,  34  mony  of  the  publisher  as  to  subse- 
Md.  316.     But  see  Braddock  v.  Phila-  quent  insertions.    Unthank  v.  Henry 
delphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  J.  L.  363.  Co.  Turnp.  Co.,  6  Ind.  125;  Andrews 

3  Braddock  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Ind.  169. 
Co.,  45  N.  J.  Law  363.     Only  the  per-  6  Muskingum  Val.    Turnp.    Co.    v. 
son   actually  mailing  the  notice  can  Ward,  13  Ohio  120;  Fox  v.  Allensville, 
testify  that  it  was  sent.    Jones  v.  Sis-  etc.,  Turnp.  Co.,  46  Ind.  31 ;  Marsh  v. 
son,  6  Gray  (Mass.)  288.  Burroughs,  1  Woods  (U.  S.)  463. 

4Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vason,  57  7Hall  v.  United  States  Ins.  Co.,  5 

Ga.  314;  Cole  v.  Juliet,  etc.,  Co.,  79  Gill.  (Md.)  484. 

111.  96;  Louisville,  etc.,  Turnpike  Co.  8  Louisville,     etc.,    Co.     v.     Meri- 

v.  Meriwether,  5  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  13.  wether,  5  B.  Monr.  (Ky.)  13;    Dan- 

5  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vason,  57  bury,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Wilson,  22  Conn. 

Ga.  314.    The  certificate  of  the  secre-  435;  Grubbs  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  R. 

tary  is  not  admissible  to  prove  such  Co.,  50  Ala.  398.    See,  also,  Fisher  v. 

publication.    Tomlin  v.  Tonica,  etc.,  Evansville,  etc.,  R.   R.  Co.,   7  Ind. 

R.  Co.,  23  111.  429.  The  printed  notice  407. 

CORP.  14 


210  THE    CORPORATION.  §  143 

who  could  be  proven  to  have  actually  read  it;1  and  that,  in  general, 
showing  that  notice  was  given  to  others  even  of  the  immediate 
neighborhood  will  not  be  sufficient  to  charge  a  subscriber,2 
where  constructive  notice  is  not  expressly  provided  for  and 
such  provisions  carefully  and  exactly  complied  with. 

§  143.  Waiver  by  stockholder  of  notice  and  formalities  of 
call — Estoppel. — The  subscriber  may  waive  notice,  or  he  may 
waive  the  formalities  which  give  validity  to  the  call,3  and  may 
even  waive  the  call  itself.4  Such  a  waiver  may  be  by  acts  as 
well  as  by  express  agreement.5  It  is  held  that  a  director  par- 
ticipating in  a  call  can  not  question  its  validity.6  And  a  sub- 
scriber who,  on  receiving  notice  of  a  call,  refuses  to  pay  it  and 
denies  his  liability  as  a  stockholder,  waives  any  further  notice 
of  future  calls.7  But  voluntary  payment  of  part  of  a  subscrip- 
tion is  not  necessarily  a  waiver  of  the  right  to  have  calls  made 
for  the  balance  before  payment.8  And  the  payment  of  one 
illegal  assessment  does  not  estop  the  subscriber  from  setting 
up  illegality  as  a  defense  to  a  second.9 

§  144.  Demand  and  suit  for  assessment. — After  a  call  is  ren- 
dered payable  by  resolution  and  due  notice,  suit  may  be  brought 
to  collect  it  without  further  demand  .10  Where  several  installments 

1  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rowley,  9  6  York  Tramways  Co.  ^.Willows,  L. 

Fla.  508;   Lake  Ontario,  etc.,  R.  Co.  R.  8Q.  B.  D.  685.     But  the  fact  that  a 

v.   Mason,   16  N.  Y.  451.     And   see  director  voted  for  a  call  and  made  a 

Lincoln  v.  Wright,  23  Pa.  St.  76.  part  payment  of  it,  will  not  estop  him 

*  New    Jersey    Midland    R.  Co.  v.  to  question  his  liability  as  a  stock- 
Strait,  35  N.  J.  L.  322.  holder. 

8  The  vote  of  a  city  to  pay  a  call  is  7  Cass  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

no  waiver  of  its  invalidity.     Pike  •».  Pa.  St.  31. 

Bangor,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Me.  445.    A  8  Grosse  Isle  Hotel  Co.  v.  Panson,  43 

waiver  must  be  clearly  proved.     Rut-  N.  J.  L.  442. 

land,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thrall,  35Vt.536.  9  Somerset,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gushing, 

4  Such  a  waiver  is  frequently  made  45  Me.  524.    Nor,  on  the  other  hand, 

by  an  agreement  to  pay  the  subscrip-  does  the  illegality  of  one  assessment 

tion  on  a  day  certain.     New  Albany,  vitiate  a  subsequent  legal  assessment, 

etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pickens,  5  Ind.  247;  European,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McLeod, 

Waukon,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Dwyer,  49  3  Pugsley  (16  N.  B.)  3,  39. 

Iowa  121.  "Winter  v.  Muscogee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vason,  57  11  Ga.  438;  Penobscot  R.  Co.v.  Dum- 

Ga.  314.  mer,  40  Me.  172. 


§  145  CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS.  211 

are  in  default,  one  suit  may  be  brought  for  all.1  The  complaint 
in  such  a  case  must  aver  that  all  the  several  installments  are 
due  and  payable.2  Interest  may  be  collected  from  the  time  the 
installments  become  due,  in  case  they  are  not  promptly  paid.* 

§  145.  Assignment  of  right  to  collect  subscription  or  as- 
sessment.— The  claim  arising  from  an  unpaid  call  may  be 
assigned  like  any  other  debt,4  as  may  subscription  contracts 
payable  upon  a  day  certain.5  But  subscriptions  made  subject 
to  call  can  not  be  mortgaged  or  sold  before  payment  has  been 
called  for,6  since  the  discretion  to  make  calls  vested  in  the  di- 
rectors is  not  the  subject  of  transfer,7  and,  generally,  the  power 
to  enforce  calls  can  only  be  exercised  by  the  company  to  whose 
stock  the  subscription  was  made,  unless  there  has  been  a  con- 
solidation or  transfer  of  the  franchises  to  another  company  in 
pursuance  of  full  statutory  authority.8 

§  146.   When  courts  may  compel  call  and  payment. — In 

case  of  corporate  insolvency,  a  court  of  equity  may  compel  the 
directors  to  make  a  call  for  the  purpose  of  raising  funds  with 
which  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  corporation.9  Or  it  may  dis- 
pense with  a  call  and  order  that  the  unpaid  subscriptions,  or  such 

1  Spangler  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  J.  L.  322;  Wells  v.  Kodgers,  50 

21  111.  276.  Mich.  294,  s.  c.  sub.  nom.  Rodgers  v. 

'Bethel,  etc.,  Turnp.   Co.  v.  Bean,  Wells,  44  Mich.  411. 

58  Me.  89.  7  A  mortgage  on  all  the  land,property 

*  Gould  v.  Oneonta,   71  N.  Y.  298 ;  and  effects  of  the  corporation  does  not 
Casey  v.  Galli,  94 U.  S.  673 ;  Rikhoff  v.  cover  unpaid  subscriptions.  Pickering 
Brown's,  etc.,  Co.,  68  Ind.  388.    This,  v.  Ilfracombe  R.  Co.,  37  L.  J.  (C.  P.) 
however,  is  a  matter  frequently  regu-  118. 

lated  by  statute.      Thus,    under  the  8  Thrasher  v.  Pike  County  R.  Co.,  25 

Virginia  statute,  it  has  been  held  in-  111.  393. 

terest  may  be  collected  from  the  date  9  Germantown  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Filler, 

of  the  call.  Hawkins  v.  Glenn,  131  U.  60  Pa.  St.  124;  Sanger  v.  Upton,  91  U. 

S.  319,  s.  c.  9  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  739.  S.  56;  Chandler  v.  Siddle,  3  Dill.  (U. 

*  Miller  v.  Malony,  3  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  S.)  477.  But  this  remedy  has  been  dis- 
105;  Wells  v.  Rodgers,  50  Mich.  294;  approved.     Dalton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Mc- 
Downie  v.  Hoover,  12  Wis.  174 ;  Mor-  Daniel,  56  Ga.  191 ;  Hatch  ».  Dana,  101 
ris  v.  Cheney,  51  111.  451 .  U.  S.  205 ;  Ward  v.  Griswoldville,  etc., 

8  See  Smith  v.  Hollett,  34  Ind.  519;  Co..  16  Conn.  593.  Compare  Glenn  v. 

Hays  v.  Branham,  36  Ind.  219.  Howard,  81  Ga.  383,  s.  c.  8  S.  E.  R.  636. 

*Exparte  Stanley,  33  L.  J.  (Ch.)  See,  also,  Great  Western  Tel.  Co.  ». 

635;  N.  J.  Midland  R.  Co.  v.  Strait,  Purdy,  162 U.S. 329, 16Sup.Ct.  R.810. 


212  THE    CORPORATION.  §  147 

a  part  of  them  as  may  be  necessary  to  pay  the  corporate  debts,1 
be  paid  to  a  receiver  for  the  benefit  of  the  corporate  creditors.2 
The  right  of  the  court  to  do  this  is  upheld  even  where  the  stat- 
ute provides  that  calls  shall  be  made  only  by  the  directors.* 

§  147.  Extent  of  stockholder's  liability  for  assessments — 
Agreements  as  affecting  liability. — The  principle  of  law  is  now 
well  settled  that  a  stockholder  is  not  liable  for  assessments  be- 
yond the  par  value  of  his  stock,4  unless  made  so  liable  by  pro- 
visions of  the  corporate  charter  or  by  a  constitutional  statute.5 
Liability  to  such  an  assessment  can  not  be  created  by  a  by-law 
adopted  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  directors  or  of  the  stockhold- 
ers.6 It  has  been  held,  however,  that  an  agreement  entered 
into  by  all  the  stockholders  and  printed  upon  the  certificates, 
may  make  not  only  the  stockholders  but  their  assignees  liable  to 
further  assessments.7  And  if  the  stockholders,  by  agreement 
among  themselves,  voluntarily  contribute  to  the  corporate 
treasury  in' proportion  to  the  value  of  their  shares  to  meet  the 
needs  of  the  corporation,  such  advances  do  not  create  corporate 
debts  and  can  not  be  recovered  back.8 

1  Citizens',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gillespie,  115  *Lewey's  Island  R.  Co.  v.  Bolton, 

Pa.  St.  564.     See,  also,  Bank  v.  Butch-  48  Me.  451 ;  Great  Falls,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

era',  etc.,  Bank,  107  Mo.  133,  s.  c.  17  Copp,  38  N.  H.  124;  Smith  v.  Huck- 

S.  W.  R.  644,  28  Am.  St.  R.  405.  abee,  53  Ala.  191 ;  Chase  v.  Lord,  77 

2Scovill  v.  Thayer,  105  TJ.  S.  143;  N.  Y.  1;  Coffin  v.  Rich,  45  Me.  507; 

Hatch  v.  Dana,  101  U.  S.  205;  Marsh  Inhabitants  of  Norton  v.  Hodges,  100 

v.  Burroughs,  1  Woods  (U.  S.)  463;  Mass.  241 ;  Carr  v.  Iglehart,  3  Ohio  St. 

Henry  v.  Vermillion,   etc.,    R.    Co.,  457. 

17  Ohio  187;  Glenn  v.  Sample,  80  5  Santa  Cruz  R.  Co.  v.  Spreckles,  65 
Ala.  159;  Chandler  v.  Keith,  42  Cal.  193.  See  post  Chapter  ix,  Stock- 
Iowa  99;  Shockley  v.  Fisher,  75  Mo.  holders. 

498;  Adler  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  13  6  Kennebec,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kendall, 

Wis.  57 ;  Glenn  v.  Saxton,  68  Cal.  353 ;  31  Me.  470;  Trustees  of  Free  Schools 

Sagory  v.  Dubois,  3  Sandf.  Ch.  466;  v.  Flint,  13  Mete.  539;  Flint  v.  Pierce, 

Elderkin  v.  Peterson,  8  Wash.  674.  99  Mass.  68.  But  see  Hume  v.  Winyah 

3  Glenn  v.  Saxton,  68  Cal.  353 ;  Craw-  Canal  Co.,  Carolina  L.  J.  vol.  1,  217, 

ford  v.  Rohrer,  59  Md.  599.     But  see  cited  in  Cook  on  Stock,  etc.,  §  242. 

Trustees,  etc.,  v.  Waples,  3  Woods  (U.  '  Weeks  v.  Silver,  etc.,  Co.,  23  J.  and 

S.)  34,  holding  that  the  court  can  not  S.  (N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.)  1. 

make  a  call  where  the  charter  pro-  8  Bid  well  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

vides  for  a  call  only  upon   a  three-  114  Pa.  535,  s.  c.  6  Atl.  Rep.  729. 
fourths  vote  of  the  stockholders. 


§  148  CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS.  213 

§  148.  Construction  of  charter  and  statutory  provisions  re- 
garding assessments. — Statutes  and  charter  provisions  author- 
izing such  assessments  will  be  strictly  construed.1  Where  the 
charter  provided  "that  the  shares  in  said  capital  stock  shall 
not  be  liable  to  assessment  after  the  capital  stock  so  fixed  in 
amount  has  been  paid  in,  except  in  equal  proportions,  and  by 
the  consent  of  the  stockholders  owning  at  least  three-fourths 
of  the  shares  of  the  capital  stock  of  the  corporation,"  it  was 
held  that  paid-up  stock  was  not  liable  to  assessment  in  any 
event  until  the  full  amount  of  the  capital  stock  as  fixed  by  the 
charter  had  been  subscribed  for  and  actually  paid  in.2  So, 
where  the  charter  provided  that  "if  at  any  time  the  stock  paid 
into  said  corporation  shall  be  impaired  by  loss  or  otherwise, 
the  directors  shall  forthwith  repair  the  same  by  assess- 
ment," this  authority  was  held  to  be  conferred  only  for  the 
purpose  of  providing  capital  with  which  to  continue  business, 
and  a  receiver  was  not  allowed  to  make  an  assessment  with 
which  to  pay  debts.8 

§  149.  Remedies  where  stockholder  fails  to  pay  subscrip- 
tion or  assessment — Forfeiture. — A  subscriber  may  ordinarily 
be  sued  for  any  unpaid  installment  due  on  his  stock,  as  for  the 
breach  of  any  other  contract  to  pay  money,*  his  subscription 

1  Ldbby    v.    Tobey,    82    Me.    397 ;  that  the  only  remedy  open  to  a  corpo- 
O'Reilly  v.  Bard,  105  Pa.  St.  569.  ration  in  case  of  the  non-payment  of 

2  Atlantic  De  Laine  Co.  v.  Mason,  5  stock  subscribed  is  by  forfeiture  of 
R.  I.  463.  the  shares,  unless  the  subscriber  ex- 

3Dewey  v.  St.  Albans  Trust  Co.,  57  pressly  promised  to  pay,  or  the  char- 
Vt.  332.  But  a  similar  statute  in  Cali-  ter  expressly  bound  him  to  do  so. 
fornia  (Civ.  Code,  §§  331,  332)  is  con-  Katama  Land  Co.  v.  Jernegan,  126 
strued  to  permit  assessments  to  any  Mass.  155;  Piscataqua  Ferry  Co.  r. 
extent  "for  the  purpose  of  paying  Jones,  39  N.  H.  491;  N.  H.  Central 
expenses,  conducting  business  or  pay-  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  30  N.  H.  390;  Bel- 
ing  debts."  Santa  Cruz  R.  Co.  v.  fast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  «.  Cottrell,  66  Me. 
Spreckles,  65  Cal.  193.  185;  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bail- 

4  The  corporation  may  levy  execu-  ey,  24  Vt.  465.  Con*ra,Windsor  Elec- 
tion on  the  stock  and  sell  it  to  satisfy  trie  Light  Co.  v.  Tandy,  66  Vt.  248, 
a  judgment  obtained  in  such  suit.  29  Atl.  R.  248;  Cook  on  Stock  and 
Chase  v.  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Stockholders,  §71,  and  numerous 
Lea  (Tenn.)  415.  In  most  of  the  New  authorities  cited.  But  in  Connecticut 
England  States,  however,  the  rule  is  it  is  held  that  the  signing  of  a  sub- 


214 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  149 


to  the  capital  stock  being  construed  as  a  promise  to  pay  the 
face  value  of  the  shares  subscribed  for.1  But  the  corporation 
is  also,  in  many  of  the  states,  authorized  by  statute  to  declare 
a  forfeiture  of  its  stock  for  non-payment  of  calls.8  While 
others  authorize  a  sale  of  the  stock  and  an  application  of  the 
proceeds  to  the  payment  of  the  installment,  for  which  a  call 
has  been  issued  and  to  which  the  owner  does  not  respond,  after 
due  notice.8  This  remedy  can  not  be  pursued  except  when  it 
is  given  by  charter  or  by  statute,4  or  is  created  by  consent  of 


scription  paper  and  agreeing  to  "take" 
certain  shares  amounts  to  a  promise  to 
pay  their  face  value.  Hartford,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  12  Conn.  499.  And 
this  is  the  general  rule  throughout  the 
United  States  and  is  the  rule  enforced 
in  the  federal  court.  Upton  v.  Tribil- 
cock,  91  U.  S.  45;  Sanger  v.  Upton, 
91  U.  S.  56,  and  cases  cited  in  next 
note  infra.  A  provision  in  the  charter 
that  the  subscription  may  be  enforced 
by  suit  or  by  forfeiture  will  fix  a  per- 
sonal liability  upon  the  subscriber 
without  an  express  promise  to  pay. 
Kennebec,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kendall,  31 
Me.  470;  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bailey,  24  Vt.  465.  See  Fry  v.  Lex- 
ington, etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  314. 
Pennsylvania,  Nebraska,  Maryland, 
Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Alabama,  New 
Mexico  and  Arizona  have  general 
statutes  providing  that  a  railroad  cor- 
poration may  sue  for  unpaid  install- 
ments. Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892), 
§  8602.  Similar  provision  is  made  by 
statute  in  the  following  states :  Ohio 
R.  S.,  1890,  §3253;  Minn.  Gen.  Stat., 
1891,  §3131;  W.  Va.  Code,  1887,  Ch. 
53,  §28;  Ark.  Dig.,  1884,  §970;  Colo. 
Gen.  Stat.,  1883,  §241.  An  agreement 
to  take  and  fill  certain  shares  has 
been  construed  to  be  an  agreement  to 
pay  for  them.  Buckfield  Branch  R. 
Co.  v.  Irish,  39  Me.  44.  See,  also, 
Penobscot,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  12 
Gray  (Mass.)  244. 


1  Northern  R.  Go.v.  Miller,  10  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  260;  Kirksey  v.  Florida,  etc., 
Plank  R.  Co.,  7  Fla.  23;  Instone  v. 
Frankfort  Bridge  Co.,  2  Bibb.  (Ky.) 
576;  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kenne- 
dy, 12  Conn.  499 ;  Hughes  v.  Antietam 
M.  Co.,  34  Md.  316;  Selma  R.  Co.  v. 
Tipton,  5  Ala.  787;  Western  R.  Co.  v. 
Avery,  64  N.  C.  491 ;  Klein  v.  Alton, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  111.  514;  N.  E.  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Rodriguez,  10  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.) 
278;  Stokes  v.  Lebanon,  etc.,  Turnp. 
Co.,  6  Humph.  (Tenn.)  241 ;  Freeman 
v.  Winchester,  10  S.  &  M.  (Miss.) 
577;  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Nav.  v. 
Sansom,  1  Binn.  (Pa.)  70;  Windsor 
El.  Light  Co.  v.  Tandy,  66  Vt.  248, 
29  Atl.  R.  248.  But  an  action  on  a 
stock  assessment  against  one  party 
on  stock  which  is  in  the  name  of  an- 
other party  on  the  books  of  the  corpo- 
ration can  not  ordinarily  be  main- 
tained by  the  corporation.  Va  1  e 
Mills  v.  Spalding,  62  N.  H.  605. 

8  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §8113. 

'Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §8113. 

*  Westcott  v.  Minnesota,  etc.,  Co.,  23 
Mich.  145;  Budd  v.  Multnomah  St. 
R.  Co.,  15  Ore.  413,  s.  c.  3  Am.  St. 
R.  169;  Budd  v.  Multnomah,  15  Ore. 
404,  s.  c.  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Gas.  551 ; 
Barton's  Case,  4  DeG.  &  J.  46;  Per- 
rin  v.  Granger,  30  Vt.  595 ;  Minneha- 
ha,  etc.,  Ass'n  v.  Legg,  50  Minn.  333, 
52  N.  W.  R.  898. 


§  150 


CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS. 


215 


all   the    stockholders  which  is  usually  indorsed  on  the  cer- 
tificates.1 

§  150.  Cumulative  remedies — Election. — Statutory  permis- 
sion to  declare  a  forfeiture  does  not  destroy  the  corporate  right  to 
collect  the  money  due  upon  the  subscription  by  other  means, 
where  such  right  is  given  by  law  or  by  contract,2  and  the  cor- 
poration may  elect  which  remedy  it  will  pursue.8  It  has  been 
held  that  the  remedy  for  forfeiture  and  sale  could  be  pursued, 
and  that  the  shareholder  could  then  be  sued  for  any  unpaid 
balance  not  discharged  by  the  proceeds  arising  from  a  sale  of 
the  stock,  as  in  a  foreclosure  of  a  mortgage,  where  the  mort- 


1  Weeks  v.  Silver,  etc.,  Co.,  23  J.  & 
S.    (N.  Y.)   1;    Lesseps  v.  Architects 
Co.,  4  La.  Ann.  316.     It  can  not  be 
created  by   a  by-law,  except  where 
authority  to  make  such  by-law  is  con- 
ferred by  statute,  and  a  sale  under  an 
attempted     forfeiture    without    such 
authority  conveys  no  title.     Matter  of 
Long  Island  R.  Co.,  19  Wend.  (N.Y.) 
37,  s.  c.  32  Am.  Dec.  429.   See  Kirk  v. 
Nowill,   1  Term.  R.  118 ;    Kennebec, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kendall,  31  Me.  470. 
And  compare  Detweiler  v.  Brecken- 
kamp,  83  Mo.  45;    Lesseps  v.  Archi- 
tects Co.,  4  La.  Ann.  316. 

2  Atlantic  Dynamite  Co.  v.  Andrews, 
97  Mich.  466;  Puget  Sound,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Ouillette,  7  Wash.  265;  Ogdens- 
bnrg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frost,  21  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  541;  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
«.  Wetsel,  21  Barb.   (N.  Y.)  56;  Dela- 
ware,  etc.,   Co.  v.   Sansom,  1   Binn. 
(Pa.)   70;  Hartford,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 
Kennedy,  12  Conn.  499 ;  Rutland,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Thrall,  35  Vt.  536;  White 
Mountain  R.  Co.  v.  Eastman,  34  N.  H. 
124;  Hightower  v.   Thornton,   8  Ga. 
486,  502;  Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  p.Tipton, 
5  Ala.  787;  Gratz  v.  Redd,  4  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)   178;   Boston,    etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
Wellington,   113  Mass.  79;  New  Or- 
leans, etc.,  Co.  v.  Briggs,  27  La.  Ann. 


318;  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elting,  17 
111.  429;  Greenville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Cathcart,  4  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  89 ;  Stokes 
v.  Lebanon,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Humph. 
(Tenn.)  241 ;  Kirksey  v.  Florida,  etc., 
Co.,  7  Fla.  23;  Tar  River,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Neal,  3  Hawks.  (N.  C.)  520;  South 
Bay,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gray,  30  Me.  547. 
The  liability  of  a  stockholder  in  a  for- 
eign corporation  is  generally  determ- 
ined by  the  law  of  the  state  which  cre- 
ated it,  but  it  may  be  enforced  by  the 
courts  of  other  jurisdictions,  and  "the 
general  rule  in  the  states  of  this 
country  is,  where  a  corporation  has  a 
right  under  the  statute  creating  it,  to 
declare  a  forfeiture  of  shares  for  non- 
payment of  calls,  it  may  exercise  its 
option  to  forfeit  the  stock  or  bring  its 
action  to  collect  the  amount  of  the 
calls,  but  can  not  forfeit  the  stock  and 
afterwards  sue  at  law,  as  the  exercise 
of  the  first  option  would  end  the  rela- 
tion of  the  parties  and  exclude  a  resort 
to  the  other."  Mandel  v.  Swan  Land, 
etc.,  Co.,  154  111.  177,  s.  c.  27  L.  R.  A. 
313,  citing  Small  v.  Herkimer,  etc., 
Co.,  2  N.  Y.  330;  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Dudley,  14  N.  Y.  336;  Rutland,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Thrall,  35  Vt.  536. 

8  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§124. 


216  THE    CORPORATION.  §  150 

gaged  property  does  not  sell  for  enough  to  pay  the  debt.1  It  is 
argued  that  where  provision  is  made  for  the  payment  to  the 
subscriber  of  any  surplus  arising  from  a  sale,  after  paying  the 
delinquent  assessment2  the  contention  that  the  forfeiture  de- 
stroys the  contract  relation  between  him  and  the  corporation 
can  not  be  upheld,  but  he  will  be  impliedly  liable  for  any  de- 
ficiency in  the  sum  necessary  to  discharge  such  assessment.8 
And  it  has  been  held  that  the  company  may  declare  a  forfeit- 
ure after  suit  brought  to  recover  unpaid  calls,  and  that  such  a 
forfeiture  can  not  be  pleaded  in  bar  of  the  further  maintenanceof 
the  suit  where  the  value  of  the  stock  forfeited  is  not  equal  to 
the  money  due  the  company*  although  the  stockholder  may 
insist,  in  diminution  of  damages,  that  such  value  shall  be  sub- 
tracted from  the  sum  for  which  the  corporation  would  other- 
wise have  judgment.5  But  it  is  generally  held  that  while  the 
corporation  may  proceed  either  by  suit  or  by  forfeiture,  the 
adoption  of  the  statutory  remedy  by  forfeiture  or  sale  excludes 
the  other,6  except  where  the  statute  gives  an  action  for  the  bal- 
ance of  the  subscription  not  canceled  by  the  proceeds  of  the 

1  Carson  v.  Arctic  Min.  Co.,  5  Mich.  v.  Kennedy,  4  Exch.  417;  Hartford, 

288.     But  see  Mandel  v.   Swan,  etc.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v,  Kennedy,  12  Conn. 

Co.,  154  111.  177,  s.  c.  27  L.  R.  A.  313.  499. 

For  other  cases  in  which  legislative  *  Herkimer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Small,  21 
provision  is  made  by  charter  or  other-  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  273,  reversed,  how- 
wise,  for  such  procedure  see  Brocken-  ever,  in  2  N.  Y.  330. 
brough  v.  James  River,  etc.,  Co.,  1  5  Herkimer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Small,  21 
Patton&H.  (Va.)  94;  Mann  v.  Cooke,  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  273. 
20  Conn.  178;  Danbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  6Ogdensburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frost, 
Wilson,  22  Conn.  435.  One  who  ac-  21  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  541 ;  Mills  v.  Stewart, 
quired  his  shares  by  transfer  is  held  41  N.  Y.  384;  Athol,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  In- 
liable  under  this  rule  equally  with  an  habitants  of  Prescott,  110  Mass.  213 ; 
original  subscriber.  Merrimac  Min.  Mechanics',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hall,  121  Mass. 
Co.  v.  Bagley,  14  Mich.  501,  and  cases  272;  Allen  V.Montgomery,  etc.,  Co.,  11 
cited  supra.  Ala.  437 ;  Macauly  v.  Robinson,  18 

2 Provision  that  the  shareholder  La.  Ann.  619;  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v, 
shall  have  the  surplus  or  be  liable  for  Thrall,  35  Vt.  536;  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
any  deficiency  is  found  in  the  general  v.  Vason,  57  Ga.  314;  Ashton  v.  Bur- 
statutes  of  Massachusetts,  Vermont,  bank,  2  Dill.  (U.  S.)  435;  King's  Case, 
Maryland  and  Wisconsin.  '  Stimson's  L.  R.  2  Ch.  714 ;  Mandel  v.  Swan,  etc., 
Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8602.  Co.,  154  111.  177,  s.  c.27  L.R.  A.  313, 

3  Carson  v.  Arctic  Min.  Co.,  5  Mich,  and  note. 
288.     See,  also,  Great  Northern  R.  Co. 


§  151 


CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS. 


217 


sale.1  Where  such  an  action  was  given  by  statute  in  Massa- 
chusetts it  was  held  that  a  personal  action  could  not  be 
maintained  until  there  had  been  a  formal  declaration  of  forfeit- 
ure and  a  sale  based  upon  such  forfeiture.2  But  a  mere  threat  to 
enforce  a  forfeiture,  or  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  sell  the 
shares  will  not  bar  a  suit  to  enforce  the  subscription  contract.8 
Notice  that  a  forfeiture  will  be  enforced  in  the  future  unless 
payment  is  made  is  not  a  forfeiture*  nor  is  a  threat  of  forfeiture 
for  non-payment.5  And  a  stockholder's  obligation  to  pay  con- 
tinues so  long  as  his  right  to  the  shares,  with  the  privileges  and 
emoluments  attached  to  them,  remains.6  It  has  also  been  held 
that  an  action  to  collect  a  subscription,  when  prosecuted  to 
judgment,  will  preclude  the  enforcement  of  a  forfeiture.7  The 
remedy  in  such  a  case  would  seem  to  be  by  execution  levied 
upon  the  stock.8 

§  151.  Effect  of  forfeiture. — Except  where  the  statute  makes 
provision  for  the  payment  to  the  shareholder  of  the  surplus 
arising  from  a  sale  of  the  forfeited  shares  after  payment  of  the 
installments  due,9  it  is  held  that  such  surplus  belongs  to  the 


1  Such    a    provision    is    frequently 
found  in  special  charters  granted  to 
corporations.      See  New  Hampshire 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  30  N.  H.  390 ; 
Danbury,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  22 
Conn.  435;  Great  Northern  R.  Co.  v. 
Kennedy,  4  Exch.  417,  425.     It  is  also 
given  by    general  statute  in  Massa- 
chusetts, Vermont,  Maryland  and 
Wisconsin.      Stimson's    Am.    Stat. 
(1892),  §  8602.    And  in  West  Virginia 
and  Arkansas,  R.  S.   W.  Va.    (1887) 
Ch.  53,  §  27,  R.  S.  Ark.  (1884),  §  970. 

2  Athol,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prescott,  110 
Mass.  213.      But    the  holding  would 
probably  be  different  in  those  states 
where  a  personal  action  is  given  in 
the  first  instance  by  the  common  law, 
as  construed  by  their  courts. 

3  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vason,  57 
Ga.  314;  Instone  v.  Frankfort  Bridge 


Co.,  2  Bibb.  (Ky.)  576.  See  Water 
Valley  M.  Co.  v.  Seaman,  53  Miss. 
655 ;  Cockerell  v.  Van  Diemen's  Land 
Co.,  26  L.  J.  (C.  P.)  203. 

4  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vason,  57 
Ga.  314;  Bigg's  Case,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  309; 
Hays  v.  Franklin  County  Lumber  Co., 
35  Neb.  511.    See,  also,   Johnson  v. 
Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  193. 

5  Water  Valley  M.  Co.  v.  Seaman, 
53  Miss.  655. 

6  Instone  v.  Frankfort  Bridge  Co.,  2 
Bibb.  (Ky.)  576,  581 ;  Buffalo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Dudley,  14  N.  Y.  336,  347. 

7  Giles  v.  Hutt,  3  Ex.  18. 

8  For  an  instance  of  the  sale  of  stock 
on  such  an  execution,   see  Chase  v. 
EastTenn.,etc.,R.Co.,5Lea  (Tenn.) 

415. 

9  The  statutes  of  Massachusetts.  Ver- 


218 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§152 


corporation.1  After  forfeiture,  the  stockholder  can  claim  none 
of  the  rights  of  an  owner  of  stock,8  nor  can  he  be  charged  as 
a  stockholder,  with  the  corporate  liabilities  at  the  suit  of  the 
corporate  creditors,8  even  for  debts  contracted  before  the  for- 
feiture.* But  to  have  this  effect,  the  forfeiture  must  be  en- 
forced in  good  faith.  A  forfeiture  of  shares  by  collusion  of 
the  shareholder  and  the  directors  will  be  set  aside  for  fraud  by 
a  court  of  equity  at  the  suit  of  the  creditors  of  an  insolvent 
corporation,5  and  the  shareholder  will  be  held  liable  to  the 
same  extent  as  if  no  forfeiture  had  been  attempted.6 

§  152.    Statutory  method  of  forfeiture  must  be  pursued. — 

The  method  of  forfeiture  prescribed  by  the  statute  authorizing 
this  remedy  must  be  strictly  pursued,  and  all  the  prescribed 
formalities  complied  with,7  in  order  to  divest  the  stockholder's 


mont,  Maryland  and  Wisconsin  make 
such  provision.  Stimson's  Am.  Stat. 
(1892),  §8602. 

1  Small  v.  Herkimer,  etc.,  Co.,  2  N. 
Y.  330.     See  Freeman  v.  Harwood,  49 
Me.  195;  Cook  on   Stock  and  Stock- 
holders, §  133. 

2  St.   Louis,   etc.,   Co.  v.  Sandoval, 
etc.,  Co.,  116  111.  170. 

8  Allen  v.  Montgomery  R.  Co.,  11 
Ala.  437,  450 ;  Macauly  v.  Robinson, 
18  La.  Ann.  619;  Snell's  Case,  L.  R.  5 
Chan.  22. 

4  Mills  v.  Stewart,  41  N.  Y.  384  (un- 
less it  is  collusive  and  fraudulent) . 

6  Germantown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitler, 
60  Pa.  St.  124. 

6  Burke  v.  Smith,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
390;  Slee  v.  Bloom,  19  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 
456;  Gower's  Case,  L.  R.  6  Eq.  77; 
Stanhope's  Case,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  161. 
Abandonment  of  the  shares  by  the 
stockholder,  without  a  declaration  of 
forfeiture  by  the  corporation  will  not 
release  the  subscriber  from  liability 
on  his  subscription.  Rockville,  etc., 
Turnp.  Co.  v.  Maxwell,  2  Cranch  C. 
C.  (U.  S.)  451. 


7  Germantown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitler, 
60  Pa.  St.  124 ;  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Graham,  11  Mete. (Mass.)  1 ;  York, etc., 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ritchie,  40  Me.  425 ;  Lew- 
ey's  Island  R.  Co.  v.  Bolton,  48  Me. 
451,  s.  c.  77  Am.  Dec.  236 ;  Eastern,  etc., 
P.  R.  Co.  v.  Vaughan,  20  Barb.  (N.Y.) 
155;  Johnson  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  40  How.  Pr.  (N.Y.)  193;  Down- 
ing v.  Potts,  23  N.  J.  Law  66;  Occi- 
dental, etc.,  Assoc.  v.  Sullivan,  62 
Cal.  394;  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fair- 
clough,  2  Mann.  &  G.  674;  Garden 
Gully,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McLister,  L.  R.  1 
App.  Cas.  39;  Moses  v.  Tompkins,  84 
Ala.  613;  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Rowley,  9  Fla.  508 ;  Morris  v.  Metal- 
line Land  Co.,  164  Pa.  St.  326,  s.  c.  27 
L.  R.  A.  305,  and  note.  See  Rutland, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  17. Thrall,  35 Vt.  536.  Some 
of  the  old  cases  hold  that  a  substan- 
tial compliance  with  the  requirements 
is  sufficient,  but  the  modern  rule  is  as 
stated  in  the  text.  Cook  on  Stock  and 
Stockholders,  §  129.  But  neglect  to 
comply  strictly  with  a  matter  of  mere 
form  rather  than  of  substance  will  not 
necessarily  invalidate  a  forfeiture. 


§152 


CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS. 


219 


title.  Where,  as  is  true  in  many  of  the  states,1  the  statute 
authorizes  a  sale  of  the  forfeited  shares  at  public  auction,  they 
can  not  legally  be  sold  at  private  sale.2  And  a  sale  for  the 
payment  of  several  assessments,  including  one  which  was 
illegal  or  unauthorized,  may  be  avoided.8  Only  a  properly 
constituted  board  of  directors  has  authority  to  declare  a  for- 
feiture,4 and  the  stockholder  may  enjoin  an  attempted  forfeiture 
of  his  shares  by  a  board  that  has  not  been  legally  chosen.* 
The  company  may  defer  the  exercise  of  its  power  of  forfeiture 
until  all  of  the  installments  become  due,6  but  if  it  elects  to 
sell  stock  that  is  only  partially  paid  for  by  payment  of  the 
delinquent  assessment,  the  purchaser  at  the  forfeiture  sale 
must  assume  the  payment  of  the  installments  to  become  due 
in  the  future;  and  if  he  fails  to  pay  them  the  stock  must  be 
sold  again.7  And  where  the  statute  is  silent  as  to  details,  the 
procedure  must  be  just  and  reasonable.8 

In  re  North  Hallenbeagle  Min.   Co.,        'Sturges  v.  Stetson,  1  Biss.  (U.  S.) 

Knight's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Chan.  321,  s.     246,  251. 

c.  15  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  546.  8  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  «.  Thrall,  35 

Vt.  536,  holding  that  a  resolution  of 
the  board  of  directors  that  all  stock 
remaining  unpaid  at  a  day  named  in 
the  future  shall  be  sold  to  satisfy  the 
assessment  levied,  is  reasonable.  But 
see  Johnson  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
40  How.  Prac.  (N.  Y.)  193,  to  the 
effect  that  a  general  resolution  to  for- 
feit all  stock  remaining  unpaid  at  a 
certain  day  in  the  future  is  insufficient 
to  effect  a  forfeiture  without  further 
action  by  the  corporation.  But  where 
the  stockholder  is  shown  to  have  re- 


1  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §8113. 
Several  of  these  states  permit  other 
modes  of  sale  to  be  prescribed  by  by- 
laws. Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892), 
§  8113. 

2Lewey's  Island  R.  Co.  v.  Bolton, 
48  Me.  451.  See  Birmingham,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Locke,  1  Q.  B.  256;  Catch- 
pole  v.  Ambergate,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Ellis 
&  B.  Ill,  as  to  what  is  a  sufficient 
compliance  with  prescribed  formal- 
ities. 

8Stoneham,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gould, 
2  Gray,  (Mass.)  277;  Lewey's  Island 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bolton,  48  Me.  451. 

4  Garden  Gully,  etc.,  Co.  v.McLister, 
L.  R.  1  App.  Cas.  39,  55.  See,  also, 
Ormsby  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  Co.,  56  N. 
Y.  623;  Bottomley's  Case,  L.  R.  16 
Ch.  Div.  681. 

6  Moses  v.  Tompkins,  84  Ala.  613, 
4  So.  R.  763. 

6  Brockenbrough  v.  James  River, 
etc.,  Co.,  1  Patton  &  H.  (Va.)  94. 


ceived  notice  of  such  determination, 
it  is  held  that  the  court  will  presume 
that  the  necessary  steps  were  taken 
to  perfect  the  forfeiture.  Knight's 
Case,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  321,  s.  c.  15  L.  T. 
(N.  S.)  546.  A  thirty  days'  notice  is 
reasonable  and  sufficient.  Rutland, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thrall,  35  Vt.  536.  But 
a  three  days'  notice  is  not ;  at  least, 
where  the  owner  lives  at  a  distance  in 
another  state.  Lexington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Staples,  5  Gray  (Mass.)  520. 


220 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  153 


§  153.  Notice  of  forfeiture. — Notice  to  the  delinquent  sub- 
scriber that  his  shares  will  be  forfeited  unless  calls  are  paid 
within  a  certain  time  is  generally  required  to  precede  the  en- 
forcement of  the  forfeiture,1  and  this  requirement  must  be 
strictly  complied  with.2  While  the  manner  of  giving  notice  is 
usually  prescribed  by  the  statute  authorizing  a  forfeiture,  per- 
sonal notice  is  said  to  be  sufficient.3  And  it  is  intimated  that 
one  having  actual  notice  can  not  object  to  the  mode  by  which 
it  is  given.4  But  a  notice  which  did  not  purport  to  be  given 
by  the  proper  officer  of  the  company  has  been  held  insufficient, 
and  the  sale  based  thereon  was  held  voidable.8  The  notice  must 
certain  and  unequivocal  as  to  the  time  of  forfeiture,5  and  time 
and  place  of  sale.7 


1  For  the  general  statutes  of  thirty  of 
the  states containingthis requirement, 
see  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  ( 1892),  §  8113. 
But,  under  the  Indiana  statute,  after 
notice  of  the  call   is  given,  one  who 
fails  to  pay  can  not  insist  that  an  ad- 
ditional notice  of  forfeiture  should  be 
given.     Hill  v.  Nisbet,  100  Ind.  341. 

2  Lewey's  Island  R.  Co.  v.  Bolton, 
48  Me.  451;  Lake  Ontario,   etc.,   R. 
Co.  v.  Mason,  16  N.  Y.  451 ;  Morris"  v. 
Metalline,  etc.  Co.,  164  Pa.  St.  326, 
31  Atl.  Rep.  114;  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Thrall,  35  Vt.  536,  546;  Hughes  v. 
Antietam,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  34  Md.  316; 
Heaston  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
16  Ind.  275.     See,  also,  Eppes  v.  Mis- 
sissippi, etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Ala.  33 ;  Cock- 
rellv.  Van  Dieman's  Land  Co.,  26  L. 
J.  (C.  P.)  203;  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Chandler,   13  Mete.    (Mass.)   311, 
where  a  notice  required  by  a  by-law 
was  held  merely  directory.     Knight's 
Case,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  321,  s.  c.  15  L.  T. 
(N.   S.)  546.    But  a  notice  after  for- 
feiture was  presumed  to  have  been 
given,  when  the  substantial  require- 
ments were  complied  with.     Where 
notice  of  an  assessment  must  be  given 
thirty  days  before  the  order  of  the  di- 


rectors to  sell  the  shares,  it  is  not  suf- 
ficient to  give  the  notice  thirty  days 
before  the  sale.  Lewey's  Island  R. 
Co.  v.  Bolton,  48  Me.  451.  See  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Meriwether, 
5  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  13. 

3  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gaster, 
20  Ark.  455 ;  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Chandler,  13  Mete.  (Mass.)  311.     See 
Knight's  Case,  L.  R.  2  Chan.  321,  s.  c. 
15  L.  T.  R.  546;  Birmingham,  etc.,  R. 
Co.    v.   Locke,    1   Q.  B.   256;    South 
Staffordshire    R.  Co.  v.  Burnside,  5 
Exch.  129.     But  see  Lewey's  Island 
R.  Co.  v.  Bolton,  48  Me.  451. 

4  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gaster, 
20  Ark.  455;  Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Chandler,  13  Mete.  (Mass.)  311. 

5  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graham, 
11  Met.  1.    See,  also,  Lewey's  Island 
R.  Co.  v.  Bolton,  48  Me.  441,  s.  c.  77 
Am.  Dec.  236.     It  should  usually  be 
served  upon  the  person  who  is  regis- 
tered as  owner.    Graham  v.  Van  Die- 
man's Land  Co.,  1  Hurlst  &  N.  541,  s. 
c.  26  L.  J.  Ech.  73. 

6  Watson  v.  Bales,  23  Beav.  294. 
'Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Staples, 

5  Gray  (Mass.)  520. 


§  154 


CALLS    AND    ASSESSMENTS. 


221 


§  154.  Defeating  and  annulling  forfeiture — Estoppel. — The 

forfeiture  can  be  defeated  by  a  tender  of  the  full  amount  due 
on  the  subscription  to  the  proper  officer  of  the  corporation  at 
any  time  before  a  sale  actually  takes  place.1  An  irregular  or 
defective  forfeiture  is  voidable  only,  and  not  void,  and  long  ac- 
quiescence 2  may  estop  both  the  shareholder  and  the  company 
from  denying  its  validity.3  But  the  share-owner  may,  in  a 
proper  case,  by  calling  upon  a  court  of  chancery,  obtain  a  de- 
cree annulling  such  a  forfeiture;*  and  so,  too,  may  corporate 


1  Mitchell  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  Co.,  67 
N.  Y.  280.    This  is  true  though  the 
tender  be  accompanied  by  a  protest. 
Sweny    v.   Smith,   L.    R.   7  Eq.  324. 
And,  it  would  seem,  even  though  a 
declaration  of  strict    forfeiture    had 
been  entered  on  the  books  of  the  com- 
pany.  Walker  v.  Ogden,  1  Biss.  (U.  S. 
C.  C.)  287.    See,  also,  Iron  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Fink,  41  Ohio  St.  321,  s.  c.  52  Am.  R. 
84.    The  owner  has  been  allowed  to 
redeem    in    several    cases    involving 
peculiar  circumstances.     See,  Stubbs 
-».  Lister,  1  Younge  &  C.  Ch.  Cas.  81 ; 
Walker  v.  Ogden,  1  Biss.  (U.  S.)  287. 

2  Phosphate,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Green,  L. 
R.  7  C.  P.  43.  By  statute  in  California 
application  for  relief  from  an  irregular 
forfeiture  must  be  made  within  six 
months.    Civ.  Code  Cal.,  §347. 

3  Knights'   Case,  L.   R.  2  Ch.  321; 
Austin's  Case,  24  L.   T.  (N.  S.)  932; 
Woollaston's  Case,  4  DeG.  &  J.  437 ; 
Lesseps  v.  Architects  Co.,  4  La.  Ann. 
316;  Evans  v.  Smallcombe,  L.  R.  3  H. 
of  L.   249;   Prendergast  v.  Turton,  1 
Younge  &  C.  Ch.  Cas.  98,  s.  c.  5  Jur. 
1102;  Sayre  v.  Citizens'  Gas,  etc.,  Co., 
69  Cal.  207.     But,  see,  Garden  Gully, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  McLister,  L.  R.  1    App. 
Cas.  39,  55,  holding  that  mere  laches 
will    not    bar  the  shareholder  from 
equitable    relief    against    an   invalid 
declaration  of  forfeiture.    See,  also, 
Ormsby  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  Co.,  56  N. 
Y.  623. 


4  Mitchell  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  Co.,  67 
N.  Y.  280;  Sweny  v.  Smith,  L.  R.  7 
Eq.  324.  An  unauthorized  forfeiture 
may  be  enjoined.  Moore  v.  New  Jer- 
sey, etc.,  Co.,  5  N.  Y.  Supp.  192 ;  Green 
v.  Abietine,  etc.,  Co. ,96  Cal.  322,31 
Pac.  R.  100.  But  an  injunction  to  re- 
strain the  sale  of  shares  for  assess- 
ments will  not  be  granted  where  the 
plaintiff  does  not  offer  to  pay  the  calls. 
Burnham  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  Co., 
76  Cal.  24,  17  Pac.  R.  939.  Where  the 
forfeiture  is  legal  equity  will  seldom 
interfere  because  of  hardship  or  the 
like.  Sparks  v.  Liverpool  Water- 
Works,  13  Ves.  428 ;  Taylor  v.  North 
Star,  etc.,  Co.,  79  Cal.  285,  s.  c.  21  Pac. 
R.  753;  Clark  v.  Barnard,  108  U.  S. 
436,  456;  Vatable  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  96  N.  Y.  49;  Marshall  v. 
Golden  Fleece,  etc.,  Co.,  16  Nev.  156. 
But  see  Glass  r.  Hope,  16  Grant 
(Upper  Can.)  Ch.  420;  Iron  R.  R.  Co. 
v.  Fink,  41  Ohio  St.  321,  s.  c.  22  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  20,  52  Am.  R.  84. 
Mandamus  will  not  lie  to  compel  a 
foreign  corporation  to  annul  a  forfeit- 
ure. North  State,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Field, 
64  Md.  151,  20  Atl.  R.  1039.  Damages 
may  also  be  recovered  where  stock 
is  wrongfully  forfeited  and  sold. 
Allen  v.  Am.  Bldg.,  etc.,  Ass'n,  49 
Minn.  544,  52  N.  W.  R.  144;  Budd 
v.  Multnomah  St.  R.  R.  Co.,  15  Ore. 
413,  8.  c.  3  Am.  St.  R.  169;  Ormsby 
v.  Vermont,  etc.,  Co.,  56  N.  Y.  623; 


222  THE    CORPORATION.  §  154 

creditors  whose  interests  are  injured  thereby.1  It  was  held, 
however,  in  one  of  the  cases  to  which  we  have  referred  in  sup- 
port of  our  last  proposition,  that  where  a  corporation  had  made 
an  assignment  for  the  benefit  of  creditors,  and  the  directors 
afterwards  made  a  call  and  forfeited  the  plaintiff's  stock  for 
non-payment,  without  any  express  objection  or  assent  on  the 
part  of  the  assignee,  the  plaintiff  could  not,  without  tendering 
the  amount  due  or  taking  any  steps  to  prevent  the  forfeiture, 
maintain  a  suit  to  annul  the  forfeiture  and  restore  to  him  his 
rights  as  a  stockholder.8 

Be  New  Chile,  etc.,  Co.,  63  L.  T.  R.  not,   after  forfeiting  shares,   set  the 

344;  Catchpole  v.  Ambergate,  etc.,  R.  forfeiture  aside  for  irregularity  in  the 

Co.,  1  El.  &  Bl.  Ill,  s.  c.  22  L.  J.  Q.  notice,  and  hold  the  subscriber  liable 

B.  35.  as  a  stockholder.    Austin's  Case,  24 

1  Germantown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitler,  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  932. 

60  Pa.  St.  124 ;  Grand  Rapids  Savings  2  Germantown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitler, 

Bank  v.  Warren,  52  Mich.  557.  It  60  Pa.  St.  124,  s.  C.  100  Am.  Dec.  546. 
seems  that  the  corporation  itself  can 


CHAPTER  IX. 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


§  155.  When  one  becomes  a  stock-     §  175. 
holder. 

156.  Rights  of  stockholders— Right        176. 

to  vote. 

157.  Who  has  right  to  vote — How        177. 

determined. 

158.  Right  of  trustees  and  receivers        178. 

to  vote.   -. 

159.  Right  of  corporations  and  vot-        179. 

ing  trusts  to  vote. 

160.  Number    of    votes    to    which 

stockholder     is     entitled — 
Cumulative  voting.  180. 

161.  Quorum  must  be  present. 

162.  Voting  by  proxy. 

163.  Other  powers  of  stockholders —        181. 

Rights  of  minority.  182. 

164.  Stockholders'  meetings. 

165.  Remedies  of  stockholders.  183. 

166.  Unregistered     assignees     and        184. 

third  persons  can  not  sue. 

167.  When   stockholders  may  sue        185. 

or  become  parties. 

168.  Right  to  recover  insurance.  186. 

169.  Other  rights  and  remedies  of 

stockholders.  187. 

170.  Stockholders  as  agents  of  the 

corporation.  188. 

171.  Notice  to  stockholders. 

172.  Stockholders'  right  to  inspect 

books. 

173.  Stockholder  is  disqualified  to        189. 

serve  as  judge  or  juror  where 
corporation  is  interested.  190. 

174.  Unlawful    combinations    and 

conspiracies  to  vote  or  pre- 
rent  voting — Injunction. 

(223) 


Liability  of  stockholders  foi 
unpaid  subscriptions. 

Release  of  stockholders— With, 
drawal. 

Compromises  with  stock- 
holders. 

Liability  where  stock  is  trans- 
ferred. 

When  creditors  may  enforce 
unpaid  subscriptions — Judg- 
ment and  execution  against 
corporation. 

Effect,  as  against  stockholder, 
of  judgment  against  the  cor- 
poration. 

Stockholder's  defense. 

Methods  of  enforcing  stock- 
holder's liability. 

Contribution. 

Suits  by  assignees  and  re- 
ceivers. 

Statutory  liability  of  stock- 
holders. 

Defenses  to  actions  to  enforce 
statutory  liability. 

Who   may  institute  action  to 

enforce  statutory  liability. 
How  statutory  liability  is  en- 
forced— Judgment  and  exe- 
cution against  the  corpora- 
tion. 

Priority  among  creditors  — 
Forum — Contribution . 

When  stockholders  are  liable 
as  partners. 


224  THE   COKPORATION.  §  155 

§  155.  When  one  becomes  a  stockholder. — It  is  sometimes 
said  that  one  who  has  subscribed  for  stock  in  an  incorporated 
company  does  not  become  a  stockholder  until  he  has  paid  for 
such  stock,1  and,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  said  that  he  does  be- 
come a  stockholder  as  soon  as  he  subscribes  to  an  uncondi- 
tional agreement  to  take  a  certain  number  of  shares.2  It  seems 
to  us  that  it  will  not  do  to  affirm  as  a  general  rule  that  pay- 
ment of  a  subscription  is  essential  to  constitute  the  subscriber 
a  stockholder,  although  this  may  doubtless  be  made  essential 
by  charter,  statute,  or  authorized  by-law ; 8  nor  will  it  do  to  say 
that  a  mere  subscription,  without  anything  more,  will  always 
be  sufficient,  but  a  complete  and  valid  subscription  is  undoubted- 
ly sufficient,  as  a  general  rule,  where  the  subscriber  is  accepted 
by  the  corporation  as  a  stockholder.4  So,  even  where  the  sub- 
scription is  irregular,  or  incomplete,  or  conditional,  the  sub- 
scriber may  become  a  stockholder  by  acting  as  such  and 
being  treated  as  such  by  the  corporation.  And  one  may  also 
become  a  stockholder  by  purchasing  stock  and  having  it  trans- 
ferred to  him  upon  the  books  of  the  company.  But  where 
stock  is  issued  in  excess  of  the  amount  authorized  by  the  char- 

1  Baltimore,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ham-  8  And  where  the  contract  is  not  a 

bleton,  77  Md.  341,  s.c.  26  Atl.  R.  279;  subscription  but  a  purchase  of  new 

Busey  v.  Hooper,  35  Md.  15;  Bates  v.  shares,  payment  may  be  required,  as 

Great  Western  Tel.  Co.,  134  111.  546,  the  delivery  of  a  certificate  and  pay- 

25  N.  E.  R.  521 ;  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  R.  ment  may  be  intended  to  be  concur- 

Co.  v.  Robbins,  23  Minn.  439;  Minne-  rent  acts.     1   Morawetz  Priv.   Corp., 

apolis  Harvester  Works  v.  Libby,  24  §  61,  citing  Clark  v.  Continental  Imp. 

Minn.  327.  Co.,  57   Ind.    135;    Weiss  v.   Mauch 

21    Thomp.     Corp.,    §1138,    citing  Chunk  Co.,  58  Pa.  St.  295;  Quick  v. 

Hartford  &  New  Haven  R.  Co.  v.  Ken-  Lemon,  105  111.  578.   A  mere  pledgee 

nedy,  12  Conn.  499;  Sagory  v.  Dubois,  is    not,    ordinarily,     a    stockholder. 

3  Sandf.    Ch.   (N.  Y.)    466;     Union  Becher  v.  Wells,  etc.,  Co.,  1  McCrary 

Turnpike    Co.  v.  Jenkins,   1   Caines  (U.   S.)   62;    Baker  'v.  Woolston,   27 

(N.  Y.)   381;     Spear     v.    Crawford,  Kan.  185,  although  he  may  become 

14    Wend.    (N.    Y.)    20,    s.     c.    28  such  to  most  intents  and  purposes  by 

Am.    Dec.    513;    Burr  v.  Wilcox,  22  being  registered  as  owner  upon  the 

N.  Y.  551 ;  Upton  v.  Tribilcock,  91  U.  S.  books  of  the  company.   2  Beach  Priv. 

45;      Brigham    v.    Mead,    10    Allen  Corp.,   §§640,  641,  642;    note  to  Er 

(Mass.)  245;    Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Argus  Printing  Co.,  12  L.  R.  A.  781. 

r.  Croswell,  5  Hill  (N.  Y.)  383;  Ken-  *  Authorities  cited  in  next  to  last 

iiebec,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Palmer,  34  Me.  note,    supra.    See,   also,   1    Cook  on 

366,  and  others.  Stock  and  Stockholders,  §  10. 


§  156  STOCKHOLDERS.  225 

ter  or  governing  law,  a  purchaser  of  certificates  for  shares  so 
issued  can  not  compel  the  corporation  to  accept  him  as  a  stock- 
holder, although  he  may  have  an  action  for  damages,  and,  as 
he  does  not  obtain  the  rights  of  a  stockholder  he  can  not  be 
held  liable  as  a  stockholder.1  On  the  other  hand,  however, 
"if  a  corporation  is  authorized  by  law  to  increase  its  capital 
stock  upon  complying  with  certain  prescribed  forms  or  condi- 
tions, and  the  corporation  or  its  agents  appear  to  have  en- 
deavored to  comply  with  the  prescribed  forms  or  conditions, 
and  have  in  fact  increased  the  company's  capital  stock  by  is- 
suing new  shares,  on  the  assumption  that  the  legal  right  to 
increase  the  capital  stock  had  been  acquired,  and  if  the  holder 
of  such  new  shares  has  acted  as  a  shareholder  and  enjoyed  the 
rights  of  a  shareholder,  then  the  creation  of  such  new  shares 
will  be  recognized  by  the  courts  and  given  effect  according  to 
the  intention  of  the  parties,  although  the  statutory  forms  or 
conditions  were  not  complied  with,  and  no  legal  right  to  create 
the  new  shares  was  in  fact  obtained."2 

§  156.  Rights  of  stockholders — Right  to  vote. — A  stock- 
holder can  not,  ordinarily,  be  deprived  of  the  property  rights 
which  attach  to  his  membership,  including  his  right  to  partici- 
pate in  the  management  of  the  company's  business,8  except  by 
a  regularly  enforced  forfeiture  of  his  stock  under  charter  or 
statutory  authority.4  The  most  important  of  these  rights  are 
those  of  sharing  in  the  profits  earned  by  the  corporation,5  and 

12  Morawetz   Priv.    Corp.,   §§762,  3  In  re  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  19  Wend. 

763;  Scovill  v.  Thayer,  105  U.  S.  143.  (N.  Y.)  37;  Hill  v.  Nisbet,   100  Ind. 

See,  also,  McCord  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  R.  341;   Perrin  «.  Granger,  30  Vt.  595; 

Co.,  13  Ind.  220;  Oler  v.  Baltimore,  Kennebec,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kendall,  31 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  41  Md.  583;  Laredo  Me.  470. 

Imp.  Co.  v.  Stevenson,  66  Fed.  R.  G33 ;  *  If  one  has  title  to  corporate  stock, 

Rood  v.  Whorton,  67  Fed.  R.  434.  it  can   not  be  defeated  by  a  subse- 

2  2  Morawetz  Priv.  Corp.,  §763;  2  quent  resolution  of  the  directors  of  the 
Beach.  Priv.  Corp.,  §485;  Chubb  v.  corporation.  Gurneyr.  Union  Trans- 
Upton,  95  U.  S.  665 ;  Kansas  City  fer  &  S.  Co.,  25  Jones  &  S.  (57  Super. 
Hotel  Co.  v.  Hunt,  57  Mo.  126;  Ct.)  444,  29  N.  Y.  S.  R.  274,  8  N.  Y. 
Grangers'  Life,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Kam-  Supp.  549. 

per,  73  Ala.  325 ;  Veeder  v.  Mudgett,  5  See  generally,  Dividends,  Ch.  XV. 
95N.Y.  295,310. 

CORP.  15 


226  THE    CORPORATION.  §  157 

in  the  property  remaining  for  distribution  upon  a  dissolution 
of  the  corporation;1  of  helping  to  select  the  persons  to  manage 
the  affairs  of  the  corporation;  and  of  aiding  to  shape  its  policy 
and  control  its  action,  or,  in  other  words,  of  voting  at  stock- 
holders' meetings.  The  right  to  vote  usually  belongs  to  the 
person  in  whose  name  the  stock  is  registered/  or  in  case  of  his 
decease  to  his  legally  qualified  administrator  or  executor;3  al- 
though it  has  been  held  competent  for  a  railroad  company,  in 
issuing  certificates  of  preferred  stock,  to  stipulate  that  the 
holders  shall  not  have  or  exercise  the  right  to  vote  at  stock- 
holders' meetings  and  persons  accepting  such  shares  will  be 
bound  thereby.*  But,  ordinarily,  the  right  to  vote  is  an  inci- 
dent to  the  ownership  of  shares  of  stock,5  and  the  corporation 
can  not  by  by-laws  restrict6  nor  enlarge7  the  right  to  vote  as 
fixed  by  the  charter  or  by  general  statute.8 

§  157.  Who  has  right  to  vote — How  determined. — The  books 
and  records  of  a  corporation  determine  who  are  its  stock- 
holders for  the  time  being,  and  who  have  a  right  to  vote,  al- 
though the  stock  may  have  been  sold  or  pledged  as  collateral 

1  See  generally,  Insolvency  and  Dis-  nace,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McAlpin,  5  Fed.  R. 
solution,  Ch.  XXIV.  737. 

2  In   re    Long    Island  R.     Co.,    19  *  Miller  v.  Ratterman,  47  Ohio  St., 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  37;  Beckett  v.  Hous-  141,  43  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  339. 
ton,  32  Ind.  393 ;  Monsseaux  v.  Urqu-  5 1  Beach  Priv.  Corp.,  §  274 ;  Kreiger 
hart,    19    La.    Ann.    482;   Vowell  v.  v.  Shelby  R.  R.  Co.,  84  Ky.  66. 
Thompson,  3  Cr.  C.  C.  (U.  S.)  428;  6  Beckett  v.  Houston,  32  Ind.  393; 
Northrop  v.  Newton,    etc.,  Turnpike  Rex  v.  Spencer,  3  Burr.  1827. 

Co.,  3  Conn.  544.  'Taylors.  Griswold,  14  N.  J.  Law 
'Matter  of  North  Shore,  etc.,  Ferry  222,  holding  that  a  by-law  of  the 
Co. ,63  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  556;  Matter  of  Hackensack  Bridge  Co.  could  not  con- 
Cape  May,  etc.,  Co.,  51  N.  J.  L.  78,  s.  fer  upon  stockholders  the  right  to  one 
c.  16  Atl.  R.  191.  Stock  sold  by  three  vote  for  each  share  they  owned,  where 
executors  of  the  deceased  owner  can  the  number  of  votes  was  limited  by 
not  be  voted  unless  they  agree  upon  the  charter. 

the  vote  to  be  cast.    Tunis  v.  Heston-  8  But  some  of  the  states  have  stat- 

ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  Pa.  St.  70,  s.  c.  utes  authorizing  the  corporations  to 

15  L.  R.  A.  665.    See,  also,  lie  Pioneer  make  by-laws  regulating  the  number 

Paper  Co.,  36  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  111.  of  shares  that  shall  entitle  the  mem- 

As  to  right  of  partner  to  vote,  see  Al-  bers  to  one  or  more  votes.   Stimson's 

len  v.  Hill,  16  Cal.  113;  Kenton  Fur-  Am.  Stat.  Law  (1892),  §  8071. 


§  157 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


227 


security,1  and  the  inspectors  and  tellers  can  not,  as  a  rule,  as- 
sume to  go  into  a  hearing  and  decision  of  the  question  as  to  who 
is  in  fact  the  owner  of  the  stock  sought  to  be  voted.2  The  reg- 
istry on  the  transfer  books  of  the  corporation  is,  as  a  general 
rule,  prima  facie,  if  not  conclusive,  evidence  of  the  holder's 
right  to  vote  the  shares  so  registered  in  his  name.8  It  is  gen- 


1  Parker,  C.  J.,  in  State  v.  Ferris,  42 
Conn.  560;  Brewster  v.  Hartley,  37 
Cal.  15,  s.  c.  99  Am.  Dec.  237;  Ex 
parte  Willcocks,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  402, 
s.  c.  17  Am.  Dec.  525,  where  the  stock 
was  pledged ;  Scholfield^.Union  Bank, 
2  Cranch.C.  C.  (U.S.)  115;Vowell0. 
Thompson,  3  Cr.  C.C.  (U.S.) 428, where 
it  was  mortgaged.  If  mortgaged  stock 
is  transferred  to  the  mortgagee,  upon 
the  books  of  the  corporation, he  and  not 
the  mortgagor  will  be  entitled  to  vote 
it.  So,  generally,  where  the  stock  has 
been  duly  transferred  upon  the  books 
of  the  company,  and  registered  in  the 
name  of  the  pledgee,  he  is  entitled  to 
vote.  2BeachPriv.  Corp.,  §  642;  He 
Argus  Printing  Co.,  1  N.  Dak.  434,  s. 
c.  12  L.  R.  A.  781 ;  Hoppin  v.  Buffum, 
9  R.  1. 513,  s.  c.  11  Am.  Rep.  291.  Com- 
pare State  v.  Smith,  15  Oreg.  98.  These 
cases  state,  however,  that  a  court  of 
equity  may  compel  the  pledgee  to  give 
the  pledger  a  proxy  in  a  proper  case. 
1  Rorer  on  Railroads,  195,  and  author- 
ities cited.  In  order  that  a  stock- 
holder may  vote  at  a  corporation  elec- 
tion, it  is  not  necessary  that  he  be  the 
sole  or  only  owner.  A  creditor  hold- 
ing stock  as  collateral  security  may 
agree  with  the  debtor  owning  the 
stock  as  to  which  shall  vote  at  a  cor- 
porate election,  and  they  may  appoint 
a  third  person  to  hold  the  stock  and 
vote  for  them.  Ervin  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  (C.  P.  Phila.  Pa.)  7  R.  R. 
&  Corp.  L.  J.  87. 

8 1  Thomp.  Corp.,  §  748.  Held  contra, 
under  New  York  statute,  in  Strong  v. 
Smith,  15  Hun  222. 


8  In  matter  of  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  19 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  37,  44;  Turnbull  v. 
Payson,  95  U.  S.  418;  State  v.  Ferris, 
42  Conn.  560,  568  (where  a  bankrupt 
was  permitted  to  vote)  ;  Merrill  v.  Lit- 
tle Falls,  etc.,  Co.,  53  Minn.  371,  21  L. 
R.A.  174 ;  Semple  v.  Glenn,  91  Ala.  245, 
s.  c.  24  Am.  St.  Rep.  894 ;  and  authori- 
ties cited  in  23  Am.&  Eng.Ency.  of  Law 
782,  note  1.  But  one  railroad  corpora- 
tion, having  acquired  a  majority  of 
the  stock  of  another  railroad  corpora- 
tion, unless  expressly  authorized  by 
statute,  Vill  not  be  allowed  to  vote 
such  stock  in  the  corporation  elections 
or  in  matters  concerning  the  manage- 
ment or  control  of  the  latter  company ; 
at  least  where  the  two  roads  are  rivals 
in  the  same  field  of  operation, and  a  con- 
flict of  interest  may  arise  in  the  matter 
of  expenditure, or  in  division  of  patron- 
age or  of  earnings,  or  where  the  profits 
of  one  company  may  be  increased  by  a 
diminution  of  those  of  the  other. 
Memphis  &  C.  R.  Co.  v.  Woods,  88 
Ala.  630,  7  L.  R.  A.  605.  Where  the 
contract  for  the  present  sale  of  shares 
of  stock  had  been  entered  into  and 
the  stock  delivered  to  a  third  person 
in  escrow,  to  be  delivered  to  the  pur- 
chaser only  on  fulfillment  of  the  terms 
of  the  sale,  and  by  the  terms  of  the 
contract  the  purchaser  was  to  have 
the  right  to  vote  the  stock,  while  the 
sale  remained  executory,  it  was  held 
that  the  seller  had  no  right  to  vote, 
although  the  statute  made  the  certifi- 
cates of  stock,  and  the  transfer  books 
of  the  corporation  prima  facie  evidence 
of  the  right  to  vote  the  stock.  Com- 


228  THE    CORPOKATION.  §  157 

erally  immaterial  that  he  has  no  certificates  of  stock,1  or  has 
sold  and  transferred  his  certificates,2  or  that  he  owes  the  sub- 
scription price,8  or  that  he  is  a  mere  nominal  holder  of  stock 
belonging  to  another,4  which  has  been  registered  newly  for  the 
purpose  of  voting.5  But  where  the  owner  of  the  stock  is  not 
entitled  to  vote,  as  in  a  case  where  stock  is  owned  by  a  non- 
resident under  a  charter  which  provides  that  only  resident 
stockholders  may  vote,  it  has  been  held  that  a  resident  of  the 
state  who  receives  a  colorable  transfer  of  the  stock,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  voting  it,  does  not  thereby  become  a  legal  voter.6  Al- 
though the  corporate  books  are  the  proper  evidence  of  the  right 
of  an  owner  of  shares  to  exercise  a  stockholder's  rights  and 
privileges,  he  is  entitled  to  have  a  certificate  issued  to  him  as 
a  voucher  for  his  title,  and  to  enable  him  the  more  readily  to 
put  his  shares  upon  the  market,7  and  where  the  books  do  not 
show  who  is  the  owner,  the  certificate  is  prima  facie  evidence 
of  ownership.8  Where  his  subscription  is  made  upon  a  con- 
dition not  yet  performed,  if  the  stockholder  has  been  registered, 

monwealtb.  v.  Patterson,  158  Pa.  St.  J.  Law  66,  where  nothing  had  been 

476.     Held   not  to  be  conclusive  in  paid;  Savage  v.   Ball,  17   N.   J.  Eq. 

Mudgett    v.     Horrell,     33    Cal.    25;  142,   where    the  stock  was  issued  in 

Stephens  v.  Follett,  43  Fed.  Rep.  842,  payment  for  work  which  had  not  been 

s.   c.  31  Am.  &  Eng.   Corp.  Cas.  466 ;  performed. 

Waterford,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pidcock,  *  State  of  Nevada  v.  Leete,  16  Nev. 

8  Exch.  279;  Chaffin  v.  Cummings,  37  242. 

Me.  76.  5The  corporation  can  not  require 

1  Beckett  v.  Houston,  32  Ind.   393;  him  to  take  oath  as  to  the  real  owner- 
Mitchell  v.  Beckman,  64  Cal.  117,  s.  c.  ship  of  the  stock.     People  v.  Kip,  4 
1  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  40 ;  Hawley  Cowen  (N.  Y.)  382,  note.  And  it  may 
v.  Upton,  102  U.  S.  314;  New  Harnp-  be  compelled  to  register  a  transfer 
shire  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  30  made  for  the  purpose  of  qualifying  the 
N.   H.  390,  s.   c.   64  Am.   Dec.   300;  transferee  to  vote.    Moffatt  v.  Farqu- 
Crumlish    v.    Shenandoah  Valley  R.  har,  L.  R.  7  Ch.  D.  591.   But  see  post, 
Co.,    (W.   Va.),  22    S.    E.   Rep.  90;  §174. 

and  authorities  cited  in  23  Am.  &  6  State,  ex  rel.,  v.  Hunton,  28  Vt. 
Eng.  Ency.  of  Law  783,  note  1.  594.  See,  also,  Ee  Barker,  6  Wend. 

2  People  v.   Robinson,  64  Cal.  373;     (N.  Y.)  509. 

State  v.  Ferris,  42  Conn.  560;  Bailey  'Johnson  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

v.  Railroad  Co.,  22  Wall.  (U.  S.)  604,  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  193. 

637.  'Broadway  Bank  v.   McElrath,   13 

'Birmingham,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Locke,  N.  J.  Eq.  24;  ante,  §  78. 
1  Q.  B.  256;  Downing  v.  Potts,  23  N. 


§  158  STOCKHOLDERS.  229 

he  may  vote  upon  the  question  whether  such  condition  shall  or 
shall  not  be  performed.1  The  holder  of  shares  issued  as  a  stock 
dividend  may  vote  upon  such  stock  after  registry,  the  same  as 
upon  any  other,2  and  a  transferee  usually  receives  this  right 
with  the  stock  transferred.3  It  is  frequently  provided,  how- 
ever, that  no  stockholder  can  vote  on  stock,  unless  it  has  been 
standing  in  his  name  on  the  books  of  the  corporation  at  least  a 
certain  number  of  days  prior  to  the  election  or  meeting.* 

§  158.  Right  of  trustees  and  receivers  to  vote. — If  the  stoek 
be  registered  in  the  name  of  the  holder  as  trustee,  he  may  yet 
vote  it,5  unless  he  be  a  trustee  for  the  corporation  itself,  in 
which  case  the  officers  are  chargeable  with  notice  of  the  title 
which  he  holds,  and  his  holding  is  subject  to  the  rule  that 
stock  owned  by  the  corporation  can  not  be  voted.6  The  fact 
that  the  holder  of  shares  is  designated  as  "cashier"  or  "presi- 
dent" on  the  company's  books  will  not  influence  his  right  to 
vote,  as  such  words  are  merely  descriptive.  And  it  has  been 
held  that  a  person  who  succeeds  him  in  that  position  has  no 
right  to  vote  the  shares  so  held  unless  they  are  regularly  trans- 
ferred to  him  by  name.7  The  right  of  a  receiver  of  stock  to 
vote  seems  generally  to  have  been  conceded  without  question,8 
and  it  has  been  held  that  the  court  appointing  him  may  direct 
him  how  to  vote.9 

1  Greenville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coleman,    McNeely  v.  Woodruff,  13  N.  J.  L.  352 ; 
5  Rich.  Law  (S.  C.)  118.  Union,   etc.,   Ass'n  v.   Seligman,  92 

2  Bailey  v.   Railroad  Co.,   22  Wall.    Mo.  635. 

(TJ.  S.)  604,  637.     But  the  rule  is  dif-  7  Ex  parte  Mohawk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

ferent  as  to  scrip  dividends,  converti-  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  135.     A  contrary  rule 

ble  into  stock.      Bailey  v.   Railroad  is  upheld  as  more    reasonable    and 

Co.,  22  Wall.  (U.  S.)  604,  637.  just    in    Farmers',  etc.,   Co.  v.  Chi- 

3  See    Commonwealth    v.    Stevens,  cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Fed.  R.  146,  156. 
(Pa.)  32  Atl.  Rep.  111.  See,  also,  Mousseaux  v.  Urquhart,  19 

4Stimson's  Am.  Stat.   Law  (1892),  La.  Ann.  482.    But  it  would  seem  that 

§  8054.  a  transfer  on  the  corporate  book  is  a 

5  Matter  of  Barker,  6  Wend.  (N.Y.)  reasonable  means  of  proving  that  such 
509;  Hoppin  v.  Bufmm,  9  R.  I.  513.  successor  has  been  selected  to  fill  the 

6  Ex  parte  Holmes,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  former  officer's  place. 

426;    American  Railway  Frog  Co.  r.  8Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

Haven,  101  Mass.  398,  R.  c.  3  Am.  R.  §  612. 

377;  Brewster  v.  Hartley,  37  Cal.  15,  9  American  Inv.  Co.  v.  Yost,  25  Abb. 

s.  c.  99  Am.   Dec.  237.      See,   also,  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  274,  note. 


230  THE    CORPORATION.  §  159 

§  159.   Right  of  corporations  and  voting  trusts  to  vote. — 

Corporations  authorized  to  hold  stock  in  another  corporation 
are  usually  entitled  to  vote  it.1  And  this  they  may  do  by  an 
agent.2  But  one  corporation  can  not,  ordinarily,  acquire  and 
vote  stock  in  another  without  statutory  authority,8  and  a  rival 
company  which  has  acquired  a  majority  of  the  stock  in  a  cor- 
poration, without  statutory  authority,  may  be  enjoined  from 
voting  it.*  And  so  may  a  trust  company  which  is  a  stock- 
holder of  corporate  stock  pledged  as  collateral  for  bonds  of  an- 
other corporation  and  which  is  also  a  trustee  of  the  indebted- 
ness of  the  corporation  and  an  agent  for  its  creditors,  or  a  vot- 
irg  trust  which  holds  a  majority  of  the  stock  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany to  be  voted  in  the  interest  of  another  corporation.5 

§  160.  Number  of  votes  to  which  stockholder  is  entitled — 
Cumulative  voting. — It  seems  that  at  common  law,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  statute  on  the  subject,  each  stockholder  is  entitled 
to  but  one  vote.6  But  this  is  not  the  natural  and  reasonable 
rule  in  corporations  whose  capital  represents  a  money  invest- 
ment, and  it  is  generally  provided  in  the  laws  for  the  creation 

1  Davis  v.  U.  S.,  etc.,  Co.,  77  Md.  and    note.     But    see    1    Beach  Priv. 
35,  25  Atl.  R.  982.  Corp.,  §304-306.    The  Federal  Courts 

2  State  v.  Rohlffs,  (N.  J.)  19  Atl.  R.  have  recently  held  that  the  purchase 
1099.  of  stock  in  sugar  refineries  for  the 

•Brice  Ultra  Vires,  95;  Woods  v.  purpose  of  acquiring  control  of  the 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  5  Ry.  &  business  of  refining  and  selling  sugar 
Corp.  L.  J.  372;  State  v.  McDaniel,  22  in  the  United  States  is  not  in  viola- 
Ohio  St.  354 ;  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lake  tion  of  the  act  of  congress  of  July  2, 
Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  46  Ohio  St.  44,  s.  c.  1  1890,  and  does  not  involve  a  monopoly 
L.  R.  A.  412;  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  or  restraint  of  interstate  commerce 
Collins,  40  Ga.  582.  within  the  meaning  of  that  act.  United 

«  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Woods,  States  v.  E.  C.  Knight  Co.,  60  Fed.  R. 

88  Ala.  630,  s.  c.  7  L.  R.  A.  605,  and  934,  affirmed  in  15  Sup. Ct.R.  249, 156  U. 

note  Mack  v.  DeBardeleben,  etc.,  Co.,  S.  1 ;  In  re  Greene,  52  Fed.  R.  104.  The 

90  Ala.  396,  8  So.  R.  150 ;  Milbank  v.  authorities  are  reviewed  in  the  opinion 

N.  Y.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  64  How.  Pr.  of  the  court  and  in  the  dissenting  opin- 

(N.  Y.)  20.  See,  also,  Buckeye,  etc.,  ion  in  the  case  in  the  United  States 

Co.  v.  Harvey,  92  Tenn.  115,  20  S.  W.  Supreme  Court  cited  supra.  See,  also, 

R.  427.  Contra,  Camden,  etc.,  R.  R.  Harvey  v.  Linville,  etc.,  Co.,  (N.  Car.) 

Co.  v.  Elkins,  37  N.  J.  Eq.  273.  -  24  S.  E.  R.  489. 

5  Clarke  v.  Central  R.  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  61  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

50  Fed.  R.  338,  s.  c.  15  L.  R.  A.  683,  §  608. 


§  161  STOCKHOLDERS.  231 

of  railroad  corporations,  that  the  stockholders  shall  have  one 
vote  for  each  share  of  stock  which  they  own,1  although  the 
total  number  of  votes  that  may  be  cast  by  one  stockholder  is 
sometimes  limited.  It  is  also  provided  by  constitution  or 
statute  in  several  of  the  states  that,  in  voting  for  directors, 
each  shareholder  shall  be  entitled  to  as  many  votes  as  will 
equal  the  number  of  his  shares  multiplied  by  the  number  of 
directors  to  be  elected.2  This  system  of  cumulative  voting  is 
intended  to  enable  the  minority  to  obtain  a  representation  upon 
the  board.  Such  a  provision,  however,  would  be  unconstitu- 
tional so  far  as  it  applied  to  corporations  previously  chartered,1 
unless,  perhaps,  where  the  power  to  amend  or  repeal  remains 
in  the  legislature.4 

§  161.  Quorum  must  be  present. — Before  votes  may  be  cast 
at  a  meeting,  it  is  necessary  that  a  certain  number  of  stock- 
holders or  the  holders  of  a  certain  number  of  shares5  (called 
a  quorum)  shall  be  present.  This  number  is  frequently  fixed 
by  the  by-laws,6  and  is  generally  a  majority  of  the  stock  enti- 
tled to  vote.7  But  if  the  body  consists  of  an  indefinite  num- 
ber and  no  provision  is  made  upon  the  subject,  those  who 
actually  assemble  at  a  regularly  called  meeting  may  constitute 
a  quorum.8  And  if  the  required  number,  or  a  quorum,  be 

1  Hays  v.  Commonwealth,  82  Pa.  St.    explained.     See,   also,  3  Cyclopaedia 
518.     Such  provision  is  made  by  gen-    of  Political  Science,  526. 

eral    statute    in    most   of  the  states.  3  Hays  v.  Commonwealth,  82  Pa.  St. 

Stimson's  Am.  Stat.Law(1892),  §8054,  518;  Baker's  Appeal,  109  Pa.  St.  461 ; 

citing  the  laws  of  New  Hampshire,  States.  Greer,  78  Mo.  188,  B.C.  8 Am. 

Vermont,    Connecticut,    New   York,  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  328. 

New    Jersey,     Indiana,     Wisconsin,  *  Cross  v.  West  Va.,  etc.,  Ry.,  35  W. 

Maryland,  Delaware,  Virginia,  Ten-  Va.  174,  12  S.  E.  R.  1071. 

nessee,  Arkansas,  Oregon,  Colorado,  5  Tennessee,    etc.,    R.  Co.  v.  East 

Washington,  Dakota,  Idaho,  Wyom-  Alabama  R.  Co.,  73  Ala.  426. 

ing,  Utah,  South  Carolina,  Alabama,  6  Stimson's  Am.   Stat.  Law  (1892), 

New  Mexico,  District  Columbia,  Oka-  §  8071. 

lahoma.  71  Beach    on    Priv.    Corp.,   §276; 

2  4  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law,  956;  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §8056. 

1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  8Morrill  v.  Little  Falls,  etc.,  Co.,  53 

§609,  a;  Wright  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  Minn.  371,  s.  c.  21  L.  R.  A.  174;  Craig 

67  Cal.  532,  13  Am.    &  Eng.   Corp.  v.  First  Presbyterian  Church,  88  Pa. 

Cas.  89,  in  which  the  system  is  fully  St.  42;  Columbia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Meier, 


232 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§162 


present,  a  majority  of  the  votes  actually  cast  at  the  meeting 
will  generally  control  in  the  absence  of  any  special  provisions 
as  to  the  number  of  votes  necessary  to  bind  the  corporation,1 
although  it  is  frequently  said  or  intimated  that  it  requires  a 
majority  of  those  present.2  It  is  held  that  a  single  shareholder, 
even  though  he  owns  a  majority  of  the  stock,  can  not  hold  a 
corporate  meeting  alone.  There  must  generally  be  at  least  two 
to  constitute  a  meeting.3  But  the  holding  would  probably  be 
different  where  a  single  individual  is  allowed  to  form  a  corpo- 
ration,4 as  is  the  case  in  Iowa,5  if  the  meeting  was  regular  in 
other  respects. 

§  162.  Voting  by  proxy. — At  common  law  the  stockholder 
must  cast  his  vote  in  person.6  But  authority  to  vote  by  proxy 
upon  certain  conditions  and  under,  certain  restrictions  is  given 


39  Mo.  53;  Brown  v.  Pac.  Mail,  etc., 
Co.,  5  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  525;  Field  v. 
Field,  9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)'394;  Rex  v. 
Bellringer,  4  Term  R.  810;  1  Thomp. 
Corp.,  §  725. 

1  State  v.  Green,  37  Ohio  St.  227; 
Gowen's  Appeal,  10  Week.  N.  Cas.  85. 
See,  also,  Gifford  v.  New  Jersey  R. 
Co.,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  171 ;  New  Orleans, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  27  Miss.  517, 
537;  Durfee  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  5  Allen  (Mass.)  230,  242;  Stevens 
v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Vt.  545. 
"If  a  quorum  is  present  and  a  major- 
ity of  the  quorum  vote  in  favor  of  a 
measure,  it  will  prevail,  although  an 
equal  number  should  refrain  from  vot- 
ing. A  majority  of  the  number  of 
members  required  to  constitute  a 
quorum  is  sufficient."  Rushville  Gas 
Co.  v.  City  of  Rushville,  121  Ind.  206, 
s.  c.  6  L.  R.  A.  315;  followed  in  State 
v.  Dillon,  125  Ind.  65.  In  such  a 
case,  "silence  is  acquiescence  rather 
than  opposition."  Cases  just  cited. 
See,  also,  Willcock  Munic.  Corp., 
§546;  How  &  Bemis  Munic.  Police 
Ord.,  42;  Launtz  v.  People,  113  111. 


137 ;  County  of  Cass  v.  Johnston,  95 
TJ.  S.  360, 369 ;  State  v.  Chute,  34  Minn. 
135;  Atty.-General  v.  Shepard,  62  N. 
H.  383,  s.c.  13  Am.  St.R.  576 ;  Oldknow 
t7.  Wainright,  2  Burr.  1017.  Contra, 
Commonwealth  v.  Wickersham,  66  Pa. 
St.  134;  Lawrence  v.  Ingersoll,  88 
Tenn.  52,  6  L.  R.  A.  308. 

2 1  Thomp.  Corp.,  §§  723,  728;  Law- 
rence v.  Ingersoll,  88  Tenn.  52,  6  L. 
R.  A.  308.  See,  also,  State  v.  Fagan, 
42  Conn.  32  (under  a  statute),  with 
which  compare  State  v.  Chapman,  44 
Conn.  595. 

3  England  v.   Dearborn,  141  Mass. 
590;  Hopkins  v.  Roseclare  Lead  Co., 
72  111.  373;  Sharpe  v.  Dawes,  46  L.  J. 
Q.  B.  104. 

4  See  Swift  v.   Smith,  65  Md.  428, 
s.  c.  57  Am.  R.  336 ;  where  one  stock- 
holder owned  all  the  stock  and  was 
held  to  be,  in  effect,  the  corporation 
itself. 

5  Revised  Code  of  Iowa(1888),§§  1058, 
1088. 

6 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§610;  Philips  v.  Wickham,  1  Paige 
(N.  Y.)  590. 


§162 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


233 


by  general  statute  in  many  of  the  states,1  and  it  may  be  and 
very  often  is  conferred  by  a  by-law.2  And  the  suggestion  has 
been  made  that  the  modern  custom  of  voting  by  proxy  in  mon- 
eyed corporations,  without  any  regard  to  any  express  authority, 
which  prevails  in  the  United  States,  may  have  modified  the 
common  law  so  far  as  to  permit  evidence  of  such  a  usage  to 
establish  the  right  where  it  is  not  expressly  conferred  by 
charter  or  by  statute.*  A  proxy  should  be  in  writing,  and 
should  be  in  such  form  and  so  executed  as  to  bear  reasonable 
evidence  of  being  genuine  and  valid.4  Arid  the  corporate  of- 
ficers may  insist  upon  reasonable  evidence  of  that  fact  before 
allowing  it  to  be  voted,5  but  they  can  not  require  sworn  proof 
that  the  person  executing  the  proxy  is  the  owner  of  the  stock  it 
represents.6  A  proxy  only  confers  the  right  to  vote  upon  the 
measures  contemplated  by  the  person  giving  it,7  and  ordinarily 


1  Stimson's  Am.   Stat.   Law  (1892), 
§  8057.     Where  a  statute  provided 
that  any  stockholder  might  select  his 
own  proxy  to  represent  him  and  vote 
at  any  election,  it  was  held  that  a  by- 
law, providing  that  no  proxy  could  be 
voted  except  by  a  stockholder,    was 
invalid.  People's  Home  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Superior  Court,  104  Cal.  649,  s.  c.  43 
Am.  St.  Rep.   147 ;   Matter  of  Light- 
hall  Mfg.  Co.,  47  Hun  (N.  Y.)  258. 

2  State  v.  Tudor,  5  Day  (Conn.)  329, 
s.  c.  5  Am.  Dec.  162;  Commonwealth 
v.  Detwiller,  131  Pa.  St.  614,  s.  c.  7  L. 
R.  A.  357.     Many  of  the  states  give 
statutory  authority  for  the  making  of 
by-laws  to  regulate  this  matter.   Stim- 
son's Am.  Stat.  Law    (1892),  §8071; 
Peoples.  Crossley,  69111.  195.  But  the 
existence  of  such  authority  at  common 
law  is  doubted  in  Philips  v.  Wickham, 
1  Paige  (N.  Y.)  590,  and  is  denied  in 
Taylor  v.  Griswold,  14  N.  J.  Law  222, 
s.  c.  27  Am.  Dec.  33. 

8Rorer  on  Railroads,  193;  Woods' 
Railway  Law,  150. 

*  But  the  mere  omission  of  a  date 
will  not  justify  its  rejection.  Matter 


of  Election  of  St.  Lawrence  Steamboat 
Co.,  44  N.  J.  L.  529.  The  by-laws  may 
require  proxies  to  be  witnessed.  Har- 
ben  v.  Phillips,  L.  R.  23  Ch.  D.  14,  22. 
One  to  whom  a  testator  has  by  will 
directed  his  executors  to  give  a  proxy 
to  cast  the  vote  for  stock  held  by  the 
testator  can  not  vote  when  the  execu- 
tors refuse  the  proxy,  because  of  in- 
ability to  agree  as  to  how  the  vote 
shall  be  cast.  Tunis  v.  Hestonville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  Pa.  St.  70. 

5  Matter  of  Election  of  St.  Lawrence 
Steamboat    Co.,   44  N.  J.   Law  529. 
But  if  it  has  every  appearance  of  gen- 
uineness and  is  regular  in  form,  the 
officers  can  not  refuse  it.     Matter  of 
Cecil,  36  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  477. 

6  People  v.  Tibbets,  4Cowen  (N.  Y.) 
358. 

7  A  proxy  to  vote  is  not  a  proxy  to 
demand  a  poll.  In  re  Haven,  etc.,  Co., 
L.   R.  20  Ch.  D.  151;  Reg.   v.  Gov. 
Stock  Co.,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  D.  442.     The 
appointment  of  a  proxy  without  limi- 
tation, gives  him  authority  to  bind  his 
principal  by  a  vote  against  his  interest 
as  well  as  for  it,  to  the  same  extent  as 


234 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§163 


only  gives  authority  to  vote  for  officers.1  One  who  holds  stock 
of  a  railroad  company  in  trust  for  corporations  owning  compet- 
ing lines,  and  is  forbidden  bylaw  to  hold  such  stock,  and  who 
is  largely  interested  in  such  competing  lines,  does  not,  by 
a  relinquishment  of  such  stock  made  by  such  competing  cor- 
porations in  his  favor,  acquire  any  right  to  vote  the  same.2 
A  naked  proxy  is  revocable.8 

§  163.   Other  powers  of  stockholders — Rights  of  minority. 

— Besides  electing  officers,  the  corporate  shareholders  in  meet- 
ing assembled  have  power  to  make  the  by-laws  of  the  corpora- 
tion,* to  increase  or  decrease  the  capital  stock  under  authority 
of  the  legislature,5  to  accept  or  authorize  amendments  of  a  cer- 
tain kind  to  the  charter.6  to  dissolve  the  corporation  for  an 


if  the  vote  were  cast  in  person.  Mo- 
bile, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholas,  98  Ala. 
92. 

1 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§  610.  He  can  not  vote  to  dissolve  the 
corporation  or  to  sell  the  entire  cor- 
porate property  and  business.  1  Cook 
on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  §  610. 
A  proxy  at  a  stockholders'  meeting  to 
elect  directors  may  vote  on  motions  to 
take  a  ballot  and  to  adjourn  the  same 
as  a  stockholder.  Forsyth  v.  Brown, 
13  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  Rep.  576. 

2  Clarke  v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  50 
Fed.  Rep.  338.  A  railroad  which  owns 
stock  of  a  competing  line  may  be  en- 
joined from  voting  the  same  at  the 
suit  of  stockholders  of  the  competitor, 
who  have  acquiesced  in  its  ownership 
of  such  stock  and  control  of  such  line 
for  more  than  six  years.    George  v. 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  101  Ala.  607,  14 
So.  Rep.  752. 

3  Woodruff  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  30  Fed.  Rep.  91;  Vanderbilt  v. 
Bennett,  2  Ry.  and  Corp.  L.  J.  409; 
Reed  v.  Bank,  6  Paige   (N.  Y.)  337. 
See,  also,  Cone's  Exrs.  v.  Russell,  48 
N.  J.  Eq.  208,  21  Atl.  Rep.  847.      And 
this  is  the  general  rule  in  regard  to 


proxies.     1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stock- 
holders, §  610. 

*  2  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockhold- 
ers (2d  ed.),  §  700,  a. ;  Angell  &  Ames 
on  Corp.  (8th  ed.),  §327;  Morton, 
etc.,  Co.  fl.Wysong,  51  Ind.  4.  But  it 
is  frequently  provided  by  charter  or 
otherwise  that  the  by-laws  shall  be 
made  by  the  directors.  Angell  & 
Ames,  supra:  Stimson's  Am.  Stat. 
(1892),  §§8070,8071,  8537. 

5  Percy  v.  Millaudon,  3  La.  568,  585 ; 
Crandall  v.  Lincoln,  52  Conn.  73,  99; 
Eidman  v.  Bowman,  58  111.  444;  Rail- 
way Co.  v.   Allerton,   18  Wall.   233; 
Finley,   etc.,   Co.  v.  Kurtz,  34  Mich. 
89. 

6  Marlborough  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Smith,  2 
Conn.  579;  Peoria  &  R.  I.  R.  R.  Co.t?. 
Preston,  35  Iowa  115;  Taggart  v. West- 
ern R.  R.  Co.,  24  Md.  563;  Brown  v. 
Fairmount  Mine  Co.,  10  Phil.  (Pa.) 
32.     A  material    or  fundamental 
amendment  must  be  accepted  by  a 
unanimous  vote  of  the  stockholders. 
Marietta,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Elliott,  10 
Ohio  St.  57;  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Harris,  27  Miss.  517.     A  dissenting 
stockholder  will  not  be  bound  there- 


164 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


235 


authorized  cause,1  and  the  like.2  The  right  to  vote  includes 
the  right  to  a  voice  in  the  settlement  of  these  various  ques- 
tions. But  the  rights  of  the  minority  must  be  respected,  and 
a  single  stockholder  has  been  held  to  be  able,  by  refusing  his 
assent,  to  prevent  a  material  amendment  to  the  charter,8  as  he 
may  a  dissolution,4  where  it  is  not  authorized  or  not  made  with 
a  bona  fide  intention  to  pay  the  corporate  debts  and  discontinue 
the  business. 

§  164.  Stockholders'  meetings. — In  matters  which  must  be 
settled  by  the  body  of  the  stockholders,  the  assent  of  a  majority 
of  them,  expressed  elsewhere  than  at  a  meeting, — as,  where  the 
assent  of  each  is  given  separately  and  at  different  times  to  a 
person  who  goes  to  them  privately, — -is  not  binding  upon  the 
company.5  But  provision  is  sometimes  made  by  statute  for  the 
stockholders  to  perform  certain  acts,  such  as  the  adoption  of 


"by.  Snook  v.  Georgia  Improvement 
Co.,  83  Ga.  61.  Where  the  amend- 
ment does  not  work  any  material 
change  in  the  corporation,  the  will  of 
the  majority  should  govern.  Sprague 
v.  Illinois  River  R.  Co.,  19  111.  174. 
But  the  right  to  amend  without  any 
acceptance  by  the  stockholders  is 
generally  reserved  by  the  legislature. 

1  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  29  Ala. 
573,  586;  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bal- 
timore, etc.,  Co.,  4  Gill.  &  J.  (Md.)  1, 
121 ;  LaGrange,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rainey, 
7  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  420;  Denike  a.  New 
York,  etc.,  Co.,  80  N.  Y.  599,  606; 
Mclntyre  Poor  School  v.  Zanesville 
Canal,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Ohio  203;  Houston 
v.  Jefferson  College,  63  Pa.  St.  428. 

2Eidman  v.  Bowman,  58  111.  444; 
Metropolitan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manhat- 
tan, etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Daly  (N.  Y.)  367. 

8  Fry's  Ex'rs.  ?>.  Lexington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  2  Mete.  (Ky.)  314;  Delaware,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Irick,  23  N.  J.  L.  321  ;  Pearce 
v.  Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  How. 
441 ;  Tuttle  v.  Mich.  Air  Line  Co.,  35 
Mich.  247 ;  Marietta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 


Elliott,  10  Ohio  St.  57;  New  Orleans, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  27  Miss.  517. 
Ante,  §45. 

*Ervin  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  27 
Fed.  R.  625;  Black  v.  Delaware,  etc., 
Canal  Co..  22  N.  J.  Eq.  130,  where  the 
object  was  to  continue  business  under 
a  new  organization ;  Kean  v.  John- 
son, 9  N.  J.  Eq.  401 ;  VonSchmidt  v. 
Huntington,  1  Cal.  55 ;  Barton  v.  En- 
terprise, etc.,  Ass'n,  114  Ind.  226, 
where  the  corporation  charter  had  not 
expired;  Angell  &  Ames  (8th  ed.), 
§772. 

5  Duke  v.  Markham,  105  N.  C.  131. 
But  it  is  held  that  a  certificate  signed 
by  the  president  of  a  corporation,  who 
holds  nearly  all  of  its  stock,  stating 
that  a  majority  of  the  stockholders  has 
assented  thereto,  implies  that  he  has 
assented,  and  such  certificate  is  suffi- 
cient assent  of  the  majority  of  the 
stockholders,  unless  the  statute  pro- 
vides some  particular  form  or  place  for 
such  assent.  Humphreys  v.  St.  Louis, 
I.  M.  &  S.  R.  Co.  (C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.), 
37  Fed.  Rep.  307. 


236 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  164 


by-laws,  by  giving  a  written  consent  thereto,  without  the  for- 
mality of  a  meeting.1  Stockholders'  meetings  should  be  held 
within  the  state  by  which  the  corporation  is  created.  It  is 
sometimes  said  that  acts  performed  at  a  meeting  in  a  foreign 
jurisdiction  are  void,2  but  the  better  rule  would  seem  to  be 
that,  in  the  absence  of  any  provision  to  the  contrary,  the  acts 
of  the  stockholders  at  such  a  meeting  are  voidable  rather  than 
void,  and  may  be  valid  where  all  the  stockholders  give  their 
consent.3  In  other  words,  the  corporation  and  the  stockhold- 
ers in  such  a  case  are  estopped  from  questioning  upon  this 
ground  the  validity  of  the  meeting  and  proceedings,  to  which 
they  consented  and  in  which  they  participated.  If  the  cor- 
poration is  consolidated  or  incorporated  in  two  or  more  states, 
so  as  to  be  a  citizen  of  each,  the  stockholders  may  lawfully 
meet  in  either  state.4  Where  the  officers  of  a  corporation  neg- 
lect and  refuse  to  call  a  meeting  which  it  is  their  duty  to  call, 
they  may  be  compelled  to  do  so,  in  a  proper  case,  by  manda- 
mus at  the  suit  of  a  stockholder.5  In  order  to  bind  absent  and 


1  The  written  assent  of  two-thirds  of 
the  stock  is  sometimes  made  sufficient 
to  adopt  by-laws  without  a  meeting. 
Stimson's   Am.    Stat.    (1892),   §  8872. 

2  Miller  v.  Ewer,  27  Me.  509,   s.   c. 
46  Am.  Dec.  619;  Aspinwall  v.  Ohio, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Ind.  492,  s.  c.  83  Am. 
Dec.  329.     See,  also,  Hillesw.  Parrish, 
14  N.  J.  Eq.  380;  Franco-Texan  Land 
Co.  v.  Laigle,  59  Tex.  339;  Hodgson 
v.  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Minn.  454, 
49  N.  W.  Rep.  197 ;  Ormsby  v.  Ver- 
mont,   etc.,   Co.,    56  N.   Y.    623;     1 
Beach  Priv.  Corp.,  §  285.     See,   also, 
Mack    v.  De    Bardelehen,   etc.,   Co., 
90  Ala.  396,  8  So.  Rep.  150. 

'Missouri  Lead,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rein- 
hard,  114  Mo.  218,  s.  c.  35  Am.  St. 
Rep.  746;  Heath  v.  Silverthorn,  etc., 
Co.,  39  Wis.  146 ;  Handley  v.  Slutz,  139 
U.  S.  417,  11  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  530,  appeal 
from  Stutz  v.  Handley,41  Fed.  R.531 ;  1 
Morawetz  Priv.  Corp.,  §  488;  Taylor 
on  Corp.,  §  382;  1  Cook  on  Stock  and 


Stockholders,  §  589.  See,  also,  Wright 
v.  Lee,  2  S.  Dak.  596,  51  N.  W.  Rep. 
706.  There  is  more  reason,  perhaps, 
for  holding  that  meetings  for  the  pur- 
pose of  accepting  the  charter  and  or- 
ganizing should  be  held  within  the 
state.  Smith  v.  Silver  Valley,  etc., 
Co.,  64  Me.  85,  s.  c.  54  Am.  Rep.  760; 
Freeman  v.  Machias,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Me. 
343;  1  Beach  Priv.  Corp.,  §  286;  ante, 
§17. 

4  Covington,  etc.,  Bridge  Co.  v. 
Mayer,  31  Ohio  St.  317;  Graham  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  118  U.  S.  161; 
ante,  §  28.  But  see  Aspinwall  v. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Ind.  492,  s.  c. 
83  Am.  Dec.  329. 

5 Peoples.  Cummings,  72  N.  Y.  433; 
McNeely  v.  Woodruff,  13  N.  J.  L.352; 
State  v.  Wright,  10  Nev.  167.  See, 
also,  American  Ry.  Frog.  Co.  v. 
Haven,  101  Mass.  398,  s.  c.  3  Am.  Rep. 
377. 


104 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


237 


dissenting  stockholders,  the  meeting  must  be  duly  assembled.1 
Members  are  bound  to  take  notice  of  regular  stated  meetings 
fixed  by  the  charter  or  by-laws  ;  *  but  they  should  be  duly  noti- 
fied of  special  or  called  meetings,3  and  the  statute  or  by-laws 
may,  of  course,  provide  for  notice  of  all  meetings.  The  pro- 
visions of  the  charter  or  by-laws  in  regard  to  the  time  and 
manner  of  calling  meetings  and  the  nature  of  the  notice  should 
be  followed  ;*  but  a  by-law  providing  that  notice  may  be  given 
in  a  certain  way  is  not  necessarily  exclusive.5  In  the  absence 
of  any  express  provision,  personal  notice,  if  not  absolutely  es- 
sential, is  certainly  the  safest.6  The  essential  elements  of  the 
notice  are  the  time  of  the  meeting,7  the  place  of  the  meeting,' 
and  the  business  to  be  transacted,9  unless  the  stockholders,  by 


1  It  should  be  called  by  the  author- 
ized officers  or  persons.     See  Reilly  v. 
Oglebay,  25  W.  Va.  36;  Cassell  v.  Lex- 
ington, etc.,  Co.  (Ky.)  9  S.  W.  Rep. 
502;  Evans  v.   Osgood,   18  Me.  213; 
Johnston  v.  Jones,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  216. 

2  Warner    v.    Mower,   11  Yt.   385; 
State  v.  Bonnell,  35  Ohio  St.  10;  Peo- 
ple v.  Batchelor,  22  N.  Y.  128. 

3  Commonwealth  v.  Cullen,  13  Pa. 
St.133,  s.  c.  53  Am.  Dec.  450 ;  Farwell  v. 
Houghton  Copper  Works,  8  Fed.  Rep. 
€6;    Kynaston    v.  Mayor,  2  Strange 
1051;  Rex  v.  Hill,  4  Barn.  &  Cress. 
426;    Angell   &  Ames  Corp.,   §  492; 
1  Beach  Priv.  Corp.,  §  279;  Stow  v. 
Wyse,  7  Conn.  214,  s.  c.  13  Am.  Dec. 
99,  and  note. 

4  Stockholders  of  Shelby  R.  Co.   v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Bush  (Ky.) 
62;  Hunt  v.  School  Dist.,  14  Vt.  300, 
s.  c.  39  Am.  Dec.  225 ;  Tuttle  v.  Michi- 
gan Air  Line  R.  Co.,  35  Mich.  247. 

5  Citizens'  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Sortwell, 
8  Allen  (Mass.)  217. 

6  Stow  v.  Wyse,  7  Conn.  214,  s.  c.  18 
Am.    Dec.    99.     See,  also,  Wiggin  v. 
Freewill   Baptist     Church,    8    Mete. 
(Mass.)  301 ;  Harding  v.  Vandewater, 
40  Cal.  77. 


7  It  has  been  held  that  the  hour,  as 
well  as  the  day,  must  be  stated.  San 
Buenaventura,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Vassault,  50 
Cal.  534,537.  The  fact  that  there  is  some 
delay  in  calling  the  meeting  to  order 
will  not,  as  a  rule,  invalidate  it,  but 
holding  it  before  the  time  designated 
may  operate  as  a  surprise  upon  some 
of   the    stockholders   and  give  those 
who  do  not  participate  just  cause  for 
attacking  its  validity  as  to  them.  Peo- 
ple v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  344.  The  notice  should  also  be 
served  a  reasonable  time  before  the 
meeting,  although  this  is  usually  fixed 
by    the  statute    or    by-laws.    In    re 
Long  Island  R.  Co.,  19  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
37,  s.  c.  32  Am.  Dec.  429;  Brown  v. 
Republican,  etc.,  Mines,  55  Fed.  Rep. 
7;  Covert  v.  Rogers,  38    Mich.  363, 
s.  c.  31  Am.  Rep.  319. 

8  Angell  &  Ames  Corp.,  §  496 ;  Jones 
v.    Milton   Turnp.   Co.,   7   Ind.  547; 
United  States  v.  McKelden,  8 The  Rep. 
778. 

9  Notice  of  the  ordinary  business  to 
be  transacted  at  a  general  stated  meet- 
ing is  usually  unnecessary.    Chicago, 
etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  47 
Fed.  Rep.  15 ;  Warner  v.  Mower,  11 


238 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§165 


reason  of  some  provision  in  the  charter  or  by-laws,  are  already 
chargeable  with  knowledge  of  one  or  more  of  these  things.  An 
appearance  at  the  meeting  without  objection  will  usually  oper- 
ate as  a  waiver  of  objections  to  the  notice.1  And  where  a 
meeting  is  duly  called  and  held,  the  corporation  may  adjourn 
and  transact  any  business  at  the  adjourned  meeting  which  they 
could  have  transacted  at  the  original  meeting,  without  giving 
any  additional  notice  other  than  that  implied  in  the  adjourn- 
ment.2 It  will  be  presumed,  in  the  absence  of  anything  to 
the  contrary,  that  a  meeting  attended  by  a  quorum  was  duly 
called.3 

§  165.  Remedies  of  stockholders.  —  A  stockholder  has  the 
further  right  to  bring  an  action  to  obtain  redress  for  wrongs 
done  to  the  corporate  rights  or  to  restrain  ultra  vires  acts  done 
in  the  name  of  the  corporation  in  cases  where  the  corporation, 
upon  request,  refuses  to  bring  the  suit,*  and  where  the  persons 


Vt.  385;  Sampson  v.  Bowdoinham, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Me.  78;  Merritt  v. 
Ferris,  22  111.  303.  But  notice  of  the 
business  to  be  transacted  at  a  special 
meeting  is  generally  essential,  and  no 
other  business  can  be  regularly  trans- 
acted than  that  specified  in  the  notice. 
Atlantic  Delaine  Co.  v.  Mason,  5  R.  I. 
463;  People's  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  West- 
cott,  14  Gray.  (Mass.)  440;  Rex  v. 
Mayor,  etc.,  of  Doncaster,  2  Burr  738. 
See,  also,  Bridport  Old  Brewery  Co., 
L.  R.  2  Ch.  191;  In  re  London,  etc., 
Co.,  L.  R.  31  Ch.  D.  223;  Tuttle  v. 
Michigan  Air  Line  R.  Co.,  35  Mich. 
247;  1  Beach  Priv.  Corp.,  §  279. 

1  Stutz  v.  Handley,  41  Fed.  Rep.  531, 
s.  c.  Handley  v.  Stutz,  on  appeal, 139U. 
S.  417,  s.  c.  11  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  530 ;  Union 
Pac.  Ry.  Co.v. Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co. ,51 
Fed.  Rep.  309;  Jones  v.  Milton  Turnp. 
Co.,7  Ind.547 ;  People  ».Peck,ll  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  604,  s.  c.  27  Am.  Dec.  104; 
Kenton  Furnace  Co.  v.  McAlpin,  5 
Fed.  Rep.  737 ;  Campbell  v.  Argenta, 
etc.,  Co.,  51  Fed.  Rep.  1;  Wood  v. 


Corry,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Fed.  Rep.  146; 
Nelson  v.  Hubbard,  96  Ala.  238, 11  So. 
Rep.  428;  Bucksport,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Buck,  68  Me.  81. 

2  Warner    v.    Mower,   11    Vt.  385; 
Smith  v.  Law,  21  N.  Y.  296;  Granger 
v.  Grubb,  7  Phila.   (Pa.)  350;  Rex  v. 
Carmarthen,  1  Maule  &  S.  697 ;  Scad- 
ding  v.  Lorant,  3  H.  L.  Gas.  418.    But 
see,  where    there    is  bad    faith  and 
stockholders  are  taken  advantage  of, 
State  v.  Bonnell,  35  Ohio  St.  10;  New 
York,   etc.,   Co.   v.  Parrott,   36  Fed, 
Rep.  462;   also  State  v.  Phillips,  79 
Me.   506,   10   Atl.   Rep.   447;  Reg.  v. 
Grimshaw,  L.  R.   10  Q.  B.  747  (new 
and    different    business   can    not  be 
transacted). 

3  Sargent    v.     Webster,    13     Mete. 
(Mass.)  497,  s.  c.  46  Am.   Dec.  743; 
McDaniels  v.  Flower  Brook,  etc.,  Co., 
22  Vt.  274 ;  Beardsley  v.  Johnson,  121 
N.  Y.  224;  Wells  v.  Rodgers,  60  Mich. 
525,  27  N.  W.  Rep.  671 ;  Lane  v.  Brain- 
erd,  30  Conn.  565. 

•Teachout  t>.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  St. 


§  165 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


239 


who  are  despoiling  the  corporation  or  who  have  caused  it  to 
exceed  its  powers,  are  in  control  of  it.1  Thus  a  suit  brought 
by  a  stockholder  on  behalf  of  his  corporation  against  the 
directors  and  others,  has  been  sustained,  where  he  sought 
redress  for  frauds,  wrongs,  and  breaches  of  trust,  and  to  re- 
cover from  them  money  of  which  the  corporation  had  been 


R.  Co.,  75  Iowa  722;  Foster*?.  Mans- 
field, etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Fed.  R.  627; 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woods,  88 
Ala.  630 ;  Wilkie  v.  Rochester,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  12  Hun  (N.  Y.)  242;  Stevens  v. 
Rutland,  etc.,  R.  R.Co.,  29Vt.  545 ;  Put- 
nam v.  Ruch,  56  Fed.  R.  416 ;  Taylor  v. 
Holmes,  127  U.  S.  489 ;  Hawes  v.  Oak- 
land, 104  U.  S.  450;  Mack  v.  DeBar- 
deleben,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Ala.  396,  9  L.  R. 
A.  650,  and  note;  Atwood  v.  Merry- 
weather,  L.R.  5  Eq.464,  note.  A  request 
and  refusal  of  the  corporation  to  sue 
must  generally  be  shown,  or  a  suffi- 
cient excuse  for  failure  to  make  the 
request.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Board,  51  Kan.  617;  Latimer  v.  Rich- 
mond, etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  S.  C.  44,  17  S. 
E.  R.  258;  Whitney  v.  Fairbanks,  54 
Fed.  R.  985;  Weidinfelder  v.  Alle- 
gheny, etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Fed.  R.  11; 
Beshoar  v.  Chappell,  (Colo.),  40 
Pac.  R.  244.  Where  a  corporation  ex- 
pired by  limitation  in  its  charter,  but 
its  existence  was  continued  thereafter 
by  statute  for  the  purpose  of  winding 
up  its  business,  such  limitation  in  its 
charter  is  not  sufficient  ground  for 
bringing  a  suit  in  the  name  of  some 
of  the  stockholders  in  behalf  of  the 
corporation,  to  recover  its  property, 
where  no  application  has  been  made 
to  the  directors.  Taylor  v.  Holmes, 
127  U.  S.  489,  s.  c.  8  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1192. 
'Heath  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  8  Blatchf. 
(U.  S.)  347;  Dowd  v.  Wisconsin,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  65  Wis.  108;  Parrott  v.  Byers, 
40  Cal.  614;  Board,  etc.,  v.  Lafayette, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Ind.  85;  Currier  v.  N. 
Y.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Hun  (N.  Y.)  355; 


He  Oshkosh,  etc.,  Co.,  77  Wis.  366,  9 
L.  R.  A.  273,  and  note;  Miner  v.  Belle 
Isle  Ice  Co.,  93  Mich.  97,  17  L.  R.  A. 
412.  The  minority  stockholders  can 
not  enjoin  acts  of  the  majority  stock- 
holders or  directors  of  a  corporation 
in  relation  to  its  internal  manage- 
ment, such  as  executing  a  perpetual 
lease  of  its  railroad  and  franchises, 
where  the  acts  complained  of  are 
neither  fraudulent  nor  illegal.  And 
the  mere  fact  that  defendants  are  also 
the  majority  stockholders  and  officers 
of  the  corporation  to  which  the  pro- 
posed lease  is  to  be  made  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  establish  fraud.  Shaw  v. 
Davis,  (Md.),  28  Atl.  R.  619,  s.  c. 
23  L.  R.  A.  294.  Where  the  suit  is 
against  those  in  control  of  the  corpo- 
ration, no  request  that  they  shall 
bring  the  suit  is  necessary.  George 
v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  101  Ala.  607, 14 
So.  R.  752 ;  Sage  v.  Culver,  71  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  42;  Smith  v.  Dorn,  96  Cal.  73; 
Landis  v.  Sea  Isle,  etc.,  Co.,  (N.  J.) 
31  Atl.  R.  755.  See,  also,  Higgins 
v.  Lansingh,  154  111.  301,  40  N.  E.  R. 
362.  Where  a  majority  stockholder  of 
a  railroad  company  elects  and  controls 
its  board  of  directors,  and  obtains  a 
lease  of  its  railroad  at  a  nominal 
rental,  any  minority  stockholder  may 
sue  in  his  own  name  for  the  fraud 
committed  on  the  company.  Pondir  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.Co.,  72  Hun  (N.Y.) 
384 ,  Earle  v.  Seattle,  etc.,R.Co.,56  Fed. 
R.  909.  Where  it  is  merely  a  question 
of  corporate  policy,  and  no  question 
of  fraud  or  illegality  of  the  proposed 
action  of  the  corporation  is  raised. 


240 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  166 


defrauded.1  In  such  a  suit,  the  corporation  should  be  joined 
as  a  defendant,2  as  the  court  can  not  pass  upon  its  rights  un- 
less it  is  brought  into  court.  It  has  also  been  held  that  a 
stockholder  may  enjoin  the  performance  of  an  ultra  vires  con- 
tract to  which  all  the  other  stockholders  have  consented  al- 
though he  is  not  specially  injured  thereby.8 

§  166.  Unregistered  assignees  and  third  persons  can  not 
sue. — An  assignee  of  railroad  stock,  who  has  not  registered  his 
stock,  nor  obtained  recognition  as  a  stockholder,  can  not  bring 
suit  in  behalf  of  himself  and  other  stockholders  to  restrain  the 
officers  of  the  corporation  from  ultra  vires  and  illegal  acts.4 


equity  will  not  interpose  to  control 
the  action  of  directors  to  whom  the 
charter  confides  the  management  of 
corporate  affairs.  Ellerman  v.  Chicago 
Junct.  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  49  N.  J.  Eq.  217; 
Wheeler  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.,  143  111. 
197,  17  L.  R.  A.  818. 

1  Beach  v.  Cooper,  72  Cal.  99 ;  Put- 
nam v.  Ruch,  54  Fed.  R.  216.  A 
stockholder  may  bring  an  action  to 
enjoin  the  directors  from  unlawfully 
transferring  the  stock  to  a  consoli- 
dated corporation,  and  he  need  not 
consult  with  the  directors  with  refer- 
ence thereto.  Botts  v.  Simpsonville 
&  B.  C.  Turnp.  Co.,  88  Ky.  54,  2  L.  R. 
A.  594,  10  S.  W.  R.  134. 

2Kennebec.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Port- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Me.  173, 181 ;  Bag- 
shaw  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  7  Hare  114; 
Heath  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Blatchf.(TJ. 
S.)  347,  394;  Curran  v.  Arkansas,.  15 
How.  (U.S.)  304 ;  Brewer  v.  Boston 
Theater,  104  Mass.  378 ;  Cook  on  Stock 
and  Stockholders,  §  738,  and  numer- 
ous authorities  cited.  The  general 
rule  is  that  the  corporation  is  a  neces- 
sary party,  either  as  a  plaintiff  or  de- 
fendant. Zinn  v.  Mendel,  9  W.  Va. 
580;  Greaves  v.  Gouge,  52  How.  Pr. 
58,  s.  c.  69  N.  Y.  154;  Western  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Nolan,  48  N.  Y.  513 ;  Hersey  v. 
Veazie,  24  Me.  9,  s.  c.  41  Am.  Dec. 


364;  Davenport  v.  Dows,  18  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  626. 

3  Byrne  v.  Schuyler,etc.,Co.,(Conn.) 
31  Atl.  R.  833,  and  cases  cited. 

4  Brown  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 
Fed.  R.  889.     See,  also,  Heath  v.  Erie 
Ry.  Co.,  8  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  347;    Her- 
sey v.  Veazie,  24  Me.  9;    Ramsey  v. 
Erie  Ry.  Co.,  7  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.Y.) 
156.     But,  compare  Ervin  v.  Oregon, 
etc.,  Co.,  28  Hun  (N.  Y.)  269;  Parrott 
v.   Byers,   40  Cal.   614;    Bagshaw  v. 
Eastern,  etc.,   Ry.  Co.,  7   Hare  114; 
Moore  v.  Silver,  etc.,  Co.,  104  N.  C.  534, 
10  S.  E.  R.  679.      A  bill  to  enjoin  cor- 
porate    acts    which    does  not  allege 
fraud  on  the  part  of  the  directors,  or 
that  they  are  threatening  to  do  some 
act  ultra   vires   or  for  their  own  in- 
terests, in  a  manner  injurious  to,  or 
destructive    of,  the    rights  of    other 
shareholders,  and  that  the  plaintiffs 
have  made  an  earnest  effort  to  obtain 
redress  within  the  corporation  itself, 
is  insufficient  on  demurrer.     Latimer 
v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 S.  C.  44, 17 
S.  E.  258;    Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Board,  etc.,  51  Kan.  617;    Romans. 
Woolfolk,   98    Ala.   219.     But  where 
the  complaint  shows  that  a  rival  cor- 
poration has  secured  control  of  the 
company,   and  acts  of  itself  and  its 
officers  amounting  to  fraud  upon  the 


$  167  STOCKHOLDERS.  241 

Parties  who  never  paid,  or  agreed  to  pay,  anything  for  cor- 
porate stock  issued  to  them,  are  not,  ordinarily,  shareholders, 
and  can  not,  as  a  rule,  maintain  an  action  as  such.1  The  ex- 
pectant owner  of  stock  in  a  corporation,  before  becoming  a 
stockholder,  can  neither  be  heard  to  complain  of  acts  of  the 
corporation  which  may  be  ultra  vires,  nor  be  permitted  to 
interfere  in  any  way  in  the  affairs  of  the  company.8  To  en- 
able one  or  more  stockholders  to  maintain  in  a  federal  court 
of  equity,  a  suit  which  should  properly  be  brought  by  the  cor- 
poration itself,  they  must  show  that  they  were  shareholders  at 
the  time  of  the  transaction  complained  of,  or  that  the  shares 
have  devolved  on  them  since  by  operation  of  law.8 

§  167.   When  stockholders  may  sue  or  become  parties. — 

Stockholders  have  been  permitted  to  sue  on  behalf  of  the  cor- 
poration to  remove  a  cloud  from  the  corporate  title  to  real 
estate,*  and  to  compel  payment  of  subscriptions.5  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  stockholder  has  been  denied  the  right  to  sue  for 
a  trespass  upon  the  company's  property,6  and  he  can  not  take 

rights  of  plaintiff  are  stated,  the  com-  A  suit  removed  to  the  federal  court 

plaint  is  sufficient.     Earle  v.  Seattle,  from  a  state  court  will  not  be  dis- 

«tc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Fed.  R.  909.  missed  for  failure  to  comply  with  this 

1  Arkansas  River  Land,  T.  &  C.  Co.  rule  since    it    applies  only  to   suits 
v.  Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co.,  13  Colo,  originally  begun  in  the  federal  court. 
587,  22  Pac.  954;    Hinchley  v.  Pfister,  Earle  v.  Seattle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Fed. 
83  Wis.  64,  53  N.  W.  R.  21.-    See,  also,  R.  909.     Where  stock  was  transferred 
Busey   ».  Hooper,  35  Md.  15.     Pur-  merely  by  indorsement  and  not  by 
chasers  of  stock  have  the  right  to  de-  issuing    certificates,   the  stockholder 
mand  that  a  contract  of  the  corpora-  must  show  that  he  purchased  the  stock 
tion  be  canceled  on  the  ground  that  it  in  good  faith  and  not  for  mere  pur- 
is  ultra  vires,  and  a  wrongful  refusal  to  pose  of  vexation,  before  he  can  sue 
transfer  stock  on  the  books  of  the  for  redress  for  fraudulent  transaction 
company  can  not  defeat  that  right,  committed  by  officers  or  others  before 
Carson  v.   Iowa  City  Gaslight    Co.,  he  became  a  stockholder.    Moore  r. 
80  Iowa  638,  45  N.  W.  R.  1068.  Silver  Valley  Min.  Co.,  104  N.  C.  534, 

2  Mayer  v.  Denver,  T.  &  Ft.  W.,  R.  10  S.  E.  679. 

Co.,  (C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.)  38  Fed.  R.  *  Baldwin  v.  Canfield,  26  Minn.  43, 

197,  6  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  49.  56. 

8  Dimpfell  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  '  5  Wallworth  v.  Holt,  4  Mylne  &  Cr. 

U.  S.  209.     Rule  94,   U.  S.  Rules  of  619. 

Practice,  in  Equity  Cases,  104 U.  S.  IX.  6  Dale  v.  Grant,  34  L.  J.  142. 

CORP.  16 


242 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§167 


an  appeal  in  a  suit  which  it  has  lost.1  In  cases  involving  fraud 
and  collusion  he  must  move  promptly  to  assert  his  rights, 
upon  gaining  knowledge  of  the  wrongful  acts  complained  of, 
for  if  he  participates  or  acquiesces  in  unwarrantable  acts  of  the 
officers  or  of  a  majority  of  the  stockholders,  he  will  be  bound 
by  them  .2  He  will  not  be  permitted  to  wait  until  he  can  see  whether 
the  unauthorized  act  is  for  the  advantage  of  the  corporation, 
and  in  case  it  proves  disastrous  sue  to  set  it  aside.3  The 
fact  that  the  plaintiff  bought  his  stock  expressly  to  enable 
him  to  bring  the  suit  is  not  necessarily  a  ground  for  refusing 
relief.4  If  it  appears  that  the  plaintiff  is  prosecuting  the  suit 


1  Silk  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  27  N. 
J.  L.  539. 

2  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grayson, 
88    Ala.    572;     Burgess  v.  St.    Louis 
County  R.  Co.,  99  Mo.  496.     An  act 
not  expressly  prohibited  by  law,  but 
unauthorized  in  the  charter  of  the  cor- 
poration, which  affects  only  the  inter- 
ests of  the  stockholders,  may  be  made 
good  by  the  assent  of  the  stockhold- 
ers, so  as  to  protect  strangers  dealing 
with  them  in  good  faith.     Hollins  v. 
St.  Paul,  M.  &  M.  R.  Co.,  (Sup.  Ct.) 
29  N.  Y.  S.  R.  208,  8  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L. 
J.  117.     So,  a  purchaser  of  stock  with 
notice  that  it  was  voted  in  favor  of 
the  illegal  act  can  not  complain  of 
such  act.    Brown  v.  Duluth,  etc.,  Ry., 
53  Fed.  R.  889;  Wood  v.  Corry,  etc., 
Co.,  44  Fed.  R.  146;    Barr  v.  N.  Y., 
etc.,  R.  R.,  125  N.  Y.  263;  In  re  Syra- 
cuse, etc.,  R.  R.,  91  N.  Y.  1.     Several 
of  these  cases  apply  this  doctrine  even 
to  transferees  without  notice  of  the 
fraud,  but  in   Parsons  v.   Joseph,  92 
Ala.  403,  8  So.  R.  788,  its  application 
to  bona  fide  purchasers  is  denied. 

8  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fletcher, 
35  Kan.  236;  Burgess  v.  St.  Louis 
County  R.  Co.,  99  Mo.  496.  For  an 
instance  in  which  it  was  held  that  the 
stockholder  acted  with  sufficient 
promptness,  see  Byrne  v.  Schuy- 


ler,    etc.,    Co.,  (Conn.)    31   Atl.    R. 
833. 

4  Ramsay  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  8  Abb.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  N.  S.  174;  Young  v.  Drake,  8 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  61;  Winsor  v.  Bailey,  55- 
N.  H.  218;  Elkinsv.Camden,etc.,R.R. 
Co.,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  5 ;  City  of  Chicago  v. 
Cameron,  22  111.  App.  91,  Aff'd  12tt 
111.  447 ;  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stock- 
holders, §  736.  But  see  ante,  note 
3,  page  241,  and  Alexander  v. 
Searcy,  81  Ga.  536,  8  S.  E.  R.  630. 
The  fact  that  the  certificates  of  stock 
were  not  issued  to  him  until  after  a 
corporation  had  accepted  an  uncon- 
stitutional amendment  to  its  charter 
will  not  preclude  one,  having  a  vested 
right  to  stock  of  the  corporation  by 
virtue  of  stock  receipts,  from  enforcing 
his  rights  against  an  attempt  to  mis- 
appropriate funds  under  such  amend- 
ment. Hill  v.  Glasgow  R.  Co.  (C.  C. 
D.  Ky.)  41  Fed.  R.  610.  The  fact  that 
plaintiff  became  a  stockholder  after 
commission  of  the  acts  complained  of 
does  not  defeat  his  right  to  begin  the 
action,  which  is  brought  directly  for 
the  benefit  of  the  corporation.  City  of 
Chicago  v.  Cameron,  22  111.  App.  91, 
Aff'd.  in  9  West.  R.  507,  120  111.  447, 
11  N.  E.  899.  But  it  has  been  held 
that  where  the  transfer  is  merely 
nominal  the  transferee  can  not  main- 


§  167  STOCKHOLDERS.  243 

at  the  instance  and  for  the  benefit  of  others  who  are  not  stock- 
holders, and  who  indemnify  him  against  the  costs  of  the  suit, 
the  court  will  not  interfere  by  interlocutory  injunction.1  Nor 
will  it  readily  grant  this  extraordinary  relief  before  hearing, 
where  the  measures  are  of  evident  expediency,  and  have  the 
approbation  of  all  the  other  stockholders,  although  proper  re- 
lief will  not  be  denied  upon  final  hearing  if  the  acts  complained 
of  are  shown  to  be  ultra  vires.2  The  fact  that  a  rival  company 
merely  instigated  the  suit  is  not  a  reason  for  denying  relief  to 
which  the  stockholders  are  shown  to  be  entitled,3  although  the 
court  may  decline  to  entertain  a  suit  by  shareholders  in  such 
a  company  who  have  purchased  shares  in  the  rival  company 
for  purpose  of  litigation.*  And  in  cases  where  the  corporation 
neglects  or  refuses  to  defend  a  suit  because  of  fraud  and  collusion 
on  the  part  of  the  corporate  officers,  a  stockholder  may,  according 
to  some  authorities,  be  admitted  as  a  defendant,  and  allowed 
to  set  up  any  defenses  which  the  corporation  might  have  offered 
to  the  suit.5  But  other  authorities  hold  that  the  proper  means 
by  which  the  stockholders  should  protect  their  rights  is  to  file 
an  original  bill  in  equity  to  have  the  judgment  in  such  a  suit 
set  aside  for  fraud.6 

tain  the  suit.     McDonnell  v.  Grand  Mussina  v.  Goldthwaite,  34  Tex.  125; 

Canal  Co.,  3  Ir.  Ch.  R.  578;  Robson  v.  Graham  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  118 IT. 

Dodd,  L.  R.  8  Eq301.  S.  161 ;  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Tole- 

1  Filder  v.  London,  etc.,  R.Co.,  1  H.  do,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  67  Fed.  R.  49.    A 
&  Miller  489 ;  Forrest  v.  Manchester,  stockholder  can  not  defend  against  a 
etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  4  DeG.rF.  &  J.  126 ;  Bel-  suit  to  foreclose  a  mortgage  upon  its 
mont  v.  Erie  Ry.  Co.,  52  Barb.(N.Y.)  property  for  default  in  the  payment 
637;    Beshoar   v.   Chappell,   (Colo.),  of  interest  upon  the  ground  that  the 
40  Pac.  R.  244.     But  see  Dinsmore  v.  railroad  company  has  misapplied  its 
Central  R.  R.  Co., 19  Fed.  R.  153 ;  Sand-  earnings  in  order  to  bring  about  the 
ford  v.  Railroad,  24  Pa.  St.  378 ;  Cen-  default,    even    where    the    majority 
tral  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  40  Ga.  582.  stockholder   is  a  heavy  bondholder 

2  DuPont  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  and  desires  the  mortgage  foreclosed. 
18  Fed.  R.  467.  Farmers'  Loan  &  T.  Co.  v.  New  York, 

8Colman  v.  "Eastern  Counties  R.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Hun  213,  28  N.  Y. 

Co.,  10  Beav.  1.  Supp.  933;  Oelbermann  v.  New  York, 

«Ffooks  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Sup.  Ct.,  1894)  27  N.Y. 

Jur.  365.  Supp.  945. 

5  Koehler  v.  Black  River,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Blackman  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  58  Ga. 

2  Black  (U.  S.)  715;  Bayliss  ».  Lafay-  189;  Forbes  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

ette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Biss.  (U.  S.)  193;  2Woods(U.S.)323;  Kelley  v.Mississip- 


244  THE    CORPORATION.  §  168 

§  168.  Eight  to  recover  insurance. — Where  the  corporation 
neglects  to  properly  insure  its  property,  it  is  held  that  a  stock- 
holder may  insure  it  in  his  own  name,  and  may,  in  case  of  loss, 
recover  upon  such  a  policy  for  a  sum  which  will  make  up  any 
deficiency  in  the  amount  of  the  company's  insurance  necessary 
to  cover  his  interest.1  But  the  corporation  is  generally  held  to 
be  a  legal  entity  separate  and  apart  from  the  owners  of  its 
stock,  even  though  all  the  stock  belong  to  one  person.2  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  that  he  can  not  insure  as  absolute 
owner  of  the  property,3  whatever  may  be  the  rule  as  to  his 
qualified  interest  therein. 

§  169.  Other  rights  and  remedies  of  stockholders. — A  stock- 
holder may,  in  general,  contract  with  the  corporation  upon  the 
same  terms,  in  the  same- manner,  and  to  the  same  extent  that 
another  person  may.4  And  it  is  held  that  he  may  be  interested 
in  the  construction  company  to  which  a  corporate  contract  is 
given,  even  though  he  owns  a  majority  of  the  stock  and  thereby 
may  have  control.5  But  this  right  would  seem  to  be  held  sub- 
pi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Fed.  R.  564,  holding  of  a  corporation  have  the  same  right 
that  at  common  law  a  stockholder  can  to  purchase  its  property  and  take  pos- 
not  defend,  even  though  the  corpora-  session  thereof  that  strangers  would 
tion  is  in  no  position  to  do  so.  have,  during  the  pendency  of  a  suit  to 

1  Warren  v.  Davenport  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  forfeit  the  charter.  Havemeyer  v. 
31  Iowa  464;  Riggs  v.  Commercial  Superior  Ct.,  84  Cal.  327.  See,  also, 
Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  7.  See,  also,  Crymble  v.  Mulvaney,  (Colo.),  40 
Seaman  v.  Enterprise  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  18  Pac.  R.  499;  Merrick  v.  Peru 
Fed.'Rep.  250.  Coal  Co.,  61  111.  472;  Mickles  *. 

z  Button  v.  Hoffman,  61  Wis.  20.  Rochester  City  Bank,  11  Paige  (N.  Y.) 
See  Hopkins  v.  Roseclare,  etc.,  Co.,  118,  s.  c.  42  Am.  Dec.  103.  Stock- 
72  111.  373 ;  Newton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  White,  holders  in  a  corporation  may  purchase 
42  Ga.  148.  But  see  Swift  v.  Smith,  65  its  mortgage  bonds  and  enforce  pay- 
Md.  428,  where  it  is  held  that  a  per-  ment  in  the  usual  manner,  though  the 
son  owning  all  the  stock  may  bind  object  in  purchasing  the  bonds  was  to 
the  corporation  by  his  individual  acts,  cause  a  foreclosure  and  to  purchase 

8  See  Philips  v.  Knox,  etc.,  Ins.  the  property  at  the  sale.  Farmers' 
Co.,  20  Ohio  174;  Riggs  v.  Commer-  Loan  &  T.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
cial,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  19  J.  &  S.  (N.  Y.  Co.,  78  Hun  (N.  Y.)  213,  s.  c.  28  N. 
Super.  Ct.)  466.  Y.  Supp.  933.  See,  also,  Oelbermann 

4  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  N.  Y. 
12  Conn.  499,  509;  Central,  etc.,  R.  Supp.  945. 

Co.  v.  Claghorn,  1  Speers  Eq.  (S.  C.)        5 Porter  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Co.,  120 
545,  562.     It  is  held  that  stockholders    TJ.  S.  649,  670,  holding  that  the  mere 


§169 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


245 


ject  to  the  principle  which  is  now  firmly  established,  that 
where  a  majority  of  the  stockholders  assume  control  of  the  cor- 
poration, they  take  upon  themselves  the  trust  relation  oc- 
cupied by  the  corporation  toward  its  stockholders,1  and  are 
bound  to  equity  and  fair  dealing.2  Upon  this  principle 
depends  the  well  established  right  of  a  minority  stockholder  to 
have  set  aside  a  fraudulent  sale  of  the  corporate  property,  by  the 
majority  of  the  stockholders,8  or  by  the  directors,*  to  them- 
selves, or  a  fraudulent  sale  of  property  to  the  corporation  by 
them.5  He  may,  in  good  faith,  obtain  security  for  his  debt,6 
and  may  sue  or  be  sued  by  the  corporation  both  at  law  and  in 


fact  of  such  ownership  does  not  raise 
a  legal  inference  that  he  dominates 
the  board  of  directors. 

1  Ervin  v.  Oregon,  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  27 
Fed.    R.   625,   s.  c.    20  Fed.  R.  577, 
(Irvine.),  28  Fed.  R.  833.  See,  also, 
Miner  v.  Belle  Isle  Ice  Co.,  93  Mich. 
97,  s.  c.  17  L.  R.  A.  412. 

2  And  a  court  of  equity  will  review 
their  action   at  the  instance  of    the 
minority.     Menier  v.   Hooper's    Tel. 
Works,   L.  R.  9  Ch.  350;  Meeker  v. 
Winthrop,   etc.,   Co.,   17  Fed.  R.  48. 
See  Barr  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.   Co., 
96  N.  Y.  444. 

8ReilIy  v.  Oglebay,  25  W.  Va.  36; 
Mason  v.  Pewabic  Min.  Co.,  25  Fed. 
R.  882.  A  creditor  of  the  old  corpora- 
tion who  is  injured  thereby  may  have 
the  sale  set  aside  for  fraud.  San 
Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bee,  48  Cal. 
398. 

4  Jones  v.  Arkansas,  etc.,  Co.,  38 
Ark.  17;  Buell  v.  Buckingham,  16 
Iowa  284;  Hoyle  v.  Plattsburgh,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y.  314,  setting  aside  a 
purchase  by  a  director  at  a  sale  on 
execution.  The  director  can  hold 
property  of  the  corporation  which  he 
may  purchase  only  as  a  trustee  for 
the  corporation,  and,  on  being  repaid 
the  purchase-money,  he  must  make 
it  over  to  his  cestui  qne  trust.  Harts 


t>.  Brown,  77  111.  226 ;  Munson  v.  Syra- 
cuse, etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Hun  76,  103  N. 
Y.  58;  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bowler's  Ex'rs,  9  Bush  (Ky.)  468, 
holding  a  purchaser  from  the  director 
with  notice,  subject  to  the  same  liabil- 
ity as  his  vendor.  But  a  sale  to  a  syn- 
dicate of  which  a  director  is  a  mem- 
ber, if  made  in  good  faith  and  for  an 
adequate  price  will  not  be  set  aside. 
DuPont  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  18 
Fed.  R.  467 ;  Hill  v.  Nisbet,  100  Ind. 
341.  See  Ashhurst's  Appeal,  60  Pa. 
St.  290,  where  a  sale  to  a  director  was 
upheld.  But  where  the  sale  was  made 
to  the  directors  through  "dummies" 
the  corporate  creditors  can  not  have 
it  set  aside  after  the  lapse  of  a  long 
time,  even  though  made  for  an  inade- 
quate price.  Graham  v.  Railroad  Co.', 
102U.  S.  148. 

5  Where  a  director  fraudulently 
conveys  land  to  the  corporation, 
the  stockholder  should  not  sue  in 
equity  to  dissolve  the  corporation  on 
account  of  such  sale,  but  his  remedy 
is  in  an  action  by  the  corporation 
through  its  proper  agents,  or,  in  case 
they  refuse  to  sue,  then  by  the  stock- 
holder himself,  to  set  aside  the  fraudu- 
lent sale.  Tutwilerw.  Tuscaloosa  Coal, 
I.  &  L.  Co.,  89  Ala.  391,  7  So.  398. 

6Reichwald   v.   Commercial    Hotel 


246 


THE    CORPORATION. 


170 


equity.1  And  in  case  of  its  insolvency  he  may  be  competent 
and  qualified  to  act  as  its  receiver  or  assignee.2 

§  170.     Stockholders    as    agents    of  the   corporation. — A 

stockholder  can  not,  as  such,  bind  the  corporation  by  a  con- 
tract made  in  its  name,8  although,  of  course,  he  may  act  as  its 
agent  by  appointment.*  And  it  is  held  that  all  the  stockhold- 
ers in  meetings  assembled  can  not,  ordinarily,  make  a  valid 
contract,5  but  that  this  power  belongs  to  the  directors  or  to 
agents  acting  under  their  authority.6  Since  he  is  not  the  cor- 
poration nor  necessarily  its  agent,  a  stockholder's  admissions 
\vill  not  bind  it,7  and  service  of  process  upon  him  is  not  serv- 
ice upon  the  corporation.8 


Co.,  106  111.  439;  Foster  v.  Belcher's 
Sugar  Refining  Co.,  118  Mo.  238,  s.  c. 
24  S.  W.  R.  63. 

1  Waring    v.   Catawba  Co.,   2    Bay 
(S.  C.)  109;  Exparte   Booker,  18  Ark. 
338 ;  Sanborn  v.  Lefferts,  58  N.  Y.  179 ; 
Leonard  v.  Spencer,  108  N.  Y.  338: 
Wausau,     etc.,    Co.    v.    Plumer,    35 
Wis.  274.     A  stockholder  may  recover 
damages  for  an  injury  caused  by  the 
negligence  or  misconduct  of  the  cor- 
poration.  Morbachr.  Home  Min.  Co., 
53  Kan.  731,  37  Pac.  R.  122. 

2  Covert    v.    Rogers,  38  Mich.  363; 
Matter  of  BoweryBank,  16  How.  Pr.  56. 
But  a  stockholder  should  be  appointed 
only  with  the  consent  of  the  parties 
having  opposing  interests.     Atkins  v. 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Fed.  R.  161. 
A  corporate  officer  can  not  be  a  re- 
ceiver in  New  Jersey.     Freeholders  v. 
v.  State  Bank,  28  X."  J.  Eq.  166. 

3  Morelock    v.  Westminster  Water 
Co.,   (Md.)   4    Atl.    Rep.  404;    Mays 
v.  Foster,  13  Ore.  214,   10  Pac.  R.  17 ; 
Allemong  v.  Simmons,  124  Ind.   199 
(where  a    stockholder    and   director 
owning  most  of  the  stock  in  a  railroad 
company  made  a  contract  in  its  name 
which  was  held  invalid).    England  v. 


Dearborn,  141  Mass.  590; Central  Trust 
Co.  v.  Bridges,  57  Fed.  R.  753. 

4  Spear  t>.  Ladd,  11  Mass.  94.    The 
rule  has  been  held  to    be  the  same 
where  he  owns  all  the  stock.    Button 
v.  Hoffman,  61  Wis.  20.     But  the  con- 
trary is  held  in  Swift  v.  Smith,  65  Md. 
428. 

5  Conro  v.  Port  Henry,  etc.,  Co.,  12 
Barb.  27 ;  McCullough  v.  Moss,  5  Denio 
(N.  Y.)  567;  Gashwiler  v.  Willis,  33 
Cal.  11 ;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris, 
67  Tex.  692;    Humphreys  v.  McKis- 
sock,  140  U.  S.  304.    See  post  §§  236, 
249,  252. 

6  2  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§712. 

7  Mitchell  v.  Rome  R.  Co.,  17  Ga. 
574,  586;  Soperv.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
19  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  310;  Morrell  v.  Dix- 
field,  30  Me.  157;  Fail-field,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Thorp,  13  Conn.  173;  Magillw.  Kauff- 
man,  4  Serg.  &  Rawle  (Pa.)  317,  321. 
Excepting,  of  course,  where  he  is  act- 
ing as  agent  for  the  corporation  by  its 
athority  in  a  matter  which  it  has  en- 
trusted to  him.     Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Cahill,  18  Conn.  484;  American  Fur 
Co.  v.  United  States,  2  Pet.  (U.  S.)358. 

8Lillard  v.  Porter,  2  Head  (Tenn.) 


§171 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


247 


§  171.  Notice  to  stockholder. — Notice  to  an  individual  stock- 
holder is  not  notice  to  the  corporation.1  A  stockholder  is  not, 
ordinarily,  chargeable  with  knowledge  of  corporate  contracts,2 
or  entries  in  the  books  of  the  corporation,8  unless  his  relations 
are  such  as  to  render  it  reasonably  probable  that  he  had  actual 
knowledge  thereof.  In  the  latter  case,  of  course,  actual  knowl- 
edge may  be  inferred.*  It  has  also  been  held  that  a  stockholder 
is  not  chargeable  with  constructive  notice  of  the  corporate  by- 
laws ;5  but  this  is  certainly  not  the  general  rule. 

§  172.  Stockholders'  right  to  inspect  books. — A  stock- 
holder is  entitled  to  inspect  the  corporate  books  at  reasonable 
intervals,  either  in  person,6  or  by  an  expert  or  an  agent,  when 
he  is  too  ignorant  to  do  it  himself  intelligently.7  The  directors 


177;    DeWolf  v.  Mallett's  Adm'r,    3 
Dana  (Ky.)  214. 

1  Union  Canal  Co.  v.  Loyd,  4  Watts 
&  S.  (Pa.)  393;  Racine,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Joliet,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Fed.  R.  367.  See, 
also,  dissenting  opinion  in  City  of 
Logansport  v.  Justice,  74  Ind.  378, 
and  authorities  there  cited. 

2Tarbox  r.  Gorman,  31  Minn.  62; 
Baker  v.  Woolston,  27  Kan.  185,  189. 

3  Hill  v .  Manchester,  etc.,  Co.,  5  B. 
&  Ad.  866;  Rudd  v.  Robinson,  126  N. 
Y.  113.  But  see  Hamilton,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Iowa,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Iowa  364,  55  N. 
W.  R.  496. 

*  See  Bedford  R.  Co.  v.  Bowser,  48 
Pa.  St.  29.  In  Graff  v.  Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Pa.  St.  489,  495,  the 
court  holds  a  stockholder  bound 
by  an  entry  made  while  he  was 
present  and  assenting  to  it.  If  he 
is  also  a  director  he  is  as  fully 
chargeable  with  notice  of  entries  in 
the  books  as  a  partner  would  be  with 
entries  in  the  partnership  books. 
Montgomery  v.  Exchange  Bank,  (Pa.) 
6  Atl.  133;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Tis- 
dale,  18  Hun  151;  Aff'd  84  N.  Y. 
655.  Between  stockholders  the  books 
of  the  corporation  control  as  to  what 


it  has  done.  Hubbell  v.  Meigs,  50  N. 
Y.  480.  A  stockholder  is  an  integral 
part  of  the  corporation  to  the  extent 
that,  in  view  of  the  law,  he  is  privy 
to  the  proceedings  touching  the  body 
of  which  he  is  a  member.  Hawkins 
v.  Glenn,  131  U.  S.  319;  Lewis  v. 
Glenn,  84  Va.  947. 

6Pearsall  v.  Western  TJ.  Tel.  Co., 
44  Hun  (N.  Y.)  532,  s.  c.  on  appeal, 
124  N.  -Y.  256.  But  see  post,  §  192, 
contra. 

6  Commonwealth  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Pa.  Dist.  R.  115;  Dead- 
erick  v.  Wilson,  8  Baxt.  (Tenn.)  108; 
Angell  &  Ames  on  Corp.  (8th  ed.), 
§  681.  The  corporation  can  not  refuse 
stockholders  the  right  to  inspect  the 
transfer  books  simply  because  it 
would  be  inconvenient  to  grant  it,  nor 
because  a  by-law  required  the  transfer 
books  to  be  closed  thirty  days  before 
an  election.  State,  ex  rel.  Wilson,  v.  St. 
Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  29  Mo.  App.  301. 
See  State  v.  Laughlin,  53  Mo.  App.  542. 

'Phoenix  Iron  Co.  v.  Common- 
wealth, 113  Pa.  St.  563;  State  r.  Bien- 
ville,  etc.,  Co.,  28  La.  Ann.  204 ;  Ells- 
worth v.  Dorwart,  (Iowa)  63  N. 
W.  R.  588;  People  v.  Nassau  Ferry 


248 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§173 


can  not  exclude  a  member  from  this  right  because  his  motives 
in  making  the  inspection  are  hostile  to  the  interests  of  the  cor- 
poration,1 and  he  may  enforce  the  right  by  mandamus  if  it  is 
wrongfully  denied.2  The  writ  should  be  directed  to  the  officer 
or  person  having  the  custody  of  the  books.8 

§  173.  Stockholder  is  disqualified  to  serve  as  judge  or  juror 
where  corporation  is  interested. — A  stockholder  is  incompe- 
tent to  serve  as  a  judge,4  or  juror,5  in  a  case  to  which  the  cor- 


Co.,  33  N.  Y.  Supp.  244.  Such  a  pro- 
vision is  contained  in  the  statutes  of 
nearly  all  of  the  states.  Stimson's 
Am.  Stat.  Law  (1892),  §§8042,  8539. 
Under  Wis.  Rev.  Stat.,  §  1757,  which  is 
similar  to  the  statutes  of  most  of  the 
other  states,  it  is  held  that  a  stock- 
holder has  the  right  to  examine,  not 
only  the  books  containing  the  stock 
accounts,  but  those  containing  the 
general  accounts.  State  v.  Bergen- 
thal,  72  Wis.  314. 

1  State,  ex  rel.   Spinney,  w.  Sports- 
man's, etc.,  Ass'n,  29  Mo.  App.  326; 
People  v.  Throop,  12  Wend  (N.  Y.) 
183;  Commonwealth  v.  Phoenix  Iron 
Co.,  105  Pa.  St.  Ill,  s.  c.  51  Am.  R.  184 ; 
Regina  v.  Wilts,  etc.,  Canal  Naviga- 
tion Co.,  29  L.  T.  R.  (N.  S.)  922,  where 
the  shareholder  was  an  attorney,  who 
sought  to  make  the  inspection  in  the 
interest  of  his  clients,  who  were  in 
litigation  with  the  company.     But  see 
State,  ex  rel.  Rosenfeld,  v.  Einstein,  46 
N.  J.  L.  479;  Peoples  Walker,  9  Mich. 
328;   Lyon  v.   American    Screw  Co., 
16  R.  I.  472,  17  Atl.  R.  61 ;  People  v. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  R.  471. 
Nor  does  the  fact  that  he  requests  to 
see  some  of  the  books,  which  he  is 
not  entitled  to  see,  justify  a  refusal  to 
permit  him  to  inspect  those  which  he 
is  entitled  to  see.     Ellsworth  v.  Dor- 
wart,  (Iowa)  63  N.  W.  R.  588. 

2  People    v.    Lake  Shore,   etc.,    R. 
Co.,  11  Hun  1 ;  People  v.  Pacific,  etc., 


Co.,  50  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  280;  Common- 
wealth v.  Phoenix  Iron  Co.,  105  Pa. 
St.  Ill ;  Cockburn  v.  Union  Bank,  13 
La.  Ann.  289;  Merrill  on  Mandamus, 
§161.  A  stockholder  of  a  private  cor- 
poration, or  his  attorney  in  fact,  has  a 
right  to  inspect  the  books  and  records 
of  a  corporation  at  any  reasonable 
time,  without  giving  a  reason  there- 
for. His  remedy  is  mandamus.  Fos- 
ter v.  White,  86  Ala.  467,  6  Ry.  & 
Corp.  L.  J.  88.  Contra,  Investment 
Co.  v.  Eldridge,  2  Pa.  Dist.  R.  394. 
But  the  refusal  of  such  right  by  the 
secretary  is  not  of  itself  ground  for 
damages  against  the' corporation.  Le- 
gendre  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Ass'n,  45 
La.  Ann.  669. 

3  People  v.  Throop,    12  Wend.   (N. 
Y.)  183 ;  State  v.  Bergenthal,  72  Wis. 
314;  People  v.  Mott,  1  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  247. 

4  Dimes  v.  Prop,  of  Grand  Junction 
Canal,  3  H.  of.  L.  Gas.  759 ;  Peninsular 
R.  Co.  v.  Howard,  20  Mich.  18;  Cregin 
v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  349.    But  relationship  to  a  stock- 
holder does  not  disqualify.  Searsburgh 
Turn.  Co.  v.  Cutler,  6  Vt.  315;  Butler 
v.  Glens,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  N.  Y.  112. 

5  Page  v.  Contoocook  Valley  R.  Co., 
21   N.   H.  438;  Peninsular  R.  Co.  v. 
Howard,  20  Mich.  18;  Georgia  Rail- 
road v.  Hart,  60  Ga.  550,  where  a  stock- 
holder's son  was  also  held  incompe- 
tent.    See  2  Elliott's  Gen.  Pr.,  §  518. 


§  174  STOCKHOLDERS.  249 

poration  is  a  party,  and,  at  common  law,  is  incompetent  to 
testify  as  a  witness  in  such  a  case.1  But  many  of  the  states 
have  statutes  rendering  interested  parties  competent  as  wit- 
nesses, and  in  other  states  this  last  rule  may  usually  be  evaded 
by  a  transfer  of  the  shareholder's  stock.2  A  bona  fide  transfer 
of  the  stock  before  the  commencement  of  the  suit  has  been  held 
sufficient,  although  "the  debt  sued  for  existed  at  the  time  of 
the  transfer,  and  continued  to  exist  until  the  suit  was  brought."* 

§  174.  Unlawful  combinations  and  conspiracies  to  vote  or 
prevent  voting — Injunction. — Where  a  fraudulent  purpose  to 
vote  stock  in  a  particular  way,  and  thereby  to  control  the 
election  to  the  irreparable  and  permanent  injury  of  the  corpo- 
ration or  of  other  stockholders  is  shown,4  or  where  a  con- 
spiracy to  control  the  election  by  qualifying  others  to  vote 
stock  which  the  owner  is  not  authorized  to  vote;5  or  by  exclud- 
ing the  votes  of  certain  stockholders6  is  shown;  or  where  a  rival 
corporation  has  obtained  control  of  stock  by  ultra  vires  act,  and 
seeks  to  vote  it  to  the  injury  of  the  company's  interests,7  an 

1  Porter  ».  Bank  of  Rutland,  19  Vt.  who  owned  a  greater  number  of  shares 

410;  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irick,  23  than  any  one  person  is  permitted  to 

N.  J.  L.  321;  Rapalje  on  Witnesses,  vote.    In  re  Stranton,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R. 

§  77.  16  Eq.  559 ;  State  v.  Smith,  48  Vt.  266 ; 

2 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  People  v.  Kip,  4  Cowen  382,  note.  See 

§11.  ante,  §157. 

8  Rapalje  on  Witnesses,  §77,  citing  6Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elkins,  37 

Smith  *7.Tallassee,etc.,Co.,  30  Ala.650 ;  N.  J.  Eq.  273 ;  People  v.  Albany,  etc., 

Illinois  Mutual  Fire  Ins.  Co.  r.Marseil-  R.  Co.,  55  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  344,  where  it 

les,  etc.,  Co.,  6  111.  236 ;  Utica  Ins.  Co.  is  held  that  the  inspectors  may  be  en- 

v.  Cadwell,3Wend.  (N.  Y.)296;Union  joined  from    receiving   the  votes  of 

Bank  v.  Owen,  4  Humph.  (Tenn.)  338.  certain  stockholders  until  the  votes  of 

4  Reed  v.  Jones,  6  Wis.  680.    Ordi-  others  have  been  deposited.   Hafer  v. 

narily,,  however,  the  purpose  or  mo-  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Cincinnati 

tive  of  the  shareholder  is  immaterial  Super.  Ct.)  14  Week.  Law  Bui.  68. 

if  he  does  no  illegal  act.  7  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. Woods,  88 

5Webb«.Ridgely,38Md.364,where  Ala.  630,  s.  c.  7  L.  R.  A.  605,  where 

the  charter  permitted  a  single  stock-  the  rival  company  owned  a  majority 

holder  to  vote  only  twenty  shares,  of  the  stock  and  had  elected  its  own 

But  though  a  court  of  equity  may  do  directors  to  serve  as  directors  of  the 

so,  the  corporation  can  not  question  company    in    which    plaintiffs    were 

the  holder's  right  to  vote  because  the  interested,    Avho    used    their    power 

shares  were  transferred  to  him  by  one  against  the  interests  of  that  road,  the 


250  THE    CORPORATION.  §  174 

injunction  may  issue  to  restrain  the  holding  of  an  election  un- 
til further  order  of  the  court,1  or  to  restrain  the  offending 
stockholder  or  his  agents  from  voting  his  stock,8  or  a  particular 
portion  of  it,3  either  altogether,  or  until  the  petitioner's  rights 
have  been  protected.4  But  an  injunction  will  not  issue  to  pre- 
vent stockholders  holding  large  interests  from  gaining  control 
of  the  corporation,  by  legal  means,  because  they  will  probably 
misuse  their  power.5  Nor  can  the  right  to  vote  be  denied  be- 
cause of  the  alleged  wrongful  motives  of  the  holder  in  buying 
his  stock.6  And  it  is  perfectly  competent  for  stockholders 
owning  a  majority  of  the  stock  to  combine  and  elect  a  board  of 
directors,7  if  the  combination  is  formed  without  fraud.8  Where 
the  application  for  an  injunction  is  not  made  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  days  before  the  election  to  afford  the  defendants  an  oppor- 
tunity to  be  heard,  it  may,  as  a  rule,  be  summarily  dismissed.9 
But  where  the  persons  sought  to  be  enjoined  can  have  no  legal 
right  to  vote  any  stock  they  own,  or  in  the  case  of  a  rail- 
road owning  stock  in  a  rival  corporation,  there  may  be  reason 
for  issuing  an  injunction  restraining  them.10  And,  in  a  proper 
case,  the  court  may  order  that  an  election  shall  be  temporarily 

•defendant  company  and  all  persons  5  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elkins,  37 

representing  it  were  enjoined  from  N.  J.  Eq.  273.    One  stockholder  can 

voting  the  shares  of  stock  which  it  do  nothing  to  control  or  direct  the 

held.    Ante,  §  159.   See,  also,  Milbank  vote  of  another  stockholder.     Ryder 

v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  How.  Pr.  v.  Alton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  111.  516. 

(N.  Y.)   20;    George  v.   Central   R.,  6  Fender  v.  Lushington,  L.  R.  6  Ch. 

etc.,  Co.,  101  Ala.  607, 14  So.  R.  752.  D.  70.    Parties  who  are  interested  in 

1  People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  opposition  to  a  corporation  have  the 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  344.    But  an  injunction  right  to  purchase  its  stock  in  order  to 
forbidding  the  holding  of  an  election  defeat  a  contract  which  it  is  about  to 
at  all  is  void.  make.     Carson  v.  Iowa  City  Gaslight 

2  Memphis,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woods,  Co.,  80  Iowa  638,  45  N.  W.  R.  1068. 
88  Ala.  630,  s.  c.  7  L.  R.  A.  605.  7  Havemeyer  v.  Havemeyer.  86  N. 

8  Reed  v.  Jones,  6  Wis.  680;  Webb  Y.  618,  Aff'g  43  N.Y.  Super.  Ct.506; 

v.  Ridgely,  38  Md.  364.  Faulds  v.  Yates,  57  111.  416. 

4  Brown  v.  Pacific  Mail,  etc.,  Co.,  5  8  People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

Blatch.  (U.  S.)  525,where  the  defend-  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  344. 

ants  we*e  enjoined  from  participating  9  Hilles  v.  Parrish,  14  N.  J.  Eq.  380. 

in  any  election  unless  plaintiffs'  votes  10  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. Woods,  88 

were  received  thereat.  Ala.  630. 


§  175  STOCKHOLDERS.  251 

postponed,1  though  an  order  that  it  should  never  be  held  would 
be  erroneous.2  An  injunction  directed  against  the  voting  of 
particular  stock  may  cause  what  would  otherwise  be  the 
minority  to  become  the  majority,  and  so  change  the  result,  but 
it  will  not  prevent  the  holding  of  the  election.8  A  stockholder 
may  also  enjoin  the  directors  from  interfering  with  and  post- 
poning an  annual  election  and  thereby  extending  their  term.4 
Further  than  the  right  to  vote  in  the  management  of  corporate 
affairs,  the  stockholder  has  not,  during  the  continuance  of  the 
corporation,  any  direct  legal  interest  in  its  property.5 

§  175.   Liability  of  stockholders  for  unpaid  subscription. — 

A  stockholder  is,  of  course,  liable  to  the  corporation  for  any 
unpaid  balance  due  on  the  shares  for  which  he  has  subscribed, 
and  this  liability  may  be  enforced  in  a  proper  case  by  suit  in 
the  name  of  the  corporation,  or  in  equity  at  the  suit  of  any 
corporate  creditor  who  is  injured  by  its  non-payment,  upon  the 
insolvency  and  winding  up  of  the  corporation.6  And  one  who 
subscribes  or  takes  part  as  a  stockholder  after  the  corporation 
is  formed  is  estopped  to  deny  that  it  is  legally  incorporated, 
although  some  of  the  statutory  formalities  may  not  have  been 

1  People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  ration,  and  especially  the  unpaid  sub- 
Barb.  (N.Y.)  344;  Scholfieldv.  Union  scriptions,  constitute  a  trust  fund  for 
Bank,  2  Cr.  C.  C.  (U.  S.)  115.  the  benefit  of  the  creditors  of  the  cor- 

2  People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  poration.    Note  to  Thompson  v.  Reno 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  344.    "  Sav.  Bank,  3  Am.  St.  R.  797,  808,  et 

3  Brown  v.  Pacific  Mail,  etc.,  Co.,  5  seq.  ;  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
Blatch.  (U.  S.)  525.  §199.    Ante,  §§  90, 110.    Whereacon- 

*Elkins  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  solidation  between  two  corporations  is 

N.  J.  Eq.  467.  effected  under  a  law  providing  that 

5  Jones  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  all  the  property,  rights  of  action  and 
57  N.  Y.  196 ;    Granger  v.  Bassett,  98  other  interests  of   the  consolidating 
Mass.  462;  Goodwin  v.  Hardy,  57  Me.  companies  shall  rest  in  and  become 
143;  Burroughs  v.  N.  C.  R.  R.  Co.,  67  the  property  of  the  consoldated  cor- 
N.  C.  376;    Curry  v.  Woodward,    44  poration,  and  provides  that  stock  of 
Ala.  305;    Phelps  v.   Farmers',  etc.,  the  new  corporation  shall  be  issued  in 
Bank,  26  Conn.  269;  Lockhart  v.  Van  exchange  for  the  stock  of  the  corpo- 
Alstyne,  31  Mich.  76,  78 ;  Humphreys  rations  merged,  a  subscription  to  the 
v.  McKessock,  140  U.  S.,  304  S.C.,  11  stock  of  one  of  the  old  corporations 
Sup.  Ct.  R.  779.  becomes  assets  for  the  payment  of  the 

6  The  courts  of  America  generally  debts  of  the  new  corporation.    Hamil- 
hold  that  the  capital'stock  of  a  corpo-  ton  v. Clarion,  etc.,  R. Co., 144  Pa.St.  34. 


252 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§175 


complied  with.1  But  one  who  merely  subscribes  to  a  prelimi- 
nary agreement  to  take  stock  after  the  corporation  is  formed  is 
usually  entitled  to  insist  upon  the  regular  organization  of  a 
legal  corporation,  and  if  he  does  not  by  subsequent  acts  acqui- 
esce in  the  mode  of  incorporation,  recognize  it  as  a  legal  cor- 
poration or  in  any  way  act  as  a  stockholder,  he  is  not  estopped 
to  deny  his  liability  as  such,  where  the  incorporation  is  defective 
and  invalid.2  Ordinarily,  subscriptions  are  required  to  be  paid 
in  money;  but  where  the  state  law  allows  subscriptions  to  be 
paid  in  property,  the  transfer  of  property  in  payment  of  shares 
made  in  good  faith  at  an  honest  valuation  entitles  the  owner  to 
hold  his  shares  as  fully  paid  up  even  against  creditors  of  the 
corporation  in  the  event  of  its  insolvency.3  So,  it  is  held  that 
a  bona  fide  purchaser  of  stock  in  open  market,  where  the  cer- 
tificate, on  its  face,  purports  to  be  fully  paid  up  and  non-assess- 
able, is  not  liable  for  assessments,  although,  in  fact,  it  was 
not  fully  paid.4  An  unpaid  subscription  may  be  collected  in 

1  Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav.  Bank,  19 
Nev.  103,  s.  c.  3  Am.  St.  R.  797,  and 
note;  Cravens  v.  Eagle  Cotton  Mills, 
120  Ind.  6,  s.  c.  16  Am.  St.  R.  298; 
Dutchess,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis,  14  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  238,  s.  c.  7   Am.   Dec.   459; 
Hicklingr.  Wilson,  104  111.  54  ;Casey  v. 
Galli,  94  U.  S.  673 ;  Clarke  v.  Thomas, 
34  Ohio  St.  46;  Hamilton  v.  Clarion, 
etc.,  Co.,  144  Pa.  St.  34,  23  Atl.  R.  53; 
Upton  v.  Hansbrough,  3  Biss.  (U.  S.) 
417 ;  Anderson  v.  Newcastle,  etc.,R.  R. 
Co.,  12  Ind.  376,  s.  c.  74  Am.  Dec.  218 ; 
Slocum  v.  Warren,  10  R.  1. 112  and  116 ; 
Chubb  v.  Upton,  95  U.  S.  665 ;  1  Cook 
on  Stock  and    Stockholders,   §§  184, 
185 ;  Taylor  Priv.  Corp.,  §  738. 

2  Dorris  v.  Sweeney,  60  N.  Y.  463 ; 
Reed  v.  Richmond  St.  R.  R.  Co.,  50 
Ind.   342;    Indianapolis,  etc.,    Co.  v. 
Herkimer,  46  Ind.  142;  Capps  &  Mc- 
Creary  v.  Hastings,  etc.,  Co.,  40  Neb. 
470,  24  L.  R.  A.  259 ;  Fairview,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Spillman,  23  Ore.   587;    Richmond 
Factory  Ass'n  v.  Clarke,  61  Me.  351 ; 
Taggart  v.  Western  'Md.  R.  R.  Co.,  24 


Md.  563 ;  note  to  Parker  v.  Thomas,  81 
Am.  Dec.  392 ;  1  Morawetz  Priv.  Corp., 
§49. 

3  Grant  v.  East.  &  West.  R.  Co.,  etc., 
54  Fed.   R.  569.     Ante,  §  91.     Where 
the  property  was  transferred  to  the 
corporation  at  an  overvaluation  and 
accepted    by    a    board    of    directors 
chosen  by  the  votes  of  the  subcribers, 
it  was  held  that  the  pretended  pay- 
ment for  the    stock  subscribed  was 
fraudulent,  and  that  the  subscriber 
could  be  compelled  to  pay  the  differ- 
ence between  the  actual  value  of  the 
property  and  the  par  value  of  the  stock. 
Lloyd  v.  Preston,  146  U.  S.  630.     See, 
also,  Boulton  Carbon  Co.  v.  Mills,  78 
Iowa  460,  s.  c.  5  L.  R.  A.  649. 

4  Rood  v.  Whorton,  67  Fed.  R.  434, 
and  authorities  there  cited ;  Handley 
v.  Stutz,  139  U.  S.  417,  s.  c.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R. 
530;  Young  v.  Erie  Iron  Co.,  65  Mich. 
Ill,  s.  c.  31  N.  W.  R.  814.     See,  also, 
Hospes  v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.,  48 
Minn.  174,  s.  c.  15  L.  R.  A.  470;  First 
Nat,   Bank    v.  Qustin,   etc.,   Co.,   42 


176 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


253 


payment  of  damages   for  a  tort  the  same   as   for  a  contract 
debt.1 

§  176.  Release  of  stockholder — Withdrawal. — This  liability 
is  one  from  which  the  stockholder  can  not  claim  release  after 
the  corporation  has  become  insolvent,  in  cases  where  such  re- 
lease was  not  legally  ascertained  and  established  before  such 
insolvency.2  And  he  can  only  be  released  from  a  liability  not 
induced  by  fraud  on  the  part  of  the  corporation  by  the  unani- 
mous consent,  express  or  implied,3  of  all  the  other  stockholders.* 
Even  a  majority  of  the  stockholders  can  not  withdraw  and 
refuse  to  proceed.5  A  cancellation  of  the  subscription,  even 
where  made  with  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  other  stock- 
holders, may  be  impeached  and  set  aside,  in  a  proper  case,  by 


Minn.  327,  s.  c.  6  L.  R.  A.  676.  But 
compare  Howe  a.  Illinois,  etc.,  Works, 
46  111.  App.  85. 

1  Powell  v.  Oregonian  Railway,  36 
Fed.  R.  726,  38  Fed.  R.  187;  Grindle 
v.  Stone,  78  Me.  176,  s.  c.  4  East.  R. 
€23. 

2  He  can  not  then  rescind  his  contract 
of  subscription  for  fraud  of  the  com- 
pany's agents  in  obtaining  it.     Kent 
•v.   Freehold,   etc.,   Co.,   L.  R.  3  Ch. 
App.  493 ;   Turner  v.  Grangers',  etc., 
Ins.  Co.,  65  Ga.  649 ;  Ruggles  v.  Brock, 
6  Hun  (N.  Y.)  164;  Saffold  v.  Barnes, 
39  Miss.  399;  Duffield  v.  Barnum,  etc., 
Works,  64  Mich.  293,  s.  c.  31  N.W.  310 ; 
Chubb  v.  Upton,  95  U.  S.  665 ;  Farrar 
r.  Walker,  13  Nat.  Bankr.  Reg.  82. 
And  the  company  can  not  agree  to  a 
rescission  to    the    detriment  of    the 
creditors'      interests.      Vick     v.    La 
Rochelle,  57  Miss.  602 ;  Gill  v.  Balis,  72 
Mo.  424;  Zirkel  v.  Joliet,  etc.,  Co.,  79 
111.  334;  Burke  v.  Smith,  16  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  390. 

3  Knowledge  and    acquiesence    for 
years  will  bind  a  stockholder  who  did 
not  know  of  the  release  before  it  was 
effected.    Evans  v.  Smallcombe,  L.  R. 


3  H.  L.  249;  Stuart  v.  Valley  R.  Co., 
32  Gratt.  (Va.)  146.  Retaining  and 
using  benefits  arising  from  a  cancella- 
tion of  the  subscription  will  prevent 
the  corporation  and  the  stockholders 
from  objecting  to  the  release.  Miller 
v.  Second,  etc.,  Ass'n,  50  Pa.  St.  32. 

4  Lake  Ontario  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mason, 
16  N.  Y.  451,  463;  Gulf  Coast,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Neely,  64  Tex.  344;  Selma,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Tipton,  5  Ala.  (N.  S.)  787; 
Garrett  v.   Dillsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 
Pa.  St.  465;  Miller  v.  Hanover,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  87  Pa.  St.  95,  s.  c.  30  Am. 
R.  349;   Johnson  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,16Ind.  389;  Pacific  Fruit  Co. 
v.  Coon,  (Cal.)  40  Pac.  R.  542. 

5  Busey  v.  Hooper,  35  Md.  15.     A 
tender  of  payment  for  stock  and  re- 
fusal   on    the   part  of  the  corporate 
officers  to  accept  the  same  is  no  de- 
fense in  an  action  by  corporate  cred- 
itors for  the  unpaid  balance  due  ou 
such  stock,  after  the  corporation  has 
become    insolvent,    where    the    sub- 
scriber continued  an  active  member 
of  the  corporation  after  such  tender 
and  refusal.    Potts  v.  Wallace,  140  U. 
S.  689. 


254 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§176 


any  corporate  creditor  injured  thereby.1  Any  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  corporation  to  release  a  subscriber  from  liability 
will  be  subjected  to  rigid  scrutiny  by  a  court  of  equity,  at  the 
instance  of  corporate  creditors,2  and  will  only  be  upheld  where 
the  release  is  fairly  and  honestly  made  for  a  valuable  con- 
sideration.3 Neither  the  board  of  directors  of  the  corporation,* 
nor  any  officer,5  has  power  to  agree  with  a  subscriber  that  his 
subscription  shall  be  cancelled,  unless  such  power  is  given  by 
charter  or  statute,  or  by  the  by-laws  of  the  company;  and  en- 
tries caused  by  them  to  be  made  in  the  books  of  the  company 
showing  a  release  will  be  disregarded.6  The  money  refunded 
for  calls  paid  before  such  an  attempted  release  may  be  re- 
covered at  the  suit  of  any  stockholder,  by  a  bill  in  equity,  and 


1  Vick  v.  La  Rochelle,  57  Miss.  602 ; 
Farnsworth  v.  Robbins,  36  Minn.  369, 
s.  c.  31  N.  W.  349 ;  Appeal  of  Miller, 
1  Pennypacker  (Pa.  Sup.  Ct.)  120;  2 
Thomp.  Corp.,  §§  15, 17.    But  in  Eng- 
land it  is  held  the  creditor  can  obtain 
nothing  but  what  the  company  is  enti- 
tled to  get  from  the  shareholders.   In 
re  Dronfleld,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  17  Ch. 
Div.  76. 

2  Sawyer  v.  Hoag,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
610;  County  of  Morgan  v.  Allen,  103 
U.  S.   498;    Putnam  v.  City  of  New 
Albany,  4  Biss.  (U.  S.)  365;  Upton  v. 
Hansbrough,  3  Biss.  (U.  S.)  417,  425; 
In  re  South   Mountain,   etc.,  Mining 
Co.,  7  Sawyer  (U.  S.)  30;  Union  Ins. 
Co.   v.  Frear,   etc.,  Co.,  97  111.  537; 
Thompson  v.  Meisser,    108    111.    359; 
Chisholm  v.  Forny,  65  Iowa 333 ;  Good- 
win v.  McGehee,  15  Ala.  232 ;  Gill  v. 
Balis,  72  Mo.  424. 

3  This    is  the    rule    in  the  federal 
courts.     New  Albany    v.    Burke,    11 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  96 ;    Burke  v.  Smith,  16 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  390;    Potts  v.  Wallace, 
146  U.  S.  689.    And  is  followed  in  the 
Illinois  courts.     Zirkel  v.  Joliet,  etc., 
Co., -79  111.  334. 

4  Bedford  R.  Co.  v.  Bowser,  48  Pa. 
St.  29;  Ryder  v.  Alton,  etc.,  R.  Co., 


13  111.  516;  Jewett  v.  Valley  R.  Co., 
34  Ohio  St.  601 ;  White  Mts.  R.  Co.  c. 
Eastman,  34  N.  H.  124;  Tuckerman  v. 
Brown,  33  N.  Y.  297;  Rider  v.  Morri- 
son, 54  Md.  429;  Lafayette,  etc.,  Corp. 
».  Ryland,  80  Wis.  29,  49  N.  W.  R.  157 ; 
Inre  London,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  Div. 
525 ;  Thomas'  Case,  L.  R.  13  Eq.  437. 

5  Cartmell's  Case,  L.  R.  9  Ch.  691. 

6  The  general  manager  of  a  corpora- 
tion, who  is  also    its    largest  stock- 
holder, secretary  and  treasurer,  can 
not    release  a  stockholder  from  his 
contract  by  charging  off  balance  due 
on  the  books  for    unpaid    calls  and 
crediting  sums  already  paid,  where 
no  attempt  is  made  to  transfer  the 
shares,  although  the  manager  secures 
new  subscriptions  as  substitutes  there- 
for, and  both  parties  at  the  time  be- 
lieve that  he  has  authority  to  release 
old  contracts  and  substitute  new  ones ; 
and  the  fact    that    an  over-issue  of 
stock  will  result  on   account  of  the 
new  subscriptions  unless  there  is  a 
cancellation  of   earlier  subscriptions, 
will  not  justify  such  invalid  cancella- 
tion.    Cartwright    v.    Dickinson,    88 
Tenn.  476,  12  S.  W.  1030,  7  L.  R.  A. 
706. 


§  177  STOCKHOLDERS.  255 

the  subscriber's  liability  upon  his  cancelled  subscription  may 
be  established.1  If  loss  accrues  to  the  corporation  by  reason  of 
the  improper  cancellation  of  a  subscription  by  the  directors, 
they  may  be  held  personally  liable  for  such  loss.2 

§  177.  Compromises  with  stockholder. — But  the  corporate 
authorities  may  compromise  a  subscription  debt,  as  they  may 
other  debts,  if  there  be  a  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the  liability  of 
the  subscriber,*  or  if  he  be  insolvent,4  where  it  is  done  in  good 
faith.  If  there  be  no  real  controversy,  the  compromise  will 
not  be  binding.5  It  has  been  held,  however,  that  where  a  sub- 
scriber fails  to  pay  his  subscription  or  to  act  as  a  stockholder, 
the  corporation  may  treat  his  subscription  as  abandoned  and 
permit  others  to  fill  it.6  It  has  also  been  held  that  one  sub- 
scription may  be  substituted  for  another  upon  request  of  the 
parties  where  a  regular  transfer  of  shares  is  not  yet  possible.7 

§  178.  Liability  where  stock  is  transferred. — An  original 
subscriber  can  not,  however,  by  a  transfer  of  his  stock,  dis- 

1  Melvin  v.  Lamar  Ins.  Co.,  80  111.  man,  28  Pa.  St.  318.    A  receiver  can 
446;    South    Bend  Toy,  etc.,   Co.  n.  not  be  empowered  by  a  court  of  equity 
Pierre,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  4  S.  Dak.  173,  56  to  compromise  a  subscription,  unless 
N.  W.  R.  98.     A  secret  agreement  by  all  the  subscribers  are  parties  to  the 
which  the  officers  of  the  corporation  suit  in  connection  with  which  he  is 
agree  that  the  subscriber  shall  not  be  appointed.     Chandler  v.    Brown,    77 
compelled  to  pay  for  his  subscription,  111.  333. 

but  shall  be  permitted  to  withdraw  5  Phosphate,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Green,  L. 

when  he  chooses,  is  invalid  and  does  R.  7  C.  P.  43 ;  Spackman  v.  Evans,  L. 

not  affect  the    subscription  nor  the  R.  3  H.  L.  171,  188,  231 ;  Livingstone 

subscriber's  liability.    Great  Western  v.  Temperance,  etc.,  Society,  17  Ont. 

Tel.  Co.  v.  Haight,  49  111.  App.  633.  App.  379,  s.  c.  31  Am  &  Eng.  Corp. 

2  Bank  of  St.  Mary's  v.  St.  John,  25  Gas.  541. 

Ala.566;Hodgkinsonfl.Nat'l,etc.,Co.,  6  Perkins  v.    Union,    etc.,   Co.,   12 

26  Beav.  473.    It  seems  that  the  sub-  Allen  (Mass.)  273.  See,  also,  2Thomp. 

scriber  may  set  up  this  fact  as  a  de-  Corp.,  §§1530, 1535. 

fense.     Southern  Hotel  Co.  v.  New-  7To  make  a  valid  substitution,  the 

man,  30  Mo.  118.  signature  of  the  first  subscriber  must 

3  Bath's  Case  L.  R.  8  Ch.  Div.  334;  be  erased  and  that  of  his  substitute 
Lord  Belhaven's  Case,  3  DeG.,  J.  &  S.  inserted.     Rydert?.  Alton,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
41.     See  Whitaker  v.  Grummond,  68  13  111.  516.  See,  also,  1  Cook  on  Stock 
Mich.  249,  s.  c.  36  N.  W.  62;  New  Al-  and  Stockholders,  §62,  and  compare 
bany  v.  Burke,  11  Wall.  (U.  S.)  96.  Cartwright  v.  Dickinson,    88    Tenn. 

4  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hick-  476,  12  S.  W.  Rep.  1030;  Hawkins  v. 


256  THE    CORPORATION.  §  179 

charge  himself  from  liability  for  unpaid  installments  without 
the  consent  of  the  corporation  ;  and  where  he  does  transfer  on 
the  books  of  the  company  as  required  by  its  by-laws,  a  receiver 
of  the  company,  or  assignee  in  bankruptcy,  on  its  becoming 
insolvent,  may  recover  from  him  the  unpaid  installments 
already  due.1  But,  as  a  general  rule,  in  most  jurisdictions, 
upon  a  valid  transfer,  duly  registered,  the  transferee  succeeds 
to  all  the  rights  and  liabilities  of  the  transferer,  and  becomes 
liable  in  his  place  for  future  calls  and  indebtedness.2  If  the 
transfer  is  not  registered,  the  transferer  will  usually  continue 
liable,  both  to  the  corporation  and  to  its  creditors.3 

§  179.  When  creditors  may  enforce  unpaid  subscriptions — 
Judgment  and  execution  against  corporation. — Subscriptions 
to  the  capital  stock  of  railroad  corporations  are  most  commonly 
disputed  when  an  attempt  is  made  to  call  them  in  to  liquidate 
claims  after  corporate  insolvency  has  occurred.4  Under  such 
circumstances,  it  is  the  practice  of  the  courts  to  rigidly  enforce 
the  payment  of  the  unpaid  subscriptions  for  the  accumulation 
of  a  fund  with  which  to  pay  corporate  debts.  But  these  un- 
paid subscription  balances  are  not  the  primary  fund  for  the 
payment  of  corporate  liabilities.5  The  corporate  property  must 

Mansfield,  etc.,  Co.,  52  Cal.  513;  Cole-  2  Webster  v.  Upton,  91  U.  S.  65,  70; 

man  v.  Spencer,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.)  197.  Hartford  &  N.  H.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Boor- 

1  Hood  v.    McNaughton,  54   N.   J.  man,  12  Conn.  530;  Tucker  v.  Gilman, 

Law  425;  Upton  v.  Tribilcock,  91  U.  121   N.   Y.   189;  Angell  &   Ames  on 

S.  45.     Some  cases  hold  that  a  stock-  Corp.,    §    534;    Taylor    Priv.  Corp., 

holder  can   not  by    transferring  his  §§586,587,747;  1  Beach.  Priv.  Corp., 

stock  relieve  himself  from  liability  for  §  126. 

debts     already    accrued.      Voight  v.  3  Richmond  v.  Irons,  121  U.  S.  27; 

Dregge,  97  Mich.  322;  Glenn  v.  Hunt,  Dane  v.  Young,  61  Me.  160;  Shelling- 

120  Mo.  330,  25  S.W.  Rep.  181 ;  Nenney  ton  v.  Rowland,  53  N.  Y.  371 ;  Plumb 

v.  Waddill,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  244,25  v.    Bank,    48  Kan.  484;    Kellogg  v. 

>.    W.    Rep.    308;  Commercial   Nat.  Stockwell,  75  111.  68;   Bell's  Appeal, 

Bk.  v.  Gibson,  37  Neb.  750.    Others  115  Pa.  St.  88. 

hold  that  he  is  relieved  of  such  lia-  *  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

bility  unless  the  transfer  was  fraudu-  §  166. 

lently  made  to  an  insolvent  purchaser  sl  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

for    the     purpose    of    escaping    lia-  §  200.     A  stockholder  can  not  set  off 

bility.     Van   Demark  v.   Barons,  52  his  claim  as  a  creditor  against  his  lia- 

Kan.  779;  Closer.  Brady,  24   N.  Y.  bility  as  a  stockholder,  but  must  share 

Supp.  567,  4  Misc.  R.  474.  with  the  other  creditors,  as  he  is  not 


§179 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


257 


first  be  exhausted,  or  it  must  be  made  to  appear  that  such 
property  is  so  inadequate  for  the  payment  of  corporate  debts  as 
to  establish  insolvency,1  before  a  creditor  is  permitted  to  resort 
to  them.  The  general  rule  in  most  jurisdictions  is  that  a  cred- 
itor's suit  to  enforce  payment  of  unpaid  subscriptions  can  be 
maintained  only  after  a  judgment  at  law  has  been  obtained 
.against  the  corporation  and  an  execution  issued  thereon  has 
T^een  returned  unsatisfied.2  This  remedy,  however,  need  not 
ordinarily  liable  in  excess  of  his  obli-  lough,  1  Denio.  (N.  Y.)  414;  Cleve- 


gation  to  pay  in  full  for  his  stock. 
Boulton  Carbon  Co.  v.  Mills,  78  Iowa 
460,  6  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  417;  Tama 
Water  Power  Co.  v.  Hopkins,  79  Iowa 
653.  The  liability  of  a  stockholder 
should  not  be  enforced  on  a  judgment 
against  a  corporation,  where  there  are 
other  judgment  debtors  whose  prop- 
erty subject  to  execution  could  satisfy 
the  judgment.  Burch  v.  Taylor,  1 
Wash.  245,  24  Pac.  Rep.  438.  An  at- 
tachment against  a  corporation  can 
not  be  levied  on  the  individual  prop- 
erty of  natural  persons  composing  it. 
State  v.  Marshall,  69  Miss.  486. 

1  Terry  v.  Tubman,  92  U.  S.   156; 
Hedges  v.  Silver  Hill,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Ore. 
200;  Samainego  v.  Stiles,  20  Pac.  Rep. 
(Ariz.)  607 ;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Greene, 
64    Iowa  445;    Cleveland  v.    Marine 
Bank,  17  Wis.  545.     Corporate  bank- 
ruptcy has  been  held  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  the  inability  of  the  corpora- 
tion to  pay  a  corporate  debt  to  justify 
an  action  by  creditors  to  enforce  sub- 
scriptions.     State    Savings   Assn.   v. 
Kellogg,  52  Mo.  583;    Shellington  v. 
Rowland,  53  N.  Y.  371 ;  Terry  v.  An- 
derson, 95  U.  S.  628,  636. 

2  Terry  v.    Anderson,  95  U.   S.  628, 
636;  Walser  v.  Seligman,  21  Blatch. 
(U.  S.)  130;  Bank,  etc.,  v.  Dallam,  4 
Dana  (Ky.)  574;  Wetherbee  v.  Baker, 
35  N.    J.  Eq.  501;  Cutright  v.   Stan- 
ford, 81  111.  240;  Freeland  v.  McCul- 

CORP.    17 


land  v.  Burnham,  55  Wis.  598 ;  Baxter 
v.  Moses,  77  Me.  465 ;  note  to  Thomp- 
son v.  Reno  Sav.  Bank,  3  Am.  St. 
Rep.  797,  814.  This  should  be  a  per- 
sonal judgment  pronounced  by  the 
courts  of  state  in  which  the  corpora- 
tion exists.  Patterson  v.  Lynde,  112 
111.  196;  Bayliss  v.  Swift,  4o"lowa648, 
Rocky  Mt.,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Bliss,  89  N. 
Y.  338;  Murray  ».  Vanderbilt,  39 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  140,  147;  Barclay  v. 
Talman,  4  Edw.  Chan.  (N.  Y.)  123; 
Bank,  etc.,  v.  Adams,  1  Pars.  Eq. 
(Penn.)  534.  Some  states  by  statute 
require  the  remedy  against  the  corpo- 
ration to  be  exhausted  before  resort 
is  had  to  the  property  of  the  stock- 
holders. Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892), 
§  8143,  citing  statutes  of  Maine,  Penn- 
sylvania, Iowa,  Minnesota,  Kansas, 
Maryland,  Missouri,  Texas,  Florida. 
Only  a  judgment  and  an  unsatis- 
fied execution  exhausts  the  legal 
remedy.  Rocky  Mountain  Nat.  Bk. 
v.  Bliss,' 89  N.  Y.  338;  Brice  v.  Mun- 
ro,  5  Can.  L.  T.  (Ont.)  130.  See, 
also,  Priest  v.  Essex,  etc.,  Co.,  115 
Mass.  380;  Shellington  v.  Rowland, 
53  N.  Y.  371;  Dauchy  v.  Brown,  24 
Vt.  197;  Wehrman  v.  Reakirt,  1  Cin. 
Super.  Ct.  230 ;  Thornton  v.  Lane,  11 
Ga.  459;  New  England,  etc.,  Bank  v. 
Newport  Steam  Factory,  6  R.  I.  154. 
Contra,  in  Marion,  etc.,  Co.  ».  Nor- 
ris,  37  Ind.  424;  Shafer  v.  Moriarty, 


258  THE    CORPORATION.  §  180 

be  pursued  where  the  corporation  has  formally  dissolved,1  and 
has  no  funds  with  which  to  pay  the  corporate  debts.2  And  the 
unpaid  subscription  in  such  a  case  may  be  reached  by  the  gen- 
eral creditors,  although  the  corporate  property,  rights,  privi- 
leges and  franchises  are  covered  by  mortgage  to  secure  another 
creditor.8 

§  180.  Effect  as  against  stockholder  of  judgment  against 
the  corporation. — Such  a  judgment,  where  the  court  has  juris- 
diction, is  generally  held  conclusive  against  the  stockholders 
as  to  the  validity  and  amount  of  the  creditor's  claim,  unless 
impeached  for  fraud  or  collusion.4  And  it  was  held  in  a  re- 
cent case,  where  the  plaintiff  had  recovered  a  judgment  against 
the  corporation  in  an  action  for  damages  for  waste,  that  a 
judgment  against  a  corporation  for  the  recovery  of  money  is 
conclusive  evidence,  in  a  suit  against  a  stockholder  for  the  col- 
lection of  said  judgment,  of  the  existence  of  the  corporation 
and  its  liability  to  plaintiff  therein  as  thereby  determined;  and 
such  judgment,  whether  given  in  an  action  ex  contractu  or 

46  Ind.  9;    Sleeper  v.   Goodwin,  67  *  Powell  v.   Oregonian    R.    Co.,  36 

Wis.  577;   Bird  v.  Calvert,  22  S.  Car.  Fed.   R.   726;  Wilson  v.   Pittsburgh, 

292.  etc.,  Coal  Co.,  43  Pa.  St.  424;  Henry 

1  Kincaid  v.  Dwinelle,  59  N.  Y.  548.  v.  Vermillion,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  17  Ohio 
See  Remington  v.  Sarnana  Bay  Co.,  187;  Milliken  v.  Whitehouse,  49  Me. 
140  Mass.  494,  to  the  effect  that  a  judg-  527;  Hampson  v.  Weare,  4  Iowa  13; 
ment  against  a  corporation,  recovered  Grand  v.  Tucker,  5  Kan.  70;  Hawes  v. 
after  the  corporation   has   been  dis-  Anglo-Saxon  Petroleum  Co.,  101  Mass, 
solved,   is  void;  and  see  authorities  385;   Marsh  v.   Burroughs,  1  Woods, 
cited  in  23  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law  (tl.  S.)  463;  Bissit  v.  Kentucky  River 
887.  Nav.  Co.,  15  Fed.    R.  353,  and  note 

2  Creditors  will  not  be  required  to  360.   See,  also,  Hawkins  v.  Glenn,  131 
await  the  collection  of  doubtful  claims  U.   S.  319,   s.   c.  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  739; 
or   claims  in  litigation.    The  stock-  Glenn  v.  Liggett,  135  U.  S.  533,  s.  c.  10 
holders  must  pay  promptly,  and  take  Sup.  Ct.  R.  867 ;  Conklin  v.  Furman,  8 
upon    themselves  the  onus  of  delay  Abb.Pr.N.S.(N.Y. )  161;  Slee  v.  Blooin, 
and  risk  as  to  all  such  cases.  Moses  v.  20  Johns.  (N.Y.)  669;  Stephens  v.  Fox, 
Ocoee  Bank,  1  Lea.  (Tenn.)  398,  413;  83  N.  Y.  313.    The  last  of  the  cases 
Stark  v.  Burke,  9  La.  Ann.  341,  343.  hold  that  it  is  sufficient  evidence  of 
But  see  Younglove  v.  Kelly,  etc.,  Co.,  these  facts  where  not  disproved.  This 
49  Ohio  St.  663,  33  N.  E.  Rep.  234.  doctrine  has  been    denied  in    New 

3  Dean    v.    Biggs,  25   Hun    (N.Y.)  York.    Slee  v.  Bloom,  5  Johns.  Ch. 
122.  (N.   Y.)    366,  reversed  in  20  Johns- 


§181 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


259 


ex  delicto,  is  an  indebtedness  of  the  corporation,  for  which  a 
stockholder  is  liable  to  the  amount  due  on  his  stock.1  But  in. 
some  jurisdictions  the  stockholder  is  permitted  to  disprove  the 
claim  when  a  judgment  is  sought  to  be  enforced  against  him,2 
and  the  judgment  amounts  only  to  prima  facie  evidence,8  of 
the  creditor's  right  to  money  due  the  corporation  for  subscrip- 
tions. It  has  also  been  held  that  a  judgment  against  a  cor- 
poration is  merely  a  step  to  fix  the  liability  of  stockholders, 
and  does  not  merge  it  or  stand  in  the  way  of  any  discovery  or 
relief  which  would  otherwise  be  proper  to  enforce  that  lia- 
bility.4 

§  181.  Stockholder's  defense. — The  stockholders  may  be 
admitted  to  defend  a  suit  brought  against  the  corporation  for 
the  purpose  of  charging  them  on  their  individual  liability, 
and  the  court  will,  in  a  proper  case,  relieve  the  corporation 
from  a  default  and  permit  them  to  carry  on  the  litigation.5  Of 
course,  the  judgment  does  not  even  tend  to  prove  that  the  per- 


669,  supra.  Moss  v.  McCullough,  5 
Hill  (N.  Y.)  131,  reversed  7  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  279;  Strong  v.  Wheaton,  38  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  616;  Miller  v.  White,  50  N. 
Y.  137 ;  McMahon  v.  Macy,  51  N.  Y. 
155.  But  this  point  did  not  properly 
arise  in  the  last  two  cases,  and  Strong 
v.  Wheaton  professes  to  be  based  on 
the  authority  of  5  Hill  131,  supra. 

1  Powell  v.  Oregonian  R.  Co. ,6  Ry. 
&  Corp.  L.  J.  28,  38  Fed.  R.  187 
A  judgment  on  a  claim  for  damages  for 
waste  becomes  an  indebtedness  of 
the  corporation,  whether  the  claim  for 
damages  was  an  "indebtedness" 
under  the  Oregon  constitution  or  not ; 
and  the  stockholder  is  liable  for  such 
debt  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  un- 
paid on  his  stock.  Powell  v.  Oregon- 
ian R.  Co.  (C.  C.  D.  Or.)  36  Fed.  R. 
726,  3  L.  R.  A.  201. 

2 QuickC.  Lemon,  105111.578;  Hawes 
v.  Anglo  Saxon,  etc.,  Co.,  101  Mass. 
385;  Merchants'  Bank  v.  Chandler,  19 
Wis.  434;  Grund  v.  Tucker,  5  Kan.  70; 


Grand  Rapids  Sav.  Bank  v.  Warren, 
52  Mich.  557 ;  Neilson  v.  Crawford,  52 
Cal.  248.  See,  also,  Rood  v.  Whorton, 
67  Fed.  R.434. 

3  It  has  been  held  that  the  stock- 
holder may  set  up  any  defense  that 
was  open  to  the  corporation  and  put 
the  creditor  to  strict  proof  of  his  claim, 
a  second|time.  Moss  v.  McCullough, 
and  cases  following,  supra;  Chase  w. 
Curtis,  113  U.  S.  452;  Chestnuts.  Pen- 
nell,  92111.  55.  Cases  of  this  kind  may 
be  found  depending  upon  the  peculiar 
language  of  statutes  holding  the  cor- 
poration liable  for  debts  in  the  first 
instance,  if  not  promptly  paid.  Trippe 
v.  Huncheon,  82  Ind.  307;  South- 
mayd  v.  Russ,  3  Conn.  52;  Bailey  v. 
Bancker,  3  Hill  (N.  Y.)  188. 

4Newberry  v.  Robinson  (C.  C.  8.  D. 
N.  Y.)  41  Fed.  R.  458,  7  Ry.  &  Corp. 
L.  J.  396. 

8  Peck  v.  New  York,  etc.,  S.  S.  Co., 
3  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  622. 


260 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  182 


son  sued  as  a  subscriber  or  stockholder  is  liable  as  such,  and  he 
.may  offer,  with  some  exceptions,  the  same  defenses  that  he 
could  offer  to  a  suit  by  the  corporation  itself.1  But  it  is  gen- 
erally held  that  any  fraud  on  the  part  of  the  corporation2 or  its 
officers8  is  not  available  as  a  defense  to  the  claims  of  a  corpo- 
rate creditor  who  gave  credit  on  the  faith  of  the  subscription 
and  who  was  not  a  party  to  such  fraud  and  had  no  knowledge 
of  it.  And  secret  agreements  by  which  the  corporation  con- 
tracted that  the  defendant  should  not  be  liable  for  the  unpaid 
balance  of  his  subscription  can  not  be  pleaded  as  such  de- 
fense.4 

§  182.   Methods  of  enforcing  stockholder's  liability. — The 

subscriber  is  liable  to  garnishment,  in  common  with  any  other 
corporate  debtor,  for  unpaid  calls  that  have  been  made  by  the 
company.5  And  it  has  been  held  that  he  may  be  sued  at  law 


1 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§  210.  In  a  suit  by  the  assignee  of  a 
judgment  against  a  corporation 
brought  against  the  stockholders,  the 
assignee  must  show  that  he  paid  a 
valuable  consideration  for  the  judg- 
ment assigned.  Wilson  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  Mo.  45,  25  S.  W.  R. 
527,  759. 

2  Howard  v.  Glenn.,  85  Ga.  238,  s.c. 
11  S.  E.  R.  610;   Turner  v.  Grangers', 
etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  65  Ga.  649;  Tennent  v. 
City  of  Glasgow   Bank,  L.  R.  4  App. 
Cas.  615;  Stone  v.  City,  etc.,  Bank,  L. 
R.3C.P.Div.282;  Oakes  v.  Turquand, 
L.  R.  2  H.  L.  325;  Ruggles  v.  Brock,  6 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  164 ;  Saffold  v.  Barnes,  39 
Miss.  399;    Chubb  v.  Upton,  95  U.  S. 
665,  667.    But  see  Savage  v.  Bartlett, 
(Md.),  28  Atl.  R.  414. 

3  In  re  Republic  Ins.  Co.,  3  Biss.  (  U. 
S.)  452. 

4  Such  an  agreement  is  held  to  be 
fraud    at    law    upon    the    corporate 
creditors.      Scovill   v.  Thayer,  105  U. 
S.  143;  Sagory  v.  Dubois,  3  Sandf.  Ch. 
R.    (N.  Y.)   466,  499;   Upton  v.  Trib- 


ilcock,  91  U.  S.  45 ;  Chubb  v.Upton,  95 
U.  S.  665 ;  Flinn  v.  Bagley,  7  Fed.  R. 
785;  Hickling  v.  Wilson,  104  111.  54; 
Northrop  v.  Bushnell,  38  Conn.  498; 
Eyerman  v.  Krieckhaus,  7  Mo.  App. 
455.  An  agreement  operating  among 
and  against  stockholders  only  for  an 
apportionment  of  their  several  stock 
liabilities  is  good  and  is  contrary 
neither  to  law  or  public  policy.  Win- 
ston v.  Dorsett  Pipe  &  P.  Co.,  27  111. 
App.  546. 

5  Simpson  v.  Reynolds,  71  Mo.  594 ; 
Curry  v.  Woodward,  53  Ala.  371 ;  Hays 
v.  Lycoming,  etc.,  Co.,  99  Pa.  St.  621 ; 
Rand  r.  White  Mts.  R.  Co.,  40  N.  H. 
79;  Brown  v.  Union  Ins.  Co.,  3  La. 
Ann.  177;  Faull  v.  Alaska,  etc.,  Min. 
Co.,  8  Sawyer  (U.  S.)  420;  note  to 
Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav.  Bank,  3  Am. 
St.  R.  797,  806.  But  unpaid  subscrip- 
tions for  which  no  calls  have  been 
issued  can  not  be  reached  in  this  way. 
Bingham  v.  Rushing,  5  Ala.  403 ; 
Bunn's  Appeal,  105  Pa.  St.  49 ;  Brown 
v.  Union  Ins.  Co.,  3  La.  Ann.  177; 
McKelvey  v.  Crockett,  18  Nev.  238; 


§  182 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


261 


by  a  corporate  creditor  for  unpaid  calls,  and  that  he  is  liable 
to  a  judgment  for  the  full  amount  due  on  such  calls.1  But  the 
remedy  most  commonly  resorted  to  and  the  one  most  favored 
by  the  courts,  is  by  bill  in  equity.2  And  it  has  been  said  that 
no  one  creditor  can  assume  that  he  alone  is  entitled  to  what 
any  stockholder  owes,  and  sue  at  law  so  as  to  appropriate  it 
exclusively  to  himself.8  Such  a  bill  should  be  filed  by  so 
many  creditors  as  may  wish  to  bring  suit,*  in  favor  of  any  or 


Meints  v.  East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  89 
111.  48;  Hughes  v.  Oregonian  R.  Co., 
11  Oreg.  158. 

1  Allen  v.  Montgomery   R.  Co.,  11 
Ala.  437;   Freeman  v.  Winchester,  18 
Miss.  577;    Bank,   etc.,  v.  Dallam,  4 
Dana  (Ky.)  574;  McCarthy  v.  Lavas- 
che,  89  111.  270;  Faull  v.  Alaska,  etc., 
Min.  Co.,  8  Sawyer  (U.  S.)  420. 

2  Christensen  v.  Eno,  106  N.  Y.  97, 
100 ;  Shickle  v. Watts,  94  Mo.  410,  s.  c.  7 
S.W.  274 ;  Ward  v.  Griswoldville,  etc., 
Co.,  16  Conn.  593;  Dalton,etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.   McDaniel,    56    Ga.   191 ;  German- 
town,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitler,  60  Pa.  St. 
124;    Allen  v.   Montgomery,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  11  Ala.  437;  Henry  v.  Vermillion, 
etc.,  Turnp.  Co.,  17  Ohio  187;  Craw- 
ford v.  Rohrer,  59  Md.  599;  Adlerw. 
Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co., 13  Wis.  57 ;  Hick- 
ling  v.  Wilson,  104  111.  54 ;  Harmon  v. 
Page,  62  Cal.  448;    Ogilvie  v.  Knox 
Ins.  Co.,  22  How.  (U.  S.)  380;  Hatch 
v,  Dana,   101  U.   S.   205;  Holmes  v. 
Sherwood,  16  Fed.  R.  725;  Louisiana 
Paper  Co.  v.  Waples,  3  Woods  (U.  S.) 
34;  Faull  v.  Alaska,  etc.,  Min.  Co.,  8 
Sawyer  (U.  SO  420.     A  creditors'  bill 
is  a  proper  remedy  for  enforcing  per- 
sonal liability  of  stockholders.     Stutz 
v.  Handley  (C.  C.  M.  D.  Tenn.)  7  Ry. 
&   Corp.   L.  J.  407,  41  Fed.    R.  531. 
Such  a  bill  can  not  be  maintained  to 
enforce  a  stale  claim.     Wilson  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  Mo.  45,  894, 
25  S.  W.  527,  759. 

8  Patterson  v.  Lynde,  106  IT.  S.  519. 


It  seems  to  be  a  settled  rule  in  the 
United  States  Courts  that  unpaid  sub- 
scriptions can  be  reached  by  a  corpo- 
rate creditor  in  a  court  of  equity  only. 
Brown  v.  Fisk,  23  Fed.  R.  228.  Some 
states  provide  by  statute  that  the  only 
remedy  to  enforce  the  payment  of  a 
debt  of  a  corporation  against  the  in- 
dividual stockholders  thereof  shall  be 
by  bill  in  chancery.  Stimson's  Am. 
Stat.  (1892),  §8143,  citing  the  laws  of 
New  Hampshire,  Pennsylvania  and 
Maryland.  Many  of  the  courts  hold 
a  bill  in  equity  to  be  the  creditor's  only 
means  of  reaching  unpaid  subscrip- 
tions. Jones  v.  Jarman,  34  Ark.  323 ; 
Erickson  v.  Nesmith,  15  Gray  (Mass.) 
221 ;  Smith  v.  Huckabee,  53  Ala.  191 ; 
Umsted  v.  Buskirk,  17  Ohio  St.  113; 
Hodges  v.  Silver  Hill  Min.  Co.,  9  Ore. 
200.  Even  where  the  general  equita- 
ble remedy  by  creditor's  bill  has  been 
abolished  by  statute,  the  right  to  pro- 
ceed herein  by  suit  in  equity  has  been 
held  to  exist.  Adler  v.  Milwaukee, 
etc.,  Co.,  13  Wis.  57.  An  action  at 
law  can  not  be  maintained  by  a 
creditor  of  a  corporation,  under  Wash. 
Code,  §  2434,  against  a  stock  sub- 
scriber, for  the  unpaid  portion  of  his 
subscription.  Burch  v.Taylor,  1  Wash. 
245,  24  Pac.  438. 

*  Crease  v.  Babcock,  10  Mete.  (Mass.) 
525 ;  Patterson  v.  Lynde,  106  U.  S.  519. 
Several  creditors  can  not  bring  sepa- 
rate suits  but  the  first  properly  framed 
bill  takes  precedence,  and  another 


262 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§183 


all  creditors  that  may  choose  to  come  in  and  establish  their 
claims,1  and  should  be  directed  against  the  corporation  itself,8 
and  all  solvent  subscribers  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court 
whose  subscriptions  are  not  fully  paid,  excepting  such  as  are 
unknown.8 

§  183.  Contribution. — The  creditors  are  under  no  obligation 
to  see  that  the  payments  made  by  the  subscribers  are  propor- 
tionally equal,  but  a  court  of  chancery  will  compel  payment  of 
so  much  of  the  unpaid  subscriptions  of  the  stockholders  that 
are  before  it  as  may  be  necessary  to  pay  the  corporate  debts.* 


creditor's  suit  may  be  enjoined. 
Fiercer.  Milwaukee  Construction  Co., 
38  Wis.  253. 

1  Morgan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
10  Paige  (N.  Y.)  290;  Umsted  v.  Bus- 
kirk,  17  Ohio  St.  113 ;  Crease  v.  Bab- 
cock,  10  Mete. (Mass.)  525;  Wetherbee 
v.  Baker,  35  N.  J.  Eq.  501 ;  Coleman  v. 
White,  14  Wis.  700;  Terry  v.  Little, 
101  U.  S.  216.    Even  if  the  bill  was 
not  filed  for  the  benefit  of  all  creditors 
choosing  to  come  in  and  share  the  ex- 
pense, any  creditor  has  a  right  to  es- 
tablish his  claim  under  it  and  share 
pro  rata  in  the  distribution  of  the  as- 
sets. Turnbull  v.  Prentiss  Lumber  Co., 
55  Mich.   387;   Walker  v.   Crain,    17 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  119.    See,  also,  Wright 
v.  McCormack,  17  Ohio  St.  86;  Adler 
v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Wis.  57. 

2  Walser  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 
Fed.  R.  152 ;  Mann  v.  Pentz,  3  N.  Y. 
415;  Wetherbee  v.  Baker,  35  N.  J.  Eq. 
501.  Where  the  corporation  is  beyond 
the  jurisdiction  or  is  defunct  it  need 
not  be  made  a  party.   Walser  v.  Selig- 
man,  21  Blatch.  (U.  S.)  130;  Wellman 
v.  Rowland,  etc.,  Works,  19  Fed.  R. 
51. 

8  Walser  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 
Fed.  R.  152;  Vick  v.  Lane,  56  Miss. 
681 ;  Erickson  v.  Nesmith,  46  N.  H. 
371;  Umsted  v.  Buskirk,  17  Ohio  St. 
113;  Pierce  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  38 
Wis.  253.  All  need  not  be  originally 


made  parties,  according  to  the  author- 
ity of  some  cases,  but  the  stockholders 
against  whom  the  suit  is  directed  may 
bring  in  those  not  made  parties  by 
cross-bill  and  thus  enforce  contribu- 
tion. Hatch  v.  Dana,  101  U.  S.  205. 
See,  also,  Ogilvie  v.  Knox  Ins.  Co.,  22 
How.  380;  Glenn  v.  Williams,  60  Md. 
93;  Grifiith  v.  Mangam,  73  N.  Y.  611; 
Brundage  v.  Monumental,  etc.,  Co., 
12  Ore.  322;  Lamar  Ins.  Co.  v.  Gulick, 
102  111.  41 ;  Von  Schmidt  v.  Hunting- 
ton,  1  Cal.  55.  Some  cases  hold  that 
judgment  can  not  be  rendered  against 
part  of  the  delinquent  subscribers  un- 
less it  affirmatively  appear  that  the 
others  are  insolvent  or  beyond  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  court.  Wood  v. 
Dummer,  3  Mason  (U.  S.)  308;  Bone- 
witz  v.  Van  Wert  Co.  Bank,  41  Ohio 
St.  78 ;  Marsh  v.  Burroughs,  1  Woods 
463.  See  Erickson  v.  Nesmith,  46  N. 
H.  371;  Beach  on  Priv.  Corp.,  §700. 
Bui  this  rule  may  well  be  doubted. 
See  Hatch  v.  Dana,  101  U.  S.  205. 
Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders  (2d 
ed.,  §206. 

4  Pentz  v.  Hawley,  1  Barb.  Chan. 
(N.Y.)122;  Marsh  v.  Burroughs,  1 
Woods  (U.  S.)  463 ;  Evans  ^.Coventry, 
25  L.  J.  Chan.  489.  But  actual  sub- 
scribers are  not  liable  for  that  part  of 
the  capital  stock  which  was  never 
subscribed.  Evans  v.  Coventry,  supra. 


§  183 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


263 


The  stockholder  may,  however,  in  general,  have  the  other 
stockholders  within  the  jurisdiction  joined  as  defendants,1  in 
which  case  contribution  may  be  enforced  in  the  original  suit.2 
Or,  if  he  is  compelled  to  pay  more  than  his  proportion  of  the 
debts  of  the  company,  he  may  maintain  a  suit  against  his  co- 
stockholders  for  contribution.3  The  fact  that  the  creditor  is 
himself  a  stockholder  and  delinquent  in  making  payments  on 
his  stock  does  not  prevent  him  from  recovering  against  other 
delinquent  subscribers  in  a  suit  to  enforce  payment  of  a  judg- 
ment obtained  by  him  against  the  corporation.  But  he  must 
contribute  ratably  with  the-other  stockholders  to  the  payment 
of  the  amount  due  him.*  It  is  held  that  a  part  of  the  stock- 
holders may,  in  a  proper  case,  file  a  bill  in  equity  upon  their 
own  account,  making  the  corporation  a  party,  to  enforce  the 
payment  of  unpaid  balances  of  subscriptions,  for  the  payment 
of  corporate  indebtedness,  and  for  contribution,  even  before  a 
creditor's  bill  has  been  filed.5 

'Holmes  v.  Sherwood,  3  McCrary 
405 ;  Umsted  v.  Buskirk,  17  Ohio  St. 
113;  Hodges  v.  Silver  Hill  Min.Co.,  9 
Ore.  200;  Masters  v.  Rossie,  etc.,  Co., 
2  Sandf.  Ch.  301;  N.  Y.  Code  of  Civil 
Procedure,  §§  1791-1794. 

'Millaudon  v.  New  Orleans, etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Rob.  (La.)  488;  Matthews  v. 
Albert,  24  Md.  527 ;  Wincock  v.  Tur- 
pin,  96  111.135;  Stewart  v.  Lay,  45 
Iowa 604 ;  Hadley  v.  Russell,  40  N.  H. 
109 ;  Stover  v.  Flack,  30  N.  Y.  64  ; 
Umsted  v.  Buskirk,  17  Ohio  St.  113; 
Farrow  v.  Bivings,  13  Rich.  Eq.  (S. 
C.)25;  Gray  v.  Coffin,  9  Gush.  fMass.) 
192;  Marsh  v.  Burroughs,  1  Woods 
(U.S.)  463;  Holmes  v.  Sherwood,  3 
McCrary  405 ;  Button's  Case,  3  DeG.  & 
Sm.  262;  Brinham  tf.Wellersburg  Coal 
Co.,  47  Pa.  St.  43,  where  it  is  said  that 
the  right  to  contribution  in  Pennsyl- 
vania is  purely  statutory. 

*  Wilson  v.'  Kiesel,  9  Utah  397,  35 
Pac.  R.  488.  >  See,  also,  Thompson  v. 
Reno  Sav.  Bank,  19  Nev.  103,  s.  c.  3 
Am.  St.  R.  797. 

6  Fiery  v.  Emmert,  36  Md.  464. 


1  Hatch  v.  Dana,  101  U.  S.  205.  The 
iact  that  creditors  of  a  corporation 
have  released  one  stockholder  from 
his  liability  is  of  no  concern  to  another 
stockholder  unless  his  liability  has 
been  thereby  increased,  and  he  is 
still  liable  on  his  subscription  to  the 
capital  stock.  Howard  v.  Glenn,  85 
•Ga.  238,  11  S.  E.  610.  A  creditor  of  a 
corporation  may  bring  individual 
action  at  law  against  one  of  the  stock- 
holders to  recover  to  the  amount  of 
his  entire  pro  rata  liability,  notwith- 
standing that  he  has  compromised 
with  other  stockholders,  especially 
where  the  offer  to  compromise  was 
made  to  all  with  notice  that  if  not  ac- 
cepted the  creditor  would  claim  his 
full  legal  rights.  Hall  v.  Klinck,  25 
S.  C.  348,  60  Am.  R.  505.  A  com- 
promise decree  making  an  offer  of 
terms  of  settlement  to  all  alike  who 
are  liable  on  stock  of  an  insolvent 
corporation  does  not  release  those 
who  do  not  accept  it  from  their  lia- 
bility on  the  stock.  Hambleton  v. 
Glenn,  72  Md.  351,  20  Atl.  115. 


264  THE    CORPORATION.  §  184 

§  184.  Suits  by  assignees  and  receivers. — In  case  the  corpo- 
ration has  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  receiver  or  an  assignee  it 
is  the  duty  of  such  receiver1  or  assignee2  to  collect  the  unpaid 
subscriptions  necessary  for  the  payment  of  the  debts  of  the 
corporation,  and  the  creditors'  right  to  proceed  directly  against 
the  delinquent  shareholders  is  usually  suspended  during  the 
time  it  remains  in  his  hands.3  A  receiver  represents  the  cred- 
itors as  well  as  the  shareholders  and  corporation,  and  may,  as 
such  representative  and  as  an  officer  of  the  court,  disaffirm 
illegal  and  fraudulent  transfers  of  corporate  property  and  re- 
cover its  misapplied  funds  and  securities,4  although  he  can  not, 
ordinarily,  enforce  a  subscription  which  the  corporation  could 
not  have  enforced  at  the  time  of  his  appointment.5 

§  185.  Statutory  liability  of  stockholders. — In  several  of 
the  states  a  corporation  creditor  may,  upon  the  dissolution  of 
a  railroad  corporation  without  payment  of  his  debt,  sue  the 
stockholders  individually  and  recover  the  whole  debt,  leaving 
the  stockholder  paying  it  to  his  action  against  the  other  stock- 
holders for  contribution.6  Other  states  provide  by  statute  that 

1  Andrews  v.  Bacon,  38  Fed.  R.  777 ;    yer  v.  Hoag,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  610, 621 ; 
Dayton  v.  Borst,  31  N.  Y.  435;  Frank    Chubb  v.  Upton,  95  U.  S.  665;  Payson 
v.  Morrison,  58  Md.  423 ;  Mean's  Ap-    v.  Stoever,  2  Dill  (U.  S.)  427. 

peal,  85  Pa.  St.  75;  Chandler  v.  Brown,  3See  Franklin  v.  Menown,  10  Mo. 

77  111.  333;  note  to  Germantown,  etc.,  App.   570.      But    the    creditors    may 

Ry.  Co.  v.  Fitler,  100  Am.  Dec.  551.  Un-  compel  the  receiver  to  act  for  them  in. 

der  the  English  Railway  Companies  collecting  unpaid  subscriptions.   Stark 

Act  of  1867,  a  receiver  has  no  such  v.  Burke,  9  La.  Ann.  341;  Rankine  v. 

power.     In   re   Birmingham,  etc.,  R.  Elliott,  16  N.  Y.  377 ;  Atwood  v.  R.  I, 

Co.,  L.  R.  18  Ch.  Div.  155.  Agric.  Bank,  1  R.  I.  376. 

2  Tobey  v.  Russell,  9  R.  1. 58 ;  Clarke  *  Attorney-General  v.  Guardian, etc.,. 
v.  Thomas,  34  Ohio  St.  46;  Stewart  v.  Co.,  77  N.  Y.  272;  Davis  v.   Gray,  1ft 
Lay,  45  Iowa  604 ;  Phoenix,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wall.  (U.  S.)  203,  218 ;   Graham  But- 
Badger,   67  N.   Y.   294;   Shockley  v.  ton  Co.r.Spielmann,  50  N.J.Eq.  120,24 
Fisher,   75  Mo.   498;   Vanderwerken  Atl.  R.  571 ;  Voorhees  v.  Indianapolis, 
v.  Glenn,  85  Va.  9,  s.  c.  6  S.  E.  R.  etc.,  Co.,  140  Ind.  220,  39N.E.  R.  738; 
806  ;•  Chamberlain    v.    Bromberg,  83  1   Elliott's  Gen.   Pr.,  §393;  2  Beach 
Ala.  476,  s.  c.  3  So.  R.  434;  note  to  Eq.,  §905;  High  on  Receivers,  §§314, 
Germantown,  etc.,  Ry.  v.  Fitler,  100  315,  317. 

Am.   Dec.  551,  556.     An  assignee  in        5  Cutting  v.  Damerel,  88  N.  Y.  410; 

bankruptcy  may  sue  by  bill  in  equity    Taylor  Priv.  Corp.,  §542. 

to  recover  unpaid  subscriptions.    Saw-        6  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §8354. 


§  185 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


265 


each  stockholder  shall  be  liable  for  the  debts  of  the  corpora- 
tion to  the  amount  unpaid  of  the  stock  held  or  subscribed  for 
by  him  until  all  the  stock  is  paid  in,1  while  some  of  the  states 
add  a  personal  liability  on  the  part  of  the  stockholders  for  the 
wages  of  certain  of  their  employes,  regardless  of  the  fact  that 
their  stock  may  or  may  not  be  paid  in  full.8  And  similar  pro- 
visions are  frequently  found  in  special  charters.8  The  individ- 
ual liability  of  members  for  the  debt  of  a  corporation  is  a  de- 
parture from  the  established  rules  of  law,  and  is  founded  solely 
upon  grounds  of  public  policy,  depending  entirely  upon  ex- 
press provisions  of  the  statute  law;  and  such  liability  is  to 
be  construed  reasonably  but  strictly,  rather  than  liberally,  and 
not  extended  beyond  the  limits  to  which  it  is  plainly  carried 
by  such  provisions  of  the  statute.4  Accordingly  it  is  held  that 


This  provision  is  very  commonly 
found  as  to  other  corporations,  but  not 
often  as  to  railroads.  1  Cook  on  Stock 
and  Stockholders,  §  212.  Under  the 
Kansas  law  governing  private  corpo- 
rations stockholders  are  severally  and 
not  jointly  liable  to  the  corporation 
creditors,  and  each  must  be  sued  sepa- 
rately. Abbey  v.  "W.  B.  Grimes  Dry 
Goods  Co.,  44  Kan.  415,  8  Ey.  & 
Corp.  L.  J.  207,  24  Pac.  426.  Where 
the  directors  of  a  corporation,  acting 
in  good  faith,  have  borrowed  money 
for  the  purposes  of  the  corporation, 
the  indebtedness  against  the  corpora- 
tion is  created,  the  stockholders  be- 
come personally  liable  to  the  lender 
of  the  money  or  the  sureties  who  pay 
it,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  show  that 
all  the  money  was  actually  appropri- 
ated to  the  legitimate  uses  of  the  cor- 
poration. Borland  v.  Haven  (C.  C. 
N.  D.  Cal.),  37  Fed  E.  394. 

1  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §§  8140, 
8630.  South  Carolina  creates  a  lia- 
bility to  the  value  of  the  shares  when 
the  debt  was  created  and  five  per  cent, 
of  the  par  value  thereof  additional. 
Laws  S.  C.  1885,  Ch.  96,  §  7.  In  Ohio 


the  stockholder  is  made  liable  to  the 
amount  of  stock  owned  by  him,  in  ad- 
dition to  the  amount  unpaid  thereon. 
R.  S.  Ohio,  1890,  §  3259.  The  liability 
created  by  a  statute  similar  to  the 
present  one  in  South  Carolina,  was 
held  to  be  enforceable  by  an  action  at 
law  against  one  stockholder  individ- 
ually. Hall  v.  Klinck,  25  S.  C.  348, 60- 
Am.  R.  505. 

2  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §§  8142, 
8553.    Holders  of  preferred  stock  in 
an  insolvent  corporation  are  subject 
to  the  statutory  liability  for  its  debts, 
equally    with    the     common     stock- 
holders.   Railroad  Co.  v.   Smith,  48 
Ohio  St.  219. 

3  A   provision  in  an  act  of  incorpo- 
ration, that  stockholders  shall  be  indi- 
vidually   liable    "to     the    extent    of 
double  the  amount  of  the  stock  sub- 
scribed for  or  held  by  them,"  renders 
them  liable  to  double  the  amount  of 
their  stock,  whether  paid  up  or  not. 
Dreisbach  v.  Price,  133  Pa.  560,  26  W. 
N.  C.  61,  19  Atl.  569. 

«Libby  v.  Toby,  82  Me.  397, 
where  the  plaintiff  sought  to  enforce 
against  a  stockholder,  a  judgment  re-4 


266 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§186 


such  liability  for  debts  can  not  be  enforced  to  pay  damages  recov- 
ered against  the  corporation  in  an  action  in  tort.1 

§  186.   Defenses  to  actions  to  enforce  statutory  liability. 

—  In  suits  to  enforce  such  liability,  certain  defenses  are  open 
to  the  stockholder  that  would  not  be  allowed  him  in  an  equit- 
able suit  to  enforce  payment  of  his  subscription  to  the  corpo- 
ration. Thus  he  may  show  that  the  debt  for  which  the  suit  is 
brought  does  not  belong  to  the  particular  class  for  which  the 
stockholders  are  made  liable,2  and  it  is  held,  in  general,  that 
statutes  fixing  a  personal  liability  upon  the  stockholders  for 
debts  due  to  servants  or  laborers  are  enacted  for  the  benefit  of 
that  "class  whose  members  usually  look  to  the  reward  of  a 
day's  labor  or  service  for  immediate  or  present  support,  from 
whom  the  company  does  not  expect  credit,  and  to  whom  its 
future  ability  to  pay  is  of  no  consequence."8  Consequently, 


covered  against  the  corporation  under 
the  Maine  statute.  O'Reilly  v.  Bard, 
105  Pa.  St.  569;  Chase  v.  Lord,  77  N. 
Y.  1 ;  Chamberlin  v.  Huguenot,  etc., 
Co.,  118  Mass.  532;  Windham,  etc., 
Inst.  v.  Sprague,  43  Vt.  502 ;  Salt  Lake 
City  Nat.  Bank  v.  Hendrickson,  40  N. 
J.  Law  52;  note  to  Thompson  v.  Reno 
Sav.  Bank,  3  Am.  St.  R.,  797,  834, 
24  Am.  &  Eng.  Cyc.  of  Law,  869. 
"The  individual  liability  of  stockhold- 
ers in  a  corporation  for  the  payment 
of  its  debts  is  always  a  creation  of 
statute.  At  common  law  it  does  not 
exist.  The  statute  which  creates  it 
may  also  declare  the  purpose  of  its 
creation  and  provide  for  the  manner 
of  its  enforcement."  Pollard  v.  Bai- 
ley, 20  Wallace  520;  Terry  v.  Little, 
101  U.  S.  216;  Russell  v.  Pac.  R.  Co., 
(Cal.)  45  Pac.  R.  323. 

1  Heacock  v.  Sherman,  14  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)58;  Stanton  v.  Wilkeson,  8 
Ben.  (U.  S.)  357;  Chase  v.  Curtis, 
113  U.  S.  452;  Cable  v.  McCune,  26 
Mo.  371;  Bohn  v.  Brown,  33  Mich. 


257,  263 ;  Zimmer  v.  Schleehauf,  115 
Mass.  52.  Note  to  Prince  v.  Lynch, 
99  Am.  Dec.  427,  435.  A  stockholder  of 
a  railroad  company  is  not  personally 
liable  for  the  negligence  of  the  officers, 
agents,  or  employes  of  the  company 
in  the  operation  of  its  road.  Atchi- 
son,  T.  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Cochran,  43 
Kan.  225,  41  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  48, 
7  L.  R.  A.  414. 

2  Wilson  v.  The  Stockholders,  43  Pa. 
St.   424;     Conant    v.  VanSchaick,  24 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  87;  Larrabee  v.  Bald- 
win, 35  Cal.  155.    One  who  became  a 
stockholder    after  the  debt  was  in- 
curred by  the  corporation  is  liable  un- 
der the  statute  like  any  other  stock- 
holder.    Railroad    Co.  v.   Smith,  48 
Ohio  St.  219. 

3  Wakefield  v.  Fargo,  90  N.  Y.  213, 
217,  overruling  several  earlier  cases ; 
Adams  v.  Goodrich,  55  Ga.  233.     And 
see  Harrod  v.  Hamer,   32  Wis.   162; 
note  to  Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav.  Bank, 
3  Am.  St.  R.  797,  842. 


<§  186  STOCKHOLDERS.  267 

a  civil  engineer,1  or  his  assistant,2  or  a  superintendent,8  or  a 
general  manager,4  will  not  be  entitled  to  enforce  such  liability 
for  his  own  benefit,  where  it  is  confined  to  debts  due  "laborers 
and  servants."  But  a  master  mechanic  and  superintendent 
of  works  has  been  held  to  be  a  "servant  and  laborer"  under  a 
similar  statute  applying  to  manufacturing  companies.5  And  a 
superintendent  of  construction,  who  acted  as  foreman  of  a 
gang  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  men  engaged  in  digging  trenches 
and  laying  gas-pipes,  and  whose  duties  required  him  to  be 
with  the  men  while  at  work  and  occasionally  to  do  some  physi- 
cal labor  because  of  a  scarcity  of  hands,  was  held  a  "laborer" 
within  the  meaning  of  a  mechanic's  lien  law.6  The  stockhold- 
er may  also  show  in  defense  to  such  a  suit  that  the  corporate 
creditor  by  express  contract  made  at  the  time  the  debt  was  in- 
curred waived  his  right  to  resort  to  the  stockholders  for  pay- 
ment in  whole  or  in  part,  and  it  is  settled  in  England  that  he 
may  show  that  the  contract  contained  a  stipulation  by  the 
corporation  for  the  exemption  of  its  members  from  the  liability 
imposed  upon  them  by  statute  in  the  event  of  corporate  insol- 
vency.7 So  he  may  show  that  he  has  been  separately  released 
from  the  statutory  liability,8  or  that  he  has  voluntarily  paid 

\ 

Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Luef-  v.  Forbes,  36  Md.  154;  Brown  v.  East- 
fer,  84 Pa.  St.  168;  Ericsson  v.  Brown,  ern  Slate  Co.,  134  Mass.  590,  where 
38  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  390.  Contra,  Conant  the  waiver  was  oral;  Hess  v.Werts,  4 
v.  VanSchaick,  24  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  87;  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  356;  In  re  State  Fire 
Williamson  v.  Wadsworth,  49  Barb.  Ins.  Co.,  1  Hem.  &  M.  457,  1  DeG.,F. 
294.  &  J.  634.  But  the  exemption  must  be 

2Brockway  v.  Innes,  39  Mich.  47,  s.  clearly  proved.  Skinner  v.  Dayton, 
c.  33  Am.  R.  348.  19  John.  (N.  Y.)  513,  537;  Be  Athe- 

3  Kincaid  v.  Dwinelle,  59  N.  Y.  548.  naeum,  etc.,  Society,  3  DeG.  &  J.  660. 
And  see  Gurney  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  A  stipulation  against  holding  stock- 
Co.,  58N.Y.  358;  Gordons.  Jennings,  holders  liable  has  been  held  to  refer 
L.  R.  9  Q.  B.  Div.  45.  But  compare  to  the  statutory  liability  and  not  to  the 
Sleeper  v.  Goodwin,  67  Wis.  577.  subscription  liability.  Preston  ».  Cin- 

*  Wakefield  v.  Fargo,  90  N.  Y.  213;    cinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Fed.  R.  54. 
Hill  v.  Spencer,  61  N.  Y.  274.  8  Where  the  stockholders  are  held 

'Sleeper  v.  Goodwin,  67  Wis.  577,  s.  to  be  severally  and  not  jointly  liable 
c.  31  N.  W.  335.  under  the  statute,  one  may  be  released 

6  Pendergast  a.Yandes,  124  Ind.  159.    without  releasing  the  others.     Bank, 

'Such  a  contract  is  valid.  Robin-  etc.,  v.  Ibbotson,  5  Hill  (N.  Y.)  461. 
son  v.  Bidwell,  22  Cal.  379;  Basshor  See,  also,  Herries  v.  Platt,  21  Hun 


268 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  187 


corporate  debts  to  the  full  amount  of  such  liability.1  He  may 
also,  in  some  jurisdictions,  set  off  a  debt  or  judgment  due  him. 
from  the  corporation  against  a  personal  action  brought  by  an 
individual  creditor,  where  the  statute  provides  for  such  suits,2 
although,  as  we  have  seen,  a  different  rule  applies  in  case  of 
an  ordinary  suit  to  reach  unpaid  subscriptions  for  the  credi- 
tors. Of  course  he  may  set  up  in  defense  any  proper  matters 
tending  to  show  that  he  is  not  a  stockholder  and  that  a  stock- 
holder's liabilities  do  not  attach  to  him.3  But  it  is  no  defense 
that  the  creditor  purchased  his  claim  against  the  corporation 
at  a  discount  after  its  insolvency.4 

§  187.   Who  may  institute  action  to  enforce  statutory  lia- 
bility.— An  action  to  enforce  the  statutory  liability  can  only  be 

(N.  Y.)  132;  Prince  v.  Lynch,  38  Cal. 
528;  Borland  v.  Haven,  37  Fed.  R. 
394. 

1Mathez  v.  Neidig,  72  N.  Y.  100; 
Boyd  v.  Hall,  56  Ga.  563 ;  San  Jose 
Sav.  Bank  v.  Pharis,  58  Cal.  380.  The 
payments  must  be  ffona  fide.  Thebus 
c.  Smiley,  110  111.  316;  Manville  v. 
Karst,  16  Fed.  R.  173.  And  must  be 
made  before  the  suit  in  which  they 
are  relied  upon  as  a  defense  was  com- 
menced. Jones  v.  Wiltberger,  42  Ga. 
575.  But  see  Richards  v.  Brice,  3  N. 
Y.  Supp.  941.  And  his  exemption 
from  liability  will  be  measured  by  the 
sum  actually  paid  on  corporate  debts 
and  judgments,  and  not  by  the  face  of 
the  claims  paid  off  or  purchased  by 
him.  Kunkelman  v.  Rentchler,  15 
Brad.(Ill.)  271 ;  Bulkley  r.Whitcomb, 
49  Hun  (N.  Y.)  290;  Holland  v.  Key- 
man,  60  Ga.  174.  The  fact  that  suits 
brought  by  other  stockholders  are 
pending  is  no  defense,  so  long  as  they 
have  not  been  brought  to  judgment. 
Ingalls  v.  Cole,  47  Me.  530,  541 ;  Grose 
v.  Hilt,  36  Me.  22,  denies  the  doctrine 
of  the  text. 

8  Wheeler  v.  Millar,  90  N.  Y.  353, 
362;  Christensen  v.  Colby,  43  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  362;  Boyd  v.  Hall,  56  Ga. 


563;  Jerman's  Adm'r  v.  Benton,  79 
Mo.  148.  The  rule  is  different  when 
the  suit  is  on  behalf  of  the  corpora- 
tion to  reach  unpaid  subscriptions. 
Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav.  Bank,  19 
Nev.  103,  s.  c.  3  Am.  St.  R.  797,  and 
note  826.  Judgments  purchased  by 
him  can  only  be  set  off  to  the  extent 
of  the  amount  that  was  actually  paid 
for  them.  Bulkley  r.  Whitcomb,  49 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  290.  In  action  by  corpo- 
ration creditors  to  enforce  the  statu- 
tory liability  of  a  stockholder,  the 
stockholder  must  have  held  his  claim 
against  the  corporation  at  the  time 
the  execution  against  the  corporation 
was  returned  nulla  bona,  in  order  to 
use  it  as  a  defense.  Coquard  v.  Pren- 
dergast,  35  Mo.  App.  237. 

3 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
(2ded.),  §225. 

4  Coquard  v.  Prendergast,  35  Mo. 
App.  237.  An  assignee  of  a  judg- 
ment against  a  corporation,  in  order 
to  maintain  an  action  upon  it  against 
the  individual  stockholders,  must 
show  that  he  paid  a  valuable  consid- 
eration for  it.  Wilson  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  Mo.  45,  25  S.  W.  R. 
527,  759. 


188 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


269 


maintained  by  the  creditors  themselves  for  their  own  benefit.1 
Neither  the  corporation  itself,2  nor  its  assignee,3  nor  a  receiver 
can  enforce  it.  *  Herein  lies  another  distinction  between  the 
statutory  liability  of  a  stockholder  and  his  ordinary  liability 
for  unpaid  subscriptions. 

§  188.  How  statutory  liability  is  enforced — Judgment  and 
execution  against  the  corporation. — In  most  of  the  states, 
special  provision  is  made  for  enforcing  this  liability,8  but  it  is 
the  rule  in  many  jurisdictions  that,  even  where  not  expressly 
required  by  statute,  an  action  for  this  cause  must  be  preceded 
l>y  a  judgment  and  an  execution  returned  unsatisfied.6  In  other 
jurisdictions,  however,  it  is  held  that  the  statutory  liabilitity  of 
stockholders  is  primary  and  may  be  enforced,  without  first  ob- 
taining a  judgment  against  the  corporation.7  Such  a  judgment 


1  Farnsworth  v.  Wood,  91  N.  Y.  308 ; 
note  to  Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav.  Bank, 
3  Am.  St.  R.  797,  847 ;  Hicks  v.  Burns, 
38  N.  H.  141. 

2Umsted  v.  Buskirk,  17  Ohio  St. 
113;  Liberty,  etc.,  Ass'n  v.  Watkins, 
70  Mo.  13. 

3  Wright  v.  McCormack,  17  Ohio  St. 
S6,  95;   Dutcher  v.  Marine  Nat.  B'k, 
12  Blatch.  (U.  S.)  435. 

4  Billings  v.  Robinson,  94  N.  Y.  415; 
Arenz  v.  Weir,  89  111.  25;  Jacobson  v. 
Allen,  20  Blatch.  (U.  S.)  525,  12  Fed. 
R.  454.  Unless,  of  course,  the  receiver 
is  vested  with  that  right  by  statute. 
Walker  r.  Grain,  17  Barb.  (N.Y.)  119; 
Richmond  r.  Irons,  121  TJ.  S.  27. 

5Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8143; 
note  to  Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav.  Bank, 
3  Am.  St.  Rep.  797,  854.  If  no  remedy 
is  provided  and  the  statute  simply 
affirms  the  liability  of  stockholders 
for  unpaid  subscriptions,  the  usual 
remedy  in  equity  is  the  proper  one. 
But  if  a  new  liability  is  imposed  upon 
the  stockholders  severally,  the  cred- 
itor's remedy  may  be  either  at  law  or 
in  equity,  according  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  and  the  nature  of 


the  relief  that  should  be  granted.  For 
authorities  upon  these  propositions, 
and  upon  the  subject  of  parties  in  such 
cases,  see  the  exhaustive  note  to 
Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav.  Bank,  3  Am. 
St.  Rep.  797,  855,  858. 

6  Means's  Appeal,  85  Pa.  St.  75 ;  Bay- 
liss  v.  Swift,  40  Iowa  648;  Lane  v. 
Harris,  16  Ga.  217;  Drinkwater  v. 
Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Me.  35; 
Wright  v.  McCormack,  17  Ohio  St.  86; 
note  to  Prince  v.  Lynch,  99  Am.  Dec. 
427, 434 ;  2  Morawetz  Corp.,  §  883  ;Cook 
on  Stock  and  Stockholders,  §  221.  See, 
also,  Globe  Pub.  Co.  v.  State  Bank, 
(Neb.)  10  Lewis  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp. 
Rep.  589. 

7Spence  v.  Shapard,  57  Ala.  598; 
Davidson  v.  Rankin,  34  Cal.  503; 
Queenan  v.  Palmer,  117  111.  619,  629; 
Todhunter  v.  Randall,  29  Ind.  275; 
McMahon  v.  Macy,  51  N.  Y.  155,  160; 
Sleeper  v.  Goodwin,  67  Wis.  577,  586. 
Compare  Marshall  v.  Harris,  55  Iowa 
182,  with  the  Iowa  case  cited  in  last 
note,  and  Harper  r.  Union,  etc.,  Co., 
100  111.  225,,with  Illinois  case  herein 
cited.  See,  also,  as  to  when  prior 
proceedings  against  the  corporation 


270  THE    CORPORATION.  §  189 

is  generally  held  conclusive  as  to  the  amount  and  validity  of 
the  creditor's  claim  in  the  same  manner  as  when  the  suit  is  to 
enforce  payment  of  balances  due  on  subscriptions.1 

§  189.   Priority  among  creditors — Forum — Contribution. — 

A  judgment  creditor  of  an  insolvent  corporation  who  first  moves 
to  charge  a  stockholder  on  his  liability  under  the  statute,  ac- 
quires the  priority  of  right  to  recover  against  such  stockholder, 
with  which  a  creditor  subsequently  moving  can  not  rightfully 
interfere.2  The  courts  of  another  state  in  which  a  part  of  the 
stockholders  may  reside,  will  generally  enforce  a  liability  im- 
posed by  statute  or  charter,  for  contract  debts  of  the  company,* 
though  they  will  not  enforce  penalties  prescribed  for  failures  to 
obey  state  regulations.*  This  liability  may  be  en  forced  against 
the  estate  of  a  deceased  shareholder.5  Stockholders  are  usually 
entitled,  in  equity,  to  contribution  from  other  shareholders,  as 
in  the  case  of  suits  for  unpaid  subscriptions.6 

§  190.  When  stockholders  are  liable  as  partners. — Stock- 
holders may  generally  be  held  liable  as  partners  for  the  pay- 
are  excused  as  useless.  Paine  v.  Stew-  Aultman's  Appeal,  98  Pa.  St.  505; 
art,  33  Conn.  516;  Hodges  v.  Silver,  Queenan  v.  Palmer,  117  111.619;  Man- 
etc.,  Co.,  9  Ore.  200;  Fourth  Nat.  ville  v.  Edgar,  8  Mo.  App.  324 ;  Sack- 
Bank  v.  Francklyn,  120  U.  S.  747;  ett's  Harbor  Bank  v.  Blake,  3  Rich. 
Shellington  v.  Rowland,  53  N.  Y.  371 ;  Eq.  (S.  C.)  225;  Flash  v.  Conn.,  1& 
State  Sav.  Assn.  v.  Kellogg,  52  Mo.  Fla.  428,  s.  c.  26  Am.  Rep.  721, 109  U. 
583.  S.  371;  Howell  v.  Manglesdorf,  33 

1  See  note  to  Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav.  Kans.  194,   199.     Aldrich  v.  Anchor 
Bank,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.   797,  858.     In  Coal,   etc.,  Co.,  24  Oreg.  32,  s.  c.  41 
Ohio,  suits  against  the  stockholder  di-  Am.   St.   Rep.   831.    But  see,  where 
rectly  are  permitted,  and    it  is  held  special  remedy  is  provided,  Fowler  v. 
that  he  can  interpose  only  such  de-  Lamson,  146  111.  472,  s.  c.  37  Am.  St. 
fenses  to  them  as  are  available  to  the  Rep.  163,  and  note. 

corporation.    Railroad  Co.  v.  Smith,  4  Derrickson  v.  Smith,  27  N.  J.  Law 

48  Ohio  St.  219.  166;  Lowry  v.  Inman,  46  N.  Y.  119; 

2  Wells  v.  Robb,  43  Kan.  201, 23  Pac.  Sayles  v.  Brown,  (C.   C.   D.  Md.)   40 
148 ;  Cole  v.  Butler,  43  Me.  401 ;  Lowry  Fed.  Rep.  8. 

v.    Parsons,    52   Ga.  356;    Thebus  v.  5  Richmond  v.  Irons,  121  U.  S.  27  j 

Smiley,  110  111.  316.     But  see  City  of  Chase  r.  Lord,  77  N.  Y.  1;  Manville 

Chicago  v.   Hall,  103  111.   342;  State  v.  Edgar,  8  Mo.  App.  324. 

Sav.  Assn.  v.  Kellogg,  63  Mo.  540.  6 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 

8  Corning  v.  McCullough,  1  X.  Y.  47 ;  §  227 ;  note  to  Thompson  v.  Reno  Sav. 

Lowry  v.  Inman,  46  N.  Y.  119,  127;  Bank,  3  Am.  St.  R.  797,  870;  Taylor 

Woods  v.  Wicks,   7  Lea.  (Tenn.)   40;  on  Priv.  Corp.,  §  783. 


190 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


271 


ment  of  debts  incurred  by  the  company,  if  it  has  proceeded  to 
do  business  without  taking  the  requisite  steps  to  become  legally 
incorporated.1  And  where  the  business  undertaken  is  not 
authorized  by  the  act  under  which  incorporation  is  attempted, 
a  partnership  liability  will  be  incurred  by  all  who  become 
members, I  as  it  also  is,  according  to  some  authorities,  where  a 
corporation  is  formed  to  do  business  only  outside  of  the  state 
creating  it,  the  formation  of  such  a  corporation  being  held  to 
be  a  fraud  upon  the  law.8  But  the  great  weight  of  authority  is 
opposed  to  this  latter  rule.*  What  omissions  in  the  articles  will 
render  the  incorporation  so  incomplete  as  to  fix  a  partnership 
liability  upon  the  members  may  depend  largely  upon  the 
language  of  the  statute  under  which  incorporation  is  attempted; 


1  Kaiser  v.  Lawrence  Sav.  Bank,  56 
Iowa  104,  s.  c.  41  Am.  R.  85 ;  Wechsel- 
berg  v.  Flour  City  Nat.  Bank,  64  Fed. 
R.  90;  Hurt  v.  Salisbury,  55  Mo.  310; 
Pettis  v.  Atkins,  60  111.  454;  Fuller  v. 
Rowe,  57  N.  Y.  23;  Walton  v.  Oliver, 
49  Kan.  107;  Unity  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cram, 
43  N.  H.  636;  Smith  v.  Colorado,  etc., 
Co.,  14  Fed.  R.  399;  Harris  v.  Mc- 
Gregor, 29  Cal.  124;  Midill  v.  Collier, 
16  Ohio  St.  599,  613 ;  Coleman  v.  Cole- 
man,  78  Ind.  344;  Martin  v.  Fewell, 
79  Mo.  401 ;  Western,  etc.,  T.  Co.  v. 
Union  Pacific  R.  Co.,  3  Fed.  R.  721; 
Field  v.  Cooks,  16  La.  Ann.  153;  Big- 
elow  v.  Gregory,  73  111.  197;  Garnett 
v.  Richardson,  35  Ark.  144.  But,  see 
Humphrey  v.  Mooney,  5  Colo.  282; 
Planter's,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Padgett,  69 
Ga.  159;  Merriman  v.  Magiveny,  12 
Heisk.  (Tenn.)  494;  Merchants',  etc., 
Bank  v.  Stone,  38  Mich.  779 ;  Whitney 
v.  Hyman,  101  U.  S.  392. 

2 1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§  236 ;  Vredenburg  v.  Behan,  33  La. 
Ann.  627.  So  where  the  law  under 
which  incorporation  is  attempted  is 
unconstitutional.  Eaton  v.  Walker, 
76  Mich.  579.  See,  also,  Chenango 
Bridge  Co.  v.  Paige,  83  N.  Y.  178, 190; 


Williams  v.  Bank,  7  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
541;  Kennedy  v.  McLellan,  76  Mich. 
598,  43  N.W.  R.638 ;  Heaston  e. Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  16  Ind.  275,  278. 

3  Land  Grant  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Coffey 
Co.,  6  Kan.  245,  and  Opinion  of  Atty. 
Gen.  of  Texas  (1887),  2  Ry.  &  Corp. 
L.  J.  433,  where  the  companies  were 
only  authorized  to  transact  business 
outside  the  sovereignty  creating  them. 
Hill  v.  Beach,  12  N.  J.  Eq.  31 ;  Kruse 
v.  Dusenbury,  19  Weekly  Dig.  (N.  Y. 
C.  P.)  201;   Montgomery  v.  Forbes, 
148  Mass.  249,  where  regularly  organ- 
ized corporations  had  places  of  busi- 
ness only  outside  of    the  states  by 
which  they  were  created. 

4  Canada  Southern  R.   Co.  v.  Geb- 
hard,  109  U.  S.  527;  Oregonian  R.  Co. 
«.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  23  Fed.  R.  232 ; 
In  re  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  220;  Demarest  v.  Flack,  128 
N.  Y.  205;  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Sloan, 
1  Bradw.  (111.)  364;  Second  Nat.  Bank 
v.  Hall,  35  Ohio  St.  158,  where  the 
stockholders  escaped  a  personal  lia- 
bility by  organizing  under  the  laws  of 
an  adjoining  state.     Bateman  v.  Ser- 
vice, L.  R.  6  App.  Cases  386. 


272 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§190 


for  a  failure  to  observe  immaterial  provisions,1  or  to  perform 
acts  required  after  the  incorporation  is  effected  will  not,  as  a 
rule,  vitiate  the  organization,8  and  different  preliminary  acts 
are  made  essential  in  different  statutes.8  Nor  is  it  true  in 
every  case  that  the  failure  to  fully  comply  with  the  statute  will 
make  the  stockholders  liable  as  partners.  The  doctrine  of 
estoppel  should  not  be  overlooked.  In  accordance  with  that 
doctrine  it  is  fairly  well  settled  that  where  there  is  a  valid  law 
providing  for  incorporation  and  an  attempt  has  been  made  in 
good  faith  to  incorporate  under  such  law  for  the  purposes 
therein  specified,  and  to  carry  on  the  authorized  business  as  a 
corporation,  one  who  deals  with  it  as  such  is  estopped  from 
questioning  the  corporate  existence  and  can  not  hold  the  in- 
corporators  liable  as  partners,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
the  statutory  formalities  may  not  have  been  fully  complied 
with.4.  A  stockholder,  if  held  to  the  liability  of  a  partner,  will, 


1  McClinch  v.  Sturgis,  72  Me.  288, 
where  notice  of  the  meeting  to  or- 
ganize was  not  sent  to  all  the  mem- 
bers. Judah  v.  American,  etc.,  Co., 
4  Ind.  333,  where  the  subscriptions 
were  taken  and  notice  of  the  stock- 
holders' meeting  given  in  a  different 
manner  from  that  provided  in  the  act. 
Stout  v.  Zulick,  46  N.  J.  L.  599,  7  Atl. 
362,  where  an  immaterial  part  of  the 
certificate  of  acknowledgment  was 
omitted.  Russel  v.  McLellan,  14  Pick. 
(Mass.)  63;  Holmes  v.  Gilliland,  41 
Barb.  568,  where  no  notice  was  given 
to  the  community  by  publication. 
Granby,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Richards,  95  Mo. 
106,  8  S.  W.  246,  where  the  articles 
were  not  filed  with  the  county  clerk. 
For  omissions  held  material,  see  note 
1,  supra,  p.  271. 

2Trowbridge  v.  Scudder,  11.  Cusli. 
Mass.  83,  where  the  principal  business 
for  which  the  corporation  was  organ- 
ized was  never  begun.  Langan  v.  Iowa, 
etc.,  Construction  Co.,  49  Iowa,  317, 
where  the  company  had  been  guilty 
of  ultra  vires  and  fraudulent  acts. 


First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Davies,  43  Iowa 
424,  where  the  articles  were  to  be  filed 
within  ninety  days.  But  in  the  recent 
case  of  Cincinnati  Cooperage  Co.  v. 
Bate,  (Ky.)  10  Lewis's  Am.  R.  R.  & 
Corp.  R.  653,  s.  c.  26  S.  W.  R.  538,  it 
is  held  that  changing  the  name  of  a 
corporation  without  complying  with 
the  statute  is  to  destroy  the  identity 
of  the  corporation  and  amounts  to  a 
virtual  abandonment  of  it,  so  as '  to 
render  the  stockholder  liable  as  part- 
ner. The  soundness  of  this  decision, 
however,  seems  to  us  to  be  doubtful, 
and  such,  we  understand,  is  the 
opinion  of  Mr.  Lewis  as  indicated  in 
the  note  in  10  Lewis's  Am.  R.  R.  & 
Corp.  R.  665,  et  seq. 

3  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  Law,  §§  8022- 
8024,  8522,  8523. 

4  Vanneman  v.  Young,  52  N.  J.  L. 
403,  s.  c.  20  Atl.  R.  53,  3  Lewis's  Am. 
R.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  660,  and  note;  Gart- 
side  Coal  Co.  v.  Maxwell,  22  Fed.  R. 
197 ;  Allegheny  Nat.  Bank  v.  Bailey, 
147  Pa.  St.  111,23  Atl.  R.  439;  Ameri- 
can Salt  Co.  v.  Heidenheimer,  80  Tex. 


190 


STOCKHOLDERS. 


273 


ordinarily,  be  bound  only  as  a  partner  for  the  debts  contracted 
while  he  was  a  member  of  the  company.1  A  stockholder  does 
not  become  liable  as  a  partner  because  he  falsely  represents 
that  the  corporation  is  solvent,*  and  his  promise  to  pay  the 
corporate  debts  is  a  promise  to  answer  for  the  debts  of  another 
within  the  statute  of  frauds.3  Where  persons  purchase  a  rail- 
road at  execution  sale,  they  acquire  none  of  the  special  privi- 
leges of  individual  stockholders  in  the  old  corporation,  and,  if 
they  continue  to  operate  it  without  forming  a  new  corporation, 
they  will  incur  partnership  liabilities  on  account  thereof.* 


344,  15  S.  VV.  R.  1038 ;  Bushnell  v.  Con- 
solidated, etc.,  Co.,  138  111.  67, 27  N.  E. 
R.596;  Lamed  v.  Beal,  65  N.  H.  184, 
23  Atl.  R.  149;  Walton  v.  Riley,  85 
Ky.  413;  Whitney  v.  Wyman,  101 
TJ.  S.  392;  Baker"  v.  Neff,  73,  Ind. 
68;  Williamson  v.  Kokomo,  etc., 
Co.,|89  Ind.  389;  Crowder  v.  Town 
of  Sullivan,  128  Ind.  486,  28  N. 
E.  R.  94;  Snyder  v.  Studebaker, 
19  Ind.  462;  Snider's  Sons  Co.  v. 
Troy,  91  Ala.  224  ;  Rutherford  v. 
Hill,  22  Ore.  218;  Humphreys  v. 
Mooney,  5  Colo.  282;  Second  Nat. 
Bank  v.  Hall,  35  Ohio  St.  158;  First 
Nat.  Bank  ».  Almy,  117  Mass.  476; 
Laflin,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sinsheimer,  46  Md. 
315;  Finnegan  v.  Noerenberg,  52 
Minn.  239,  s.  c.  53  N.  W.  Rep.  1150,  s. 
c.  38  Am.  St.  R.  552;  Globe  Pub.  Co. 
v.  State  Bank,  41  Neb.  — ;  Duke  v. 
Taylor,  (Fla.)  19  So.  R.  172. 


175,  10  Lewis's  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  R. 
589. 

1  Fuller  v.  Rowe,  57  N.  Y.  23.     But 
where  he  becomes  a  member  by  trans- 
fer of  another's  interest,  he  may  be 
held  to  have  assumed  his  grantor's 
liability  for  precedent  debts.    Taylor 
v.  Ifill,  1  N.  R.  566,  s.  c.  8  L.  T.  R.(N. 
S.)  148.    It  has  been  held,  however, 
that  one  who  becomes  a  member  after 
the  attempted  organization,  and  takes 
no  part  in  the  management  of  the  com- 
pany is  not  liable  for  its  debts  because 
of  imperfect  incorporation.     Stafford 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Palmer,  47  Conn.  443. 

2  Searight  v.  Payne,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  175. 
But  he  may  render  himself  liable  in 
damages  for  false  representations. 

s  Trustees,  etc.,  v.  Flint,  13  Mete. 
(Mass.)  539. 

*Chaffe  0.  Ludeling,  27  La.  Ann. 
607. 


CORP.  18 


CHAPTER  X. 


BY-LAWS,    KULES    AND    REGULATIONS. 


§  191.  Power  to  make  by-laws.  §  198. 

192.  Who  are  affected  by  corporate 

by-laws.  199. 

193.  Limits  of  power  to  make  by* 

laws  —  Reasonableness     a 
question  for  the  court. 

194.  Power  to  make  by-laws  resides        200. 

in  stockholders  —  When  di- 
rectors may  make. 

195.  Formalities     of     enactment —        201. 

Proof. 

196.  Amendment  and  repeal.  202. 

197.  Enforcement  of  by-laws. 


Rules  and  regulations  in  En- 
gland. 

Distinction  between  by-laws 
and  rules  and  regulations  — 
Right  of  railroad  company  to 
make  rules  and  regulations. 

Examples  of  rules  and  regula- 
tions which  railroad  com- 
panies may  make. 

Enforcement  of  rules — Penal- 
ties. 

Reasonableness  of  rules  — 
When  a  question  of  fact  and 
when  a  question  of  law. 


§  191.  Power  to  make  by-laws. — The  law  implies  from  the 
act  of  creating  a  corporation  a  grant  of  power  to  make  all  nec- 
essary by-laws,  or  private  statutes  for  the  government  of  itself 
and  its  members,  officers  and  agents.1  This  power  is,  however, 
in  most  cases,  specially  granted  to  railroad  companies  and  other 
corporations  either  by  a  provision  of  the  company's  charter  or 
by  general  statute.*  In  many  cases  the  power  is  granted  to 
make  by-laws  for  certain  specified  purposes,8  and  where  this 
is  so,  legislation  upon  other  subjects  is  usually  considered 
as  prohibited  by  implication.4  The  corporation  can  not  pass 


1  Drake  v.  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co., 
7  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  508;  State  v.  Overton, 
24  N.    J.  L.    435;   Martin    v.   Nash- 
ville, etc.,  Assn.  2  Cold.  (Tenn.)  418. 

2  They  may  make  all  by-laws  and 
regulations  for  their  own  government 
necessary  and  consistent  with  the  con- 
stitution and  laws  of  the  state  and 


with  their  own  charters.  Stimson's 
Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §§8070,8537;  An- 
gell  &  Ames  on  Corp.  (8th  ed.),  §  325. 

3  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8071. 

4  Child  v.  Hudson's  Bay  Co.,  2  Peere 
Wms.  207 ;  State  v.  Ferguson,  33  N. 
H.  424,  430;   Redfield    on  Railways 
(5th ed.),  96;  Angell  &  Ames  on  Corp- 


(274) 


§  192  BY-LAWS,    RULES    AND    REGULATIONS.  275 

any  by-law  inconsistent  with  its  charter,1  nor,  as  a  rule,  any 
relating  to  matters  outside  the  objects  for  which  it  was  in- 
corporated, unless  power  to  do  so  is  expressly  conferred.2 
The  usual  subjects  with  reference  to  which  corporations 
ordinarily  have  power  to  make  by-laws  are  such  as  relate 
to  the  time  and  manner  of  calling  and  conducting  meet- 
ings of  the  stockholders,  or  of  the  directors,  the  number  of 
each  required  to  form  a  quorum,  the  method  of  voting  prox- 
ies, the  number  of  shares  entitling  a  member  to  one  or  more 
votes,  the  mode  of  enforcing  forfeitures  of  stock  (where  no 
mode  is  prescribed  by  statute),  the  number  of  directors  and 
other  officers,  and  the  mode  of  choosing  and  compensating 
them,  the  transfer  of  stock,  and  the  management  and  disposi- 
tion of  the  corporate  property.8 

§  192.  Who  are  affected  by  corporate  by-laws. — Such  by- 
laws, are  obligatory  only  upon  the  corporate  body,  its  mem- 
bers and  agents,  and  do  not,  as  a  rule,  affect  the  general  pub- 
lic.4 Herein,  as  we  shall  hereafter  show,  they  differ  from  rules 
and  regulations  such  as  those  promulgated  by  common  carriers 

(8th  ed.),  §  325.     See,  also,  Taylor  v.  z  Angell  &  Ames  on  Corp.  (8th  ed.), 

Griswold,     14    N.    J.    L.     222;    Me-  §326. 

Cullough  v.  Annapolis  R.  Co.,  4  Gill  •  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §8071. 

(Md.)  58;  Rex  v.   Spencer,  3  Burr.  *  Bank  of  Holly  Springs  v.  Pinson, 

1827;  States.  Mayor,  etc.,  33  N.  J.  L.  58  Miss.  421,   s.  c.  38  Am.  R.  330; 

57.  Wait  v.  Smith,  92  111.  385;  Walker  v. 

1  Kennebec,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kendall,  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  26  S.  Car. 

31  Me.  470,  where  it  was  undertaken  to  80 ;  Samuel  v.  Holladay,  1  Woolw.  (U. 

impose  a  personal  liability  for  calls  S.)  400.  They  bind  only  members  and 

not  imposed  by  the  charter.    Carr  v.  officers  or  agents.  Worcester  v.  Essex 

St.  Louis,  9  Mo.  191,  where  the  corpo-  Bridge  Co.,  7  Gray  (Mass.)  457 ;  Sus- 

ration  undertook  to  increase  the  sala-  quehannah    Ins.    Co.    v.    Perrine,   7 

ries  of  the  officers  beyond  what  the  Watts   &  S.    (Pa.)    348;  Mechanics' 

charter  allowed.     McCullough  v.  An-  Bank  v.  Smith,  19  Johns.  115;  Rath- 

napolis  R.  Co.,  4  Gill  (Md.)  58,  where  bun  v.  Snow,  123  N.  Y.  343,  s.  c.  10  L. 

the  right  of  an  officer  to  vote  was  re-  R.  A.  355;  Palmyra  v.  Morton,  25 Mo. 

sti-icted  to  a  casting  vote  in  case  of  a  593;  Bank  of  Wilmington  c.  Wollas- 

tie.   See,  also,  1  Thomp.  Corp.,  §  1011 ;  ton,  3  Barring.   (Del.)  90.    But  see 

American  Legion  of  Honor  v.  Perry,  Bocockw.  Alleghany,  etc.,  Co.,  82  Va. 

140 Mass. 580;  Kearneys.  Andrews,  10  913.    See  also  Moyer  v.  East  Shore, 

N.  J.  Eq.  70;  Presbyterian,  etc.,  Fund  etc.,  Co.,  25  L.  R.  A.  48,  and  note. 
v.  Allen,106  Ind.  593. 


276  THE    CORPORATION.  §  193 

to  govern  their  dealings  with  the  public.  They  are  not  evi- 
dence for  the  corporation  against  strangers  who  deal  with  it, 
unless  such  by-laws  are  brought  home  to  their  knowledge  and 
assented  to  by  them.1  But  the  members  of  the  company  are 
affected  by  all  binding  statutes  of  the  corporation  from  the 
time  of  their  enactment,  without  any  formal  notice  of  their  ex- 
istence.* 

§  193.  Limits  of  power  to  make  by-laws — Reasonableness  a 
question  for  the  court. — The  power  of  the  corporation  to  make 
by-laws  is  always  limited  by  the  requirement  that  they  must 
not  be  inconsistent  with  the  constitution  and  valid  statutes  of 
the  United  States  or  of  the  state  in  which  it  is  established  nor 
with  the  general  policy  and  fundamental  principles  of  common 
law  as  it  is  therein  accepted.3  Thus,  it  was  held  in  a  recent 
case  that  a  by-law  permitting  bondholders  to  vote  for  directors 
was  in  conflict  with  the  constitution  of  Illinois  and  the  general 
policy  of  the  state  and  therefore  void.*  The  rule  is  often  stated 
to  be  that  by-laws  must  be  reasonable5  and  not  opposed  to  com- 
mon right.6  The  question  as  to  the  reasonableness  of  a  by-law 

1  Smith  v.  North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  68  Kendall,  31  Me.  470;  State  v.  Curtis,  9 

N.  C.  107;  Moyer  v.  East  Shore,  etc.,  Nev.  325;   Pi-ice  v.   Supreme  Lodge, 

Co.,  41  S.  Car.  300,  25  L.  R.  A.  48,  and  68  Tex.  361,  4  S.  W.  R.  633 ;  Sayre  v. 

note.     See,    also,   1    Thomp.   Corp.,  Louisville,  etc.,  Assn.  1  Duv.    (Ky.) 

§  942.  143. 

'Woodfin    v.   Asheville,   etc.,   Ins.  *Durkee  v.  People,  155  111.354,40 

Co.,    6    Jones    Law    (N.    Car.)   558;  N.  E.  R.  626.    See,  also,  Brewster  r. 

Buffalo    v.  Webster,    10    Wend.   (N.  Hartley,  37  Cal.  15,  s.  c.  99  Am.  Dec. 

Y.)     99;     Susquehannah,     etc.,    Co.  237. 

v.     Perrine,    7     Watts    &    S.    (Pa.)  5  Kent  v.  Quicksilver  Min.  Co.,  78 

348;  Arapahoe,  etc.,  Co.v.  Stevens,  13  N.  Y.  159;  Kennebec,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Col.  534;  Bauer  v.  Samson  Lodge,  102  Kendall,    31    Me.    370;    Williams  v. 

Ind.  262,  s.  c.  1  N.  E.  R.  571;  Frank  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  10  Exch.  15; 

v.  Morrison,  58  Md.  423;   Hunter  v.  Chandler  v.  Northern  Cross  R.  Co., 

Sun   Mutual,    etc.,   Co.,  26  La.  Ann.  18  111.  190;  American  Livestock  Co.  v. 

13.  Chicago,  etc.,  Exchange,  143  111.  210, 

3  Angell  &  Ames  on  Corp.  (8th  Ed.),  s.  c.  36  Am.  St.  R.  385. 
§332,  et  seq.;  Bullard  v.  Bank,  18  6  Hayden  v.  Noyes,  5  Conn.  391. 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  589;  State  v.  City  of  But  see  Goddard  v.  Merchants'  Ex- 
Cincinnati,  23  Ohio  St.  445;  Illinois  change,  9  Mo.  App.  290.  By-laws 
Cent.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bloomington,  76  which  are  vexatious,  unequal,  op- 
Ill.  447;  Kennebec,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  pressive,  and  manifestly  detrimental 


§  193 


BY-LAWS,    RULES    AND    REGULATIONS. 


277 


is  for  the  court,  and  it  is  held  that  the  jury  can  not  hear  evi- 
dence as  to  its  effects  offered  in  proof  of  the  claim  that  it  is  un- 
reasonable.1 A  by-law  can  never  be  valid  where  it  impairs  the 
obligation  of  a  contract,1  nor  where  it  amounts  to  a  retrospect- 
ive or  ex  post  facto  rule,8  nor  where  it  deprives  the  holder  of 
any  of  his  property  rights.*  The  right  given  by  statute  to  vote 
by  proxy  is  a  substantial  right  and  can  not  be  taken  away,  or 
even  materially  abridged,  by  any  corporate  by-law.5  Neither 
will  a  by-law  be  sustained  if,  under  the  guise  of  regulating  the 
mode  of  transfer,  it  unreasonably  restricts  the  power  to  transfer 
shares;6  or  if  it  forbids  the  member  to  seek  legal  redress  in  the 


to  the  interests  of  the  corporation  are 
void.  Gosling  v.  Veley,  12  Q.  B.  328 ; 
People  v.  Medical  Society,  24  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  570;  City  of  Chicago  v. 
Rumpff,  45  111.  90,  [s.  c.  92  Am.  Dec. 
196. 

1  Commonwealth    v.    Worcester,    3 
Pick.   (Mass.)  462;    Morris,   etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Ayres,  29  N.  J.  Lav/ 393,  s.  c.  80 
Am.  Dec.  215 ;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.  Co. 
v.   Whittemore,   43  HI.  420;  Merz  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  14  Mo.  App. 
459;  People  v.  Throop,  12  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  182;  1  Elliott's  Gen.  Pr.,   §436. 
Its  unreasonableness  must  be  demon- 
strated.    Hibernia,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Har- 
rison, 93  Pa.  St.  264 ;  Paxon  v.  Sweet, 
13  N.  J.  Law  (1  Green)  196.     But  see 
Day  v.  Owen,   5  Mich.   520,  holding 
that  the  reasonableness  of  a  by-law 
should  be  left  to  the  jury  under  proper 
instructions  from  the  court.    See,  also, 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Xyon, 
123  Pa.  St.  140,  s.  c.  10  Am.  St.  R.  517. 
Post,  §202. 

2  Such  a  by-law  would  be  contrary 
to    the    constitution    of    the    United 
States.    TJ.    S.    Const.,  Art.    1,  §10; 
Stuyvesant   v.    New  York,   7  Cowen 
(N.  Y.)   588;   Kennebec,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Kendall,  31  Me.  470.   See,  also, 
Flint  v.  Pierce,   99  Mass.  68,  s.  c.  96 
Am.  Dec.  685,  691 ;  note  to  Freeland  v. 


McCullough,  43  Am.  Dec.  694 ;  Berg- 
man v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Ass'n,  29  Minn. 
275. 

3U.  S.  Const.,  Art.  1,  §10;  Howard 
v.  Savannah,  T.  Charlt.  (Ga.)  173, 
(holding  a  municipal  by-law  void  at 
common  law  for  this  reason)  ;  People 
v.  Fire  Department,  31  Mich.  458; 
Great  Falls  Ins.  Co.  v.  Harvey,  45  N. 
H.  292. 

*  Kent  v.  Quicksilver  Min.  Co.,  78 
N.  Y.  159,  where  preferred  stock  had 
been  issued.  Taylor  v.  Griswold,  14 
N.  J.  Law  222,  where  an  attempt  was 
made  to  give  a  vote  for  each  share  of 
stock,  and  so  deprive  the  small  stock- 
holders of  an  equal  voice  in  the  man- 
agement of  its  affairs.  See  Stimson's 
Am.Stat.  (1886) ,  §§  91, 92  and  93 ;  Gray 
v.  Portland  Bank,  3  Mass.  364,  s.  c.  3 
Am.  Dec.  156;  People  v.  Crockett,  9 
Cal.  112;  Budd  v.  Multnomah  St.  Ry. 
Co.,  15  Ore.  413,  8.  c.  3  Am.  St.  R.  169 ; 
In  re  Long  Island  R,  Co.,  19  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  37,  s.  c.  32  Am.  Dec.  429.  The 
last  two  cases  hold  a  by-law  forfeiting 
shares  invalid. 

6 People's  HomeSav.  Banku.  Supe- 
rior Court,  104  Cal.  649,  s.  c.  43  Am. 
St.  Rep.  147;  Matter  of  Lighthall  Mfg. 
Co.,  47  Hun  (N.  Y.)  258. 

6  Sargent  v.  Franklin  Ins.  Co.,  8 
Pick.  (Mass.)  90;  Moore  v.  Bank  of 


278  THE    COUPORATION.  §  194 

courts;1  for  such  by-laws  would  attack  rights  with  which  the 
states  themselves  are  prohibited  from  interfering,2  and  a  cor- 
poration can  not,  under  a  grant  of  power  from  a  state,  do  what 
the  state  itself  has  no  power  to  do.  And  so  the  repeal  of  a  by- 
law can  not  divest  rights  acquired  under  it  while  it  continued 
in  force.1  If  the  by-law  be  separable  in  its  character,  valid  pro- 
visions contained  in  it  may  stand,  although  it  contains  others 
which  are  void.4 

§194.  Power  to  make  by-laws  resides  in  stockholders  — 
When  directors  may  make. — The  power  to  make  by-laws  re- 
sides in  the  members  of  the  corporation  at  large,  where  there 
is  no  law  or  valid  usage  to  the  contrary.5  But  it  is  frequently 
provided  by  charter6  or  by  general  statute7  that  this  power 
shall  be  exercised  by  the  directors ;  and  where  there  is  no  pro- 
vision on  the  subject  the  stockholders  may  delegate  to  the 
directors  authority  to  make  all  necessary  by-laws.8 

§  195.  Formalities  of  enactment — Proof. — By-laws  are  not 
generally  required  in  this  country  to  be  enacted  or  promulgat- 
ed in  any  particular  form,  but  only  to  be  enacted  at  a  legal 
meeting  of  the  corporation.9  And  the  jury  may  find  a  by-law, 

Commerce,  52  Mo.  377 ;  Farmers',  etc.,  tirety  so  that  the  invalid  part  vitiates 

Bank  v.  Wasson,  48  Iowa  336,  s.  c.  30  'the whole.  State  v.  Curtis,  9  Nev.  325. 

Am.  R.  398.  5  Morton  G.  R.  Co.  v.  Wysong,  51 

1  Amesbury  v.  Bowditch,  etc.,  Co.,  Ind.  4,  12;  Martin  v.  Nashville,  etc., 

6  Gray  (Mass.)  596;  Bauer  v.  Sampson  Assn.  2  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  418;  Bank 

Lodge,  102  Ind.  262,  s.  c.  1  N.  E.  R.  of  Holly  Springs  v.  Pinson,  58  Miss. 

571  and  authorities  there  cited;  An-  421,  s.  c.  38  Am.  R.  330;  Angell  & 

gell  &  Ames  on  Corp.  (8th.  ed.),  §  341.  Ames  on  Corp.  (8th  ed.),  §  327. 

*TJ.  S.  Const.,  Art.  1,  §10.  6See  Union  Bank  of  Maryland  t». 

3  Kent  v.  Quicksilver  Min.  Co.,   78  Ridgely,  1  Harris  &  G.  (Md.)  324,  and 
N.  Y.  159,   182.     See,   also,  Wist  v.  Fairfleld    Turnp.    Co.    v.   Thorp,    13 
Grand  Lodge,  22  Ore.  271,  s.  c.  29  Am.  Conn.  173. 

St.  R.  603;  Supreme  Lodge  K.  P.  v.  'Stimson's  Am.  St.  (1892),  §§8073, 

Knight,  117  Ind.  489.  8537. 

4  Amesbury  v.  Bowditch,  etc.,  Ins.  8  State  v.  Overton,  24  N.  J.  L.  435; 
Co.,  6  Gray  (Mass.)  596;  Shelton  v.  Ex  parte  Willcocks,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
Mayor,  30  Ala.  540,  s.  c.  68  Am.  Dec.  402,  s.   c.   17    Am.    Dec.  525;  Cahill 
143;  Rogers  v.  Jones,  1  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  v.  Kalamazoo  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  2  Doug. 
237  s.  c.  19  Am.  Dec.  493.     But  not  if  (Mich.)  124,  s.  c.  43  Am.  Dec.  457. 
the  by-law  must  be  taken  as  an  en-  9  1  Redfield  on  Railways  (5th  ed.), 


§  196  BY-LAWS,    RULES   AND    REGULATIONS.  279 

its  terms  and  adoption,  from  the  usage  of  the  corporation,  in 
the  absence  of  other  evidence,  no  particular  form  of  adoption 
being  prescribed,1  and  it  being  shown  that  no  record  evidence 
of  the  adoption  of  such  by-laws  is  in  existence.  But,  in  gen- 
eral, it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  prove  what  they  are,  that  the 
by-laws  themselves  shall  be  produced,  and  parol  proof  of  their 
contents  by  an  officer  of  the  corporation  is  insufficient.2  Where 
the  charter  or  a  general  statute8  prescribes  the  mode  in  which 
by-laws  shall  be  made  and  adopted  in  order  that  they  may  be 
valid,  that  mode  must  be  pursued.4  Thus,  in  England,  by- 
laws are  generally  required  to  be  made  under  corporate  seal,5 
and  in  California  and  other  states  which  follow  its  code,  all 
"by-laws  adopted  must  be  certified  by  a  majority  of  the  directors 
and  by  the  secretary  of  the  corporation,  and  copied  in  a  legi- 
ble hand  in  the  "book  of  by-laws  "  to  be  kept  in  the  corporate 
office  for  public  inspection  ;  and  no  by-law  shall  take  effect 
until  so  copied.6  When  the  books  of  the  corporation,  in  which 
it  is  proved  that  the  by-laws  of  the  corporation  are  registered, 
are  produced,  they  are  held  to  be  evidence  of  the  existence 
and  terms  of  such  by-laws  in  all  courts  of  justice.7 

§  196.   Amendment  and  repeal. — Of  course,  the  same  body 
(whether  stockholders  or  directors)  that  may  enact  by-laws 

96.     But  the  written  assent  of    the  'See  Stimson's  Am. St.  Law  (1892), 

holders  of  two-thirds  of  the  capital  §8072. 

stock  is  effectual  to  adopt  a  code  of  *Angell  &  Ames  on  Corp.  (8th  ed.) 

"by-laws   without  a  meeting  for  that  §328;  Dunstonc.  Imperial  Gas  Light 

purpose  in  several  of  the  states.   Stim-  Co.,  3  Barn.  &  Adol.  125. 

eon's  Am.  St.  (1892),  §  8072.  5  Angell  &  Ames  on  Corp.  (8th  ed.), 

1  Union  Bank  v.  Ridgely,  1  Harris  §  328. 

&  G.  324.     So  they  may  find  any  act  6  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.,  §  8072. 

of  the  directors  to  have  been  duly  'Case  of  Thetford,  1   Salk  192,  12 

performed  if  the  statute  does  not  pre-  Vin.  Ahr.  90.     In  Maryland  a  copy  of 

scribe  the  manner  of  its  performance  a  by-law  of  a  corporation  of  that  state, 

and  that  record  evidence  of  such  per-  under  the  corporate  seal,  and  purport- 

formance  shall  be  preserved.    Langs-  ing  to  be  signed  by  the  president,  secre- 

dale  v.  Bonton,  12  Ind.  467;  McCabe  tary,  or  treasurer  of  the  corporation,  is 

».  Board,  etc.,  46  Ind.  380.     See  Fair-  made  prima  facie  evidence  of  its  adop- 

field  T.  Co.  v.  Thorp,  13  Conn.  173.  tion  and    terms.      Pub.    Gen.    Laws 

2  Lumbard  v.  Aldrich,  8  N.  H.  31.  Md.,  1888,  Ch.  23,  §4. 


280  THE    CORPORATION.  §  197 

may  repeal  them  or  enact  others  in  their  stead.1  And  it  seems 
that  the  repeal  of  a  by-law  may  be  proved  by  showing  a  course 
of  conduct  inconsistent  therewith  in  a  manner  similar  to  that 
by  which  its  adoption  is  shown  by-  usage.*  So,  of  course, 
amendments  may  be  made  in  the  by-laws.8  But  by-laws  upon 
the  faith  of  which  and  under  which  vested  rights  have  been 
acquired  by  a  member  can  not  be  so  amended  or  repealed  as  to 
impair  such  rights.1 

§  197.  Enforcement  of  by-laws. — The  power  to  make  by- 
laws necessarily  implies  the  power  to  enforce  them  by  pecun- 
iary penalties,  competent  and  proportionable  to  the  offense.* 
But  such  power  is  often  specially  conferred  by  charter  or  by 
statute.6  The  penalty  must,  however,  be  reasonable  and  cer- 
tain,7 and  can  not  be  enforced  by  a  forfeiture  of  shares8  with- 
out statutory  authority. 

§  198.  Rules  and  regulations  in  England. — In  England 
rules  for  the  government  of  the  railroad  employes,  in  their 
dealings  with  the  public,  and  of  the  passengers  and  others 
transacting  business  with  the  company,  are  called  by-laws  ;* 
and  under  many  of  the  special  charters  granted  in  that 
country,  as  well  as  under  the  Companies'  Clauses  Consolida- 
tion Act  of  1845,  the  railroad  companies  are  authorized  to  en- 
act regulations  which  resemble  the  by-laws  or  ordinances  of 
municipal  corporations.  Their  control  over  persons  coming 

1  The  power  to  make  by-laws  gener-  5  Angell  &  Ames  on  Corp.,  §  360. 

ally  implies  the  power  to  repeal  them.  6  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8071. 

King  v.  Ashwell,  12  East.  22;  Kent  v.  7  Cahill  v.   Kalamazoo,  etc.,  Co.,  2 

Quicksilver,  etc.,  Co.,  78  N.  Y.  159.  Doug.  (Mich.)  124,  s.  c.  43  Am.  Dec. 

But  see  Stevens  v.  Davison,  18  Gratt.  457 ;  Mobile  v.  Yuille,  3  Ala.  137,  s.  c, 

(Va.)  819.  36  Am.  Dec.  441;  Grant  Corp.,  84;  1 

1  Attorney-General  v.  Middleton,  2  Thomp.  Corp.,  §  1040. 

Ves.   Sen.  327.     See,  also,  Henry  v.  *  Re  Long  Island  R.  R.  Co.,  19  Wend. 

Jackson,  37  Vt.  431.  (N.  Y.)   37,   s.   c.   32  Am.  Dec.  429; 

'Schrick  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Budd  v.  Multnomah  St.  Ry.  Co.,  15 

Mo.  423.  Ore.  413,  s.  c.  3  Am.  St.  R.  169;  Kirk 

*  Kent  v.  Quicksilver,  etc.,  Co.,  78  v.  Nowill,  1  Term  R.  118. 

N.  Y.  159.     Compare  East  Tenn.,  etc.,  9Chilton  v.  The  London,  etc.,   R. 

R.  Co.  v.  Gammon,  5  Sneed  (Tenn.)  Co.,  16  M.  &  W.  212,  5  Eng.  Railway 

667.  and  Canal  Cas.  4. 


§  198  BY-LAWS,    RULES    AND    REGULATIONS.  281 

upon  their  property  and  their  right  to  regulate  such  matters 
extend  to  the  imposition  of  penalties  for  failure  to  observe  such 
regulations,  which  may  even  be  en  forced  by  imprisonment.1  Such 
rules  or  by-laws  must  be  made  under  the  common  seal  of  the 
corporation,  and,  so  far  as  they  affect  those  who  are  not  offi- 
cers or  servants  of  the  company,  should  be  approved  by  the 
board  of  trade  or  railway  commissioners.2  A  copy  of  these  by- 
laws must  be  furnished  to  every  officer  and  servant  of  the  com- 
pany, liable  to  be  affected  thereby.  And  in  many  instances, 
power  to  bind  parties  dealing  with  the  company  is  granted  on 
condition  that  the  by-laws  or  regulations  adopted  shall  be 
written  or  printed,  and  copies  of  them  prominently  displayed 
at  all  stations.3  While  the  rules  are  required  to  be  so  adopted 
and  promulgated  there  is  a  tendency  to  hold  the  corporation 
not  liable  for  acts  of  its  servants  done  in  contravention 
of  such  rules.  Thus  it  was  held  that  the  company  was  not 
liable  in  a  case  where  the  station  clerk  informed  the  plaintiff 
that  he  could  use  his  excursion  ticket  for  return  passage  by  a 
certain  train,  which,  however,  did  not  run  clear  through,  and 
the  plaintiff  was  arrested  by  the  superintendent  for  refusing  to 
pay  the  extra  fare  demanded  for  his  passage  on  such  train.* 
And  the  company  was  also  held  not  liable  for  the  arrest  by  its 
inspector  of  an  innocent  man  upon  a  charge  of  having  no 
ticket,  refusing  to  pay  fare,  being  intoxicated,  and  assaulting 
the  inspector,  in  violation  of  the  company's  regulations,  even 
though  the  solicitor  of  the  company  attended  to  conduct  the 

1  Chilton  t>.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  their  duty,  shall  be  liable  to  a  penalty 
M.  &  W.  212.    See  Hodges,  453,  for  of  forty  shillings,  and  (in  all  but  the 
the  by-laws  most  generally  adopted  in  first  instance)   forfeiture  of  the  fare 
England.  paid  and  eviction  from  the  company's 

2  Hodges,  552,553.  In  the  code  of  by-  premises.    And  any  person  willfully 
laws  framed  by  the  board  of  trade  and  injuring  the  company's  carriages  shall 
generally  adopted    in  England,  it  is  be  liable  to  a  penalty  of  not  more  than 
provided  that  every  person  attempting  £5,  in  addition  to  the  damage  done, 
to  evade  the  payment  of  all  or  a  part  Hodges  453. 

of  his  fare,  and  every  person  smoking,  8  Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Goodman, 

being  intoxicated,  committing  a  nui-  11  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  546. 

sance,  or  interfering  with  the  comfort  *  Roe  v.  Birkenhead,  etc.,  R.,  7  Eng. 

of  other  passengers,  or  obstructing  the  L.  &  Eq.  546,6  Eng.  Railway  and  Canal 

company's  servants  in  the  discharge  of  Cas.  795. 


282  THE    CORPORATION.  §  199 

proceedings  at  the  hearing  before  the  magistrate,  but  without 
knowledge  of  the  facts.1  But  these  cases  would  seem  to  be  op- 
posed to  the  rule  which  obtains  generally  throughout  this 
country,  that  it  makes  no  difference,  as  to  binding  the  com- 
pany, that  the  agent  disobeyed  his  superior,  even  though  it 
was  willfully  done,2  so  long  as  he  was  acting  within  the  scope 
of  his  employment.3 

§  199.  Distinction  between  by-laws  and  rules  and  regula- 
tions —  Eight  of  railroad  company  to  make  rules  and  regula- 
tions.— In  this  country  there  is  a  clearly  recognized  dis- 
tinction between,  on  the  one  hand,  by-laws  for  the  government 
of  the  members  and  officers  in  their  dealings  with  the  corpo- 
ration, which  must  be  adopted  by  the  body  of  stockholders, 
or  by  the  directors ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  regulations  for 
the  government  of  the  company's  employes  and  servants  en- 
gaged in  operating  the  road  and  of  passengers  and  others  of  the 
public  transacting  business  with  the  company  or  dealing  in 
any  manner  with  the  company's  property,4  which  may  usually 
be  made  by  any  officer  or  agent  of  the  corporation  duly  author- 
ized to  control  the  business  or  property  to  which  they  relate.8 
A  railroad  company  has  an  implied  authority  (which  is  neces- 
sarily almost  absolute  )5  to  make  and  enforce  all  reasonable 

Eastern  Counties  R.  v.  Broom,  2  32  Am.   L.   Reg.  (N.   S.)  747;    Com- 

Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  406;  Roev.  Birkenhead  monwealth  v.  Power,  7  Met.  (Mass.) 

R.,  7  Exch.  36.  596,  s.   c.   41   Am.  Dec.  465,  holding 

2  Weed   v.  Panama  R.  Co.,  5  Duer  that  a  superintendent  of  a  railway 
(N.  Y.)  193.     Post,  §  213.  station  may   make  reasonable   rules 

3  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Derby,  for  the  control  of  the  buildings  and 
14  How.  (U.  S.)  468,  483;  Higgins  v.  grounds,   and  for  the    regulation  of 
Watervliet,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  N.  Y.  23.  conduct  of  persons  coming  upon  such 
Whether  the  agent  was  acting  within  grounds.     Markham  v.  Brown,  8  N. 
the  scope  of  his  authority  is  generally  H.  523,  to  the  same  effect;  Vedder  v. 
for   the  jury  to  determine  from  the  Fellows,  20  N.  Y.  126,  per  Strong,  J. : 
evidence.     McKernan  v.  Manhattan  "The  conductors,   in  the  absence  of 
R.  Co.,  22  Jones  and  S.  (N.  Y.  Super,  any  directions  from  their  superior  of- 
Ct.)  354.  ficers,  have  a  right,  and,  indeed,  it  is 

*  State  v.  Overton,  24  N.  J.  L.  435,  obligatory  upon  them,  to  adopt  some 

s.  c.  61  Am.  Dec.  671 ;   Morris,   etc.,  rule  relative  to  the  surrender  of  the 

R.  Co.,  v.  Ayres,  29  N.  J.  L.  393;  Com-  tickets  of  the  passengers." 

monwealth  v.  Power,  7  Met.  596,  601.  6  Hibbard  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5  Smith  v.  Chamberlain.  38  S.  C.  529,  15  N.  Y.  455. 
17  S.  E.  R.  371,  s.  c.  19  L.  R.  A.  710, 


$  200  BY-LAWS,    RULES    AND    REGULATIONS.  283 

rules  and  regulations  for  the  control  of  its  trains  and  the  per- 
sons thereon,  of  persons  using  its  stations  and  grounds,  and 
of  those  transacting  business  with  it,  in  order  to  provide  for 
the  safety  of  its  passengers  and  employes,  and  to  protect 
itself  from  imposition  and  wrong.1 

§  200.  Examples  of  rules  and  regulations  which  railroad 
companies  may  make. — To  this  end  they  may  regulate  the  pur- 
chase of  tickets,  the  time  and  manner  of  procuring  and  paying 
for  the  same,  and  the  time  and  manner  of  surrendering  them; 
the  manner  and  time  of  entering  and  leaving  the  cars;  and 
the  conduct  of  the  passengers  while  upon  the  cars  or  at  sta- 
tions waiting  for  trains,  as  that  they  shall  not  be  boisterous  or 
disorderly,  shall  do  nothing  to  obstruct  the  conductors  or  other 
employes  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties,  and  shall  be  seated  in 
the  cars  while  the  train  is  in  motion.2  Thus,  where  a  reason- 
able opportunity  is  afforded  for  the  purchase  of  tickets,  they 
may  enact  and  enforce  a  rule  requiring  the  payment  of  an  ad- 
ditional sum  by  those  who  do  not  purchase  tickets  before  en- 
tering the  car,  and  a  regulation  providing  that  ten  cents  extra 
shall  be  paid  in  such  a  case  over  and  above  the  regular  ticket 
fare,  is  reasonable  and  valid.3  So,  they  may  require  the  pro- 
duction of  a  ticket  and  its  exhibition  to  the  conductor  at 
proper  times  as  evidence  of  the  right  to  passage.*  And  a  rule 

Crocker  v.  New  London,  etc.,  R.  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  R.  147;  Sage  v. 

Co.,  24  Conn.  249;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  134  Ind. 

Co.  v.  McClurg,  56  Pa.  St.  294;   South-  100,  s.  c.  33  N.  E.  R.  771;  Crocker  v. 

ern  R.  Co.  v.  Kendrick,  40  Miss.  374;  New  London,   etc.,  Railroad  Co.,  24 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bartram,  11  Conn.  249;  Swan  v.  Manchester,  etc., 

Ohio  St.  457;    Stephen  v.  Smith,  29  Railroad  Co.,  132  Mass.  116;  Forseev. 

Vt.   160;    Reese  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Alabama,  etc.,  Railroad  Co.,  63  Miss. 

Co.,  131   Pa.   St.  422,  s.  c.  19  Atl.  R.  67;  State  v.  Hungerford,  39  Minn.  6, 

72,  1  Lewis's  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  Cas.  s.  c.  38  N.  W.R.  628 ;  Hilliard  v.  Goold, 

147;    Dickerman    v.  St.  Paul  Union  34  N.  H.  230;  State*.  Goold,  53  Me. 

Depot  Co.,  44  Minn.  433,  3  Lewis  Am.  279 ;  Pullman  Co.  v.  Reed,  75  111.  125 ; 

R.R.  &  Corp.  Cas.  374,  and  note,  46  Stephen  v.  Smith,  29  Vt.  160;  Snell- 

N.  W.  Rep.  907.  baker  v.  Paducah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ky. 

2  Hibbardu.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  597,  23  S.W.  R.  509.     See,  also,  Man- 
15  N.  Y.  455,  and  cases  in  last  note  ningt?.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Ala. 
supra.  92,  s.  c.  36  Am.  Stat.  R.  225. 

3  Reese  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  131  *  Van  Dusan  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
Pa.  St.  422,  s.  c.  19  Atl.  R.  72, 1  Lewis's  97  Mich.  439,  8.  c.  56  N.  W.  R.  848 ; 


284 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  200 


requiring  passengers  to  make  a  continuous  trip,  unless  they 
procure  a  "stop-over"  ticket  or  check,  is  reasonable  and  valid.1 
A  railroad  company  may  also  make  and  enforce  a  rule  forbid- 
ding passengers  to  be  carried  on  freight  trains,2  where  it  suf- 
ficiently provides  for  their  accommodation  on  passenger  trains, 
and,  if  it  permits  passengers  on  freight  trains,  it  may,  after 
due  notice  of  the  rule,  require  such  passengers  to  provide  them- 
selves with  a  particular'  kind  of  ticket  which  it  has  given  them 
a  reasonable  opportunity  to  obtain.3  It  is  likewise  held,  in  the 
absence  of  any  statutory  provision  to  the  contrary,  that  a  railroad 
company  may  adopt  rules  providing  that  particular  trains  shall 
stop  only  at  certain  stations,  where  it  furnishes  reasonable 
means  of  reaching  all  stations  on  its  road  by  other  trains,  and 
that  passengers  are  bound  to  take  notice  of  such  a  rule  as  shown, 
in  the  time-card  published  by  the  company.4  Rules  and  regu- 


Northern  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  O'Conner,  76 
Md.  207,  s.  c.  35  Am.  Stat.  R.  422  ;Poole 
v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  16  Ore.  261, 
s.  c.  8  Am.  Stat.  R.  289;  Cresson  v. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Phila. 
(Pa.)  597;  Nye  v.  Marysville,  etc.,  St. 
R.  Co.,  97  Cal.  461, 32  Pac.  R.  530 ;  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boger,  1  Bradw. 
(111.)  472;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Blocher,  27  Md.  277 ;  Frederick  v.  Mar- 
quette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Mich.  342; 
Downs  ».  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 
Conn.  287,  s.  c.  4  Am.  R.  77;  Jer- 
ome v.  Smith,  48  Vt.  230,  s.  c.  21  Am. 
R.  125;  Crawford  v.  Cincinnati,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  26  Ohio  St.  580;  Ripley  v.  New 
Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  31  N.  J.  L.  388; 
Townsend  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
56  N.  Y.  295,  s.  c.  15  Am.  R.  419; 
Standish  v.  Narragansett,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill 
Mass.  512,  s.  c.  15  Am.  R.  66;  Duker. 
Great  Western  R.  Co.,  14  Upper  Can. 
Q.  B.  369,  377.  See  Watkins  0.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  21  Dist.  of  C.  1,  52 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  159,  and  note. 
1  Cheney  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 
Met.  (Mass.)  121,  s.  c.  45  Am.  Dec.  190 
and  note;  Yorton  v.  Milwaukee,  etc., 


R.  Co. ,54  Wis.  234,s.  c.  41  Am.  R.  23; 
Beebe  v.  Ayres,  28  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  275 ; 
Johnson  v.  Concord  Ry.,  46  N.  H.  213. 

2  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Randolph, 
53111.  510;   Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Moore,  49  Tex.  31 ;  Eaton  v.  Delaware, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  N.  Y.382. 

3  Evans  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 
Ala.  246;   St.   Louis,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Myrtle,  51  Ind.  566 ;  Arnold  v.  Illinois, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  111.  273 ;  Law  v.  Illi- 
nois, etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Iowa  534 ;  Kansas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kessler,  18  Kan.  523; 
Burlington,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Rose,   11 
Neb.  177,  s.  c.  1  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 
Cas.  253. 

4  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. ».  Ludlam,  26  S. 
W.  R.  430;  Dietrich  v.  Pennsylvania, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Pa.  St.  432,  s.  c.  10  Am. 
R.  711.    "It  is  the  duty  of  a  party  going^ 
upon  a  railroad  train  to  inform  him- 
self when,  where  and  how  he  can  go 
or  stop,  according  to  the  regulations  of 
the  railroad  company."     Ohio,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Applewhite,  52  Ind    540,  546; 
Pittsburgh,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Lightcap,  7 
Ind.  App.  249,  253 ;  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Randolph,  53  111.  510 ;  Gulf,  etc., 


§2<?0 


BY-LAWS,    RULES    AND    REGULATIONS. 


285 


lations  in  regard  to  separate  cars  for  ladies  and  their  escorts,1  or 
providing  for  the  separation  of  white  from  colored  passengers,8 
have  also  been  upheld  as  reasonable  where  equal  accommoda- 
tions were  offered  to  all.  So  has  a  rule  that  none  but  holders  of 
first-class  tickets  shall  ride  on  sleeping  cars."  Railroad  com- 
panies may  also  adopt  and  enforce  rules  prohibiting  passengers 
from  riding  in  the  baggage  or  express  cars  or  on  the  engines, 
platforms,  or  other  improper  places  of  danger,4  and  prohibiting 
disorderly  conduct  on  the  cars.5  And  they  may  exclude  from 
their  carriages  and  premises  such  persons  as  refuse  to  comply 
with  their  reasonable  regulations.6  Like  reasonable  rules  may 
be  made  to  govern  the  receipt,  carriage,  and  delivery  of  freight 
and  baggage,  and  the  shipper  may  be  compelled  to  conform  to 


R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  84  Tex.  678,  52  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  233 ;  Jackson  v.  Grand 
Ave.  R.  Co.,  118 Mo.  199,  s.  c.  24  S.  W. 
R.  192;  Beauchamp  v.  International, 
etc.,  Railway  Co.,56  Tex.  239. 

1  Peck  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70 
N.  Y.  587 ;  Marquette  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  33  Iowa  562;  Bass  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Wis.  450,  s.  c.  17  Am. 
R.  495;  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ben- 
son, 85  Tenn.  627. 

2  "West  Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miles, 
55  Pa.  St.  209 ;  Green  v.  City  of  Bridge- 
ton,  9  Cent.  L.  J.  206;  Ex  parte  Plessy, 
45  La.  Ann.  80,  18  L.  R.  A.  639,  and 
note. 

3  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  r.  Lee,  49 
111.  App.  75,  and  the  company  may 
charge  extra  compensation  for  a  seat 
in  a  chair  car,  even  to  the  holder  of  a 
first-class  ticket.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.R. 
Co.  v.  Hardy,  55  Ark.  134,  s.  c.  52  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  224. 

4  Florida  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Hirst, 
30  Fla.  1,  52  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas. 
409,  s.  c.  16  L.  R.  A.  631,  and  note; 
Robertson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
22  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  91 ;  O'Neill  v.  Lynn, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  Mass.  371,  s.  c.  29  N. 
E.  R.  630;    Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 


Langdon,  92  Pa.  St.  21,  s.  c.  37  Am.  R. 
651. 

5 See  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t>.  Pil- 
low, 76  Pa.  St.  510;  New  Orleans,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Burke,  53  Miss.  200;  Jencks  v. 
Coleman,  2  Sumn.  (U.  S.)  221. 

6  Murphy  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  118  Mass. 
228 ;  Putnam  v.  Broadway,  etc,.,  R.  Co., 
55  N.  Y.  108,  s.  c.  14  Am.  R.  190 ;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Power,  7  Met.  (Mass.) 
596;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
son, 92  Ala.  204 ;  McKernan  v.  Man- 
hattan R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  354 ; 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Logan,  88 
Ky.  232;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Pillow,  76  Pa.  St.  510.  A  railroad 
company  may,  at  its  option,  exclude 
all  persons  coming  upon  its  premises 
for  purposes  other  than  transacting 
business  with  the  company.  Hotel 
runners,  Com.  v.  Power,  7  Met. (Mass.) 
596,  s.  c.  41  Am.  Dec.  465,  and  note; 
Landrigan  v.  State,  31  Ark.  50.  Port- 
ers, Barney  v.  Oyster  Bay,  etc.,  Co., 
67  N.  Y.  301 ;  The  D.  R.  Martin,  11 
Blatch  C.  C.  233.  Omnibus  driver, 
Barker  v.  Midland  R.  Co.  18  C.  B. 
46;  Summitt  v.  State,  8  Lea  (Tenn.) 
413.  Harris  v.  Stevens,  31  Vt.  79. 


286  THE    CORPORATION.  §  200 

them  in  transacting  business  with  the  company.1  Thus,  a  rail- 
road company  may  require  persons  hauling  freight  from  its 
depot  to  take  it  from  the  platform,  where  it  is  delivered  to 
them  by  the  company's  agents,  and  to  transact  business  over 
the  counter,  without  entering  the  warehouse  to  check  off  the 
freight.8  So,  it  is  now  established  in  most  jurisdictions  by  the 
weight  of  authority,  in  accordance  with  the  better  reason,  that 
it  is  competent  for  a  railroad  company  to  adopt  and  enforce  a 
reasonable  regulation,  fixing  the  time  within  which  a  consignee 
shall  unload  his  freight  after  notice  of  its  arrival  and  providing 
a  reasonable  charge  per  day  thereafter  for  car  service  or  by  way 
of  demurrage.3  As  will  hereafter  appear,  however,  a  common 
carrier  can  make  no  unreasonable  and  unjust  discrimination 
between  its  customers,4  and  some  regulations  that  it  might 
otherwise  make  are  prohibited  by  the  interstate  commerce  law. 
Rules  affecting  passengers  and  shippers  are  not  the  only  rules 
which  a  railroad  company  has  the  power  to  make.  It  is  not 
only  the  right,  but  it  is  also  the  duty  of  railroad  companies  to 
promulgate  and  enforce  reasonable  and  necessary  rules  for  the 
safety  of  its  employes,  in  the  management  and  operation  of  its 

Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Kendrick,  40  Mass.  260;  Kentucky  "Wagon,  etc.,  Co 

Miss.  374;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  v.  Louisville,  etc., Co.,  11  Ry.&  Corp.  fi. 

Lyon,  123  Pa.  St.  140;  Morris  &  E.  R.  J.  49.  One  dollar  per  day  for  each  car 

Co.  v.  Ayres,  29  N.  J.  L.393;  Randall  was  held  reasonable  in  the  first  two 

v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N.  Car.  cases  above  cited.     But  see  Chicago  & 

612,  s.  c.  13  S.  E.  R.  137.    As  to  when  N.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  103  111.588; 

the  customer  is  not  bound  to    take  Burlington,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Chicago 

notice  of  rules  see  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  Lumber  Co.,  15  Neb.  390. 
c.  Skellie,  90  Ga.  694,  s.  c.  16  S.  E.  R.        4See  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People, 

657;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Crook,  44  56  111.   365;  Hays  v.    Pennsylvania, 

Ala.   468;   Atchison,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  etc.,  Co.,   12  Fed  R.  309;  Logan  v. 

Miller,  16  Neb.  661,  s.  c.  21  N.  W.  R.  Central  R.  Co.,  74  Ga.  684;    Rice  v. 

451.  Railroad  Co.,  3  Interstate  Com.  Com. 

2  Such  a  regulation  is  reasonable.  R.  186;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clos- 

Donovan  v.  Texas,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  ser,  126  Ind.  348,  s.  c.  26  N".E.  R.  159,  22 

Tex.  519,  B.  c.  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Am.  St.  R.  593,  and  authorities  there 

Cas.  320.  cited ;  Root  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  114 

"Norfolk  and  Western    R.  Co.    v.  N.  Y.  300,  s.  c.  11  Am.  St.  R.  643,  and 

Adams,    (Va.),  18  S.  E.  R.  673,  s.  c.  exhaustive  note.     Article  in   16  Am. 

56  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  330 ;  Miller  L.  Rev.  818 ;  note  to  Commonwealth. 

v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 Ga.  563,  s.  c.  v.  Power,  41  Am.  Dec.  465,  484. 
15  S.  E.  R.  316 ;  Millerw.  Mansfield,  112 


§  201  BY-LAWS,    RULES    AND    REGULATIONS.  287 

road.1     This  subject,  however,  will  be  fully  considered  here- 
after. 

§201.  Enforcement  of  rules — Penalties. — Beyond  exclu- 
sion from  their  premises  and  from  the  privilege  of  transacting 
business  with  them,  railroad  corporations  have  in  this  country 
very  little  authority  to  inflict  penalties  for  disobedience  of  their 
rules,  except  so  far  as  such  penalties  are  prescribed  by  the  stat- 
utes of  the  various  states.,  But  they  are  generally  permitted, 
as  we  have  seen,  to  exact  a  higher  fare  from  passengers  failing 
to  procure  tickets  and  seeking  to  pay  their  fare  after  getting 
upon  the  train,8  provided  such  increased  fare  be  reasonable.' 
And  the  English  courts  have  adjudged  a  by-law  valid  which 
required  a  passenger,  not  procuring  or  delivering  up  his  ticket, 
to  pay  fare  from  the 'place  whence  the  train  originally  started.3 
Such  rules  must  be  in  accordance  with  the  charter  and  not,  it 
seems,  in  conflict  with  any  of  the  numerous  regulations  pre- 
scribed by  statute  in  the  states  through  which  the  road  runs  or 
in  which  it  does  business,*  and  must,  moreover,  be  reasonable.5 

§  202.  Reasonableness  of  rules — When  a  question  of  fact 
and  when  a  question  of  law. — The  reasonableness  of  such  reg- 
ulations and  of  the  manner  of  their  enforcement  in  a  given 

1  Lewis  v.  Seifert,  116  Pa.  St.  628,  s.  holding  that  an  additional  charge  of 
c.  11  Atl.  R.  514;  Corcoran  v.  Dela-  ten  cents  is  not  a  "charge  for  trans- 
ware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126  N.  Y.  673,  s.  c.  portation"  within  the  meaning  of  a 
27  N.  E.  R.  1022;  Morgan  v.  Hudson  statute  limiting  the  rate  three  and 
River,  etc.,  Co.,  133  N.  Y.  666,  s.  c.  31  one-half  cents  per  mile.  Ante,  §  200. 
N.  E.  R.  234;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  3  Chilton  v.  London,  eto.,  R.  Co.,  16 
v.  Henderson,  37  Ohio  St.  549;  Chi-  M.  &W.  212,5Eng.  Railw.  and  Canal 
cago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Moranda,  93  Cas.  4.  See,  also,  Manning  v.  Louis- 
Ill.  302;  Ohio  &  M.  R.  Co.  v.  Collarn,  ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95  Ala.  392,  52  Am. 
73  Ind.  261 ;  Ford  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  213. 
110  Mass.  240 ;  Hough  v.  Railway  Co.,  *  See  ante,  §  191.  We  do  not  mean, 
100  U.  S.  213.  however,  that  a  state  law  will  control 

2McGowen  v.  Morgan's  Louisiana,  the    authority  of  the  United    States 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  732;  State  v.  over  the  road  as  an  instrument  of  in- 

Hungerford,    39    Minn.   6;   Reese  v.  terstate  commerce. 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  131  Pa.  St.  422,  5  Chicago  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wil- 

s.  c.  1  Lewis's  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp.  Cas.  Hams,  55  111.  185.    Ante,  §  193. 
147,  citing  numerous  authorities  and 


288  THE    CORPORATION.  §  202 

case  has  been  held  by  some  of  the  courts  to  be  a  question  of  fact 
for  the  jury.1  But  it  would  seem  that  this  must  be  a  question  of 
law  for  the  court  to  decide,  if  any  fixed  and  permanent  regula- 
tions are  to  be  established,  and  the  better  authority  holds  it  to 
be  such  ;  since  one  jury  in  a  given  case  might  pronounce  the 
rule  reasonable,  while  another  jury  in  another  case  might 
decide  the  same  rule  to  be  unreasonable.2  Yet,  as  any  given 
case  is  apt  to  depend  in  part  upon  facts  and  circumstances 
which  are  themselves  in  dispute,  some  authorities  hold  that  the 
question  of  the  reasonableness  of  a  rule  as  applied  to  the  case 
in  hand  should  be  submitted  to  the  jury,  under  proper  instruc- 
tions from  the  court,  as  a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fact,8  and 
that  it  is  for  the  court  only  where  the  facts  are  undisputed.* 
There  are,  doubtless,  many  cases  in  which  the  reasonableness 
of  the  rule  depends,  in  the  particular  instance,  upon  disputed 
facts  or  circumstances,  and,  where  this  is  true,  it  may,  per- 
haps, be  called  a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fact;  but,  when 
the  facts  are  undisputed,  we  think  it  is  clear,  both  upon  prin- 
ciple and  according  to  the  weight  of  authority,  that  the  ques- 
tion is  one  of  law  for  the  court.5 

1  State  v.  Overton,  24  N.  J.  L.  435;     Fellows,  20  N.  Y.  126;  1  Elliott's  Gen. 
Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ayres,  29  N.  J.     Pr.,  §  436. 

L.  393;  State  v.  Chovin,  7  Iowa  204;  8Day  v.  Owen,  5  Mich.  520;  Bass  v. 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  78  Tex.  Chicago,   etc.,   R.  Co.,  36  Wis.   450; 

372,  s.  c.  14  S.  W.  R.  666;    Prather  v.  Brown  v.  Memphis,   etc.,   R.  Co.,  4 

Railway  Co.,  80  Ga.  427,  s.  c.  9  S.  E.  Fed.  R.  37 ;  Redfield  on  Railways  (5th 

R.  530.  ed.),  95;  Thompson  on  carriers,  §335. 

2  Illinois  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Whitte-  See,   also,   Clason  v.   Milwaukee,   30 
more,  43  111.  420;    Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Wis.   316;    Christian  v.  First  Div.  St. 
Co.  v.  McLallen,  84  111.  109  (holding,  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Minn.  21. 
however,  that  its  adequacy  or  sufficien-  *  Commonwealth  v.  Power,  7  Met. 
cy  is  for  the  jury) ;  Hoffbauer  v.  Del-  (Mass.)  596;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
hi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Iowa  342;  Louis-  v.  Lyon,  123  Pa.  St.  140,  s.  c.  10  Am. 
ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fleming,  14  Lea  St.  R.  517. 

(Tenn.)  128;  Maroney  v.  Old  Colony,  5  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. Hardy,  55 

etc.,R.  Co.,  106  Mass.  153;  Yorton  v.  Ark.  134,  s.  c.  52  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co,.  54  Wis.  234;  Cas.  224;  Old  Colony  R.  Co.  v.  Tripp, 

Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nuzum,  50  147  Mass.   35,  s.  c.  17  N.  E.  R.  89; 

Ind.   141;    Fertich  r.   Michener,  111  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fleming,  14 

Ind.   472,  481,  s.  c.  11  N.  E.  R.  605;  Lea  (Tenn.)  128;  Wolsey  r.  Railroad 

South  Florida  R.  Co.  v.  Rhoads,  25  Co.,  33  Ohio  St.  227;  Hoffbauer  r.Rail- 

Fla.  40,  s.  c.  23  Am.  St.  R.  506 ;  Pierce  way  Co.,  52  la.  342,  s.  c.  3  N.  W.  R.  121, 

v.  Randolph,  12  Tex.  290;  Vedder  v.  and  authorities  cited  in  note  2,  supra. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


CORPORATE    REPRESENTATIVES. 


§203.   Railroad  corporations    act     §218. 
through    officers,    agents  or 
other  representatives.  219. 

204.  Appointment  of    officers  and 

agents — General  doctrine. 

205.  Statutory  privileges  bestowed        220. 

on  agents. 

206.  Officers  generally.  221. 

207.  Qualifications  of  officers. 

208.  Election    of   officers  —  Gener-        222. 

ally. 

209.  Agents  generally.  223. 

210.  Proof  of  the  existence  of  the        224. 

relation    of     principal    and 
agent.  225. 

211.  Proof  of  authority. 

212.  Agency  inferred.  226. 

213.  Powers,  duties   and  authority        227. 

of  officers  and  agents  gener-        228. 
ally.  229. 

214.  Authority  of    agent — Line  of 

duty.  230. 

215.  Scope    of    authority — General        231. 

conclusions. 

216.  Contracts  by  agents — General        232. 

doctrine.  233. 

217.  Declarations    and  admissions 

of  agents. 


Declarations  of  agent — Res 
gestce. 

Declarations  must  relate  to 
transaction  or  event  in  con- 
troversy. 

Exercise  of  authority  by  agents 
— Illustrative  cases. 

Scope  of  authority — Illustra- 
tive cases. 

Authority  of  agents — Employ- 
ment of  surgeons. 

Physicians  and  surgeons. 

Delegation  of  power  by  di- 
rectors. 

Employment  of  sub-agents  and 
servants. 

Notice  to  agents  or  officers. 

Ratification. 

Acts  that  may  be  ratified. 

Ratification — What  consti- 
tutes. 

Compensation  of  officers. 

Liability  of  agents  for  their 
torts. 

Bonds  of  officers  and  agents. 

Sureties — Bonds  of  o  ffi  c  e  r  s 
and  agents. 


§  203.  Railroad  corporations  act  through  officers,  agents 
or  other  representatives. — It  is  elementary  learning  that  corpo- 
rations act  through  agents,  officers,  attorneys  or  servants.  The 
nature  of  a  corporation  aggregate,  as  is  well  known,  is  such 
that  it  can  only  perform  its  corporate  functions,  duties  and  acts 
19  (289) 


290  THE    CORPORATION.  §  204 

through  the  medium  of  natural  persons.1  The  creation  of  a 
railroad  corporation  invests  it  with  power,  without  express 
words,  to  choose  officers,  agents,  attorneys  and  servants.2  In 
other  words,  the  creation  of  a  railroad  company  invests  it,  as 
an  incidental  power,  with  the  authority  to  appoint  officers  and 
agents. 

§  204.  Appointment  of  officers  and  agents — General  doc- 
trine.— As  a  general  rule  agents  or  servants  may  be  appointed 
by  railroad  corporations  in  the  same  manner  as  agents  and 
servants  may  be  appointed  by  natural  persons.8  It  is  how- 
ever to  be  understood  that  where  the  charter  or  act  of  incorpo- 
ration provides  the  mode  in  which  officers  or  agents  shall  be 
appointed  that  mode  must  be  pursued.  There  may  be  cases 
where  a  departure  from  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  charter  or 
act  of  incorporation  would  not  prejudice  the  rights  of  third 
persons,  but  the  general  rule  is  that  where  the  mode  is  ex- 
pressly prescribed  by  the  charter  or  the  act  of  incorporation 
the  appointment  will  not  be  valid  if  there  is  a  substantial  or 
material  departure  from  the  prescribed  mode.*  To  prevent 
misunderstanding  we  say  that  we  are  here  outlining  general 
doctrines  and  are  not  stating  specific  rules. 

1  New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Schuyler,  State,   69  Ind.  273;  Despatch   Line, 
34  N.  Y.  30 ;  Lyman  v.  White  River,  etc.,  v.  Bellamy,  etc.,  Co.,  12  N.  H.  205 ; 
etc.,  Co.,  2    Aik.  (Vt.)  255,  s.  c.  16  Cook  v.  Kuhn,  1  Neb.  472;  Fitch  v. 
Am.  Dec.  705;  Angell  &  Ames  on  Cor-  Lewiston  Steam  Mill  Co.,  80  Me.  34; 
poration  (8th  ed.),  §  276.  Bank    of   Columbia    v.    Patterson,  7 

2  Protection  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Foote,  Cranch  299;  Randalls.  Van  Vechten, 
79  111.  361,  368;  Hurlbut  v.  Marshall,  19  Johns.  60;  Reynolds  v.  Collins,  7& 
62  Wis.  590;  Kitchen  v.  Cape  Girar-  Ala.  94;  Bancroft  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,, 
deau,  etc.,  Co.,  59  Mo.  514;  Alabama,  Academy,  5  Houst.  (Del.)  577. 

etc.,  Co.  v.  Kidd,  29  Ala.  221 ;  Wood  *  Henningw.  United  States  Ins.  Co., 
v.  Ontario,  etc.,  Co.,  24 U.  C.  C.  P.  334.  47  Mo.  425 ;  Salem  Bank  v.  Gloucester 
8  Hamilton  v.  Newcastle,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Bank;  17  Mass.  1 ;  Badgers.  American, 
Ind.  359;  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kidd,  etc.,  Co.,  103  Mass.  244;  Beatty  v.  Ma- 
29  Ala.  221 ;  Giles  v.  Taff  Vale.,  R.  Co.,  rine  Ins.Co.,2  Johns. 109 ;  Cardr.Carr, 
2  El.  &  Bl.  822 ;  Goff  v.  Great  Northern,  1  C.  B.  N.  S.  197 ;  Kirk  v.  Bell,  16  Q.  B. 
etc.,  Co.,  3  El.  &  El.  672, 30  L.  J.  Q.  B.  290 ;  Gordon  v,  Preston,  1  Watts,  385 ; 
148;  Santa  Clara,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mere-  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  James,  22  Wis. 
dith,  49  Md.  389;  Crowley  v.  Genes-  194.  See  Bridgeport  Bank  v.  New- 
see,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Cal.  273;  White  v.  York,  etc.,  Co.,  30  Conn.  231. 


§  205  CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES.  291 

§  205.  Statutory  privileges  bestowed  on  agents. — Because 
of  the  entire  reliance  of  a  railroad  corporation  upon  its  serv- 
ants for  the  discharge  of  its  duties  to  the  public,  some  of  the 
older  charters  granted  to  them  special  privileges  and  exemp- 
tions. Privileges  and  exemptions  granted  corporate  agents  are 
generally  regarded  as  bestowed  upon  the  corporation  and  not 
upon  persons  who  chance  to  be  the  corporate  agents.  Thus,  it 
is  held  that  an  exemption  of  the  servants  of  a  corporation  from 
military  duty,  serving  on  juries,  and  working  on  public  roads, 
is  not  a  mere  personal  privilege  to  the  officers,  agents  and  serv- 
ants of  the  company,  but  is  a  right  or  privilege  of  the  corpo- 
ration, on  which  it  may  insist  in  favor  of  any  servant  whom  it 
may  employ.1 

§  206.  Officers  generally. — The  most  important  of  corpo- 
rate agents  are,  of  course,  the  officers,2  without  whom  no  busi- 
ness can  be  transacted  by  the  corporation.3  Indeed,  in  most 
acts  for  the  incorporation  of  railroad  companies,  a  choice  of 
officers  is  one  of  the  essential  steps  toward  incorporation.*  The 
power  to  choose  officers  is  inherent  in  a  corporation  and  im- 
plied from  the  fact  of  incorporation  without  being  specially 

Johnson  v.  State,  88  Ala.  176,41  principal,  and  its  officers  are  its  agents 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  275;  Zimmer  v.  or  representatives. 

State,  30  Ark.  677.    The  grant  of  such  3Gulf,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Morris,   67 

a  privilege  was  held  unconstitutional  Tex.  692;  Gashwiler  v.  Willis,  33  Cal. 

in  Tennessee.    Neely  v.  State,  4  Lea.  11 ;  Conro  v.  Port  Henry,  etc.,  Co.,  12 

(Tenn.)  316.  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  27. 

2Officers  are  but  ministerial  agents  *  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §§8022, 

of  the  corporation.    Dispatch  Line,  8523,  citing  statutes  of  Pennsylvania, 

etc.,  v.  Bellamy    Mfg.  Co.,  12  N.  H.  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  Minnesota,  Kansas, 

205;    Burr  v.    McDonald,    3    Gratt.  Nebraska,    Maryland,    Kentucky, 

(Va.)  215.    Officers  may  be  invested  Texas,  California,  Nevada,  Colorado, 

with  very  comprehensive  powers,  but  Washington,    Dakota,    Idaho,    Mon- 

they  are  not  the  corporation.    A  cor-  tana,  Wyoming,  Utah,  Florida,  New 

poration  may  entrust  the  conduct  of  Mexico,  District  of  Columbia,  Okla- 

its  business  to  its  officers,  and  may  be  homa,    New   Hampshire,    Massachu- 

bound  by  their  acts,  but  no  matter  setts,  Maine,  Vermont,  Connecticut, 

how  extensive  the  powers  conferred  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan,  Arkansas, 

upon    corporate    officers,     they    are  New   York,    Arizona,    New   Jersey, 

merely  the  representatives  of  the  cor-  North  Carolina,  Missouri,  Georgia, 
poration,  for  that  legal  entity  is  the 


292  THE    CORPORATION.  §  207 

granted.1  This  implied  power  is  limited  by  the  rule  that  the 
officers  must  be  such  as  are  necessary  to  the  discharge  of  corpo- 
rate functions  and  are  necessary  to  enable  the  corporation  to 
accomplish  the  object  for  which  it  was  created. 

§  207.  Qualifications  of  officers. — It  is,  of  course,  competent 
for  the  legislature  to  prescribe  by  charter  the  qualifications  of 
corporate  officers  and  to  provide  what  persons  shall  or  shall 
not  be  eligible  to  hold  a  corporate  office.  The  legislative  de- 
cision as  to  who  shall  be  eligible  is  necessarily  conclusive  and 
not  subject  to  review  by  the  courts.  The  laws  of  several  of  the 
states  prohibit  any  officer  of  a  railroad  corporation  from  be- 
coming an  officer  of  a  parallel  or  competing  line  ;2  and  some 
of  the  states  make  stockholders  and  owners  of  express  and 
transporation  companies  ineligible  to  hold  office  or  act  as  agents 
in  any  railroad  company.3  Ordinarily,  any  one  may  be  an 
officer  of  a  corporation  who  is  competent  to  transact  business 
for  another,  unless  special  qualifications  are  required  by  the 
charter  or  by-laws.4 

§  208.  Election  of  officers — Generally. — Where  the  mode  of 
choosing  officers  is  not  prescribed  by  the  charter,  they  must,  as  a 
general  rule,  be  chosen  by  the  body  of  the  corporators,  or  in  such 
a  mode  as  the  corporators  acting  in  accordance  with  the  charter 
may  prescribe.5  Officers  can  exercise  only  the  powers  granted  to 
them  either  expressly  by  the  charter  or  by  the  by-laws,  enacted 
pursuant  to  the  charter,  or  implied  by  a  declaration  of  the  pur- 
poses of  their  appointment,  or  such  as  by  necessary  implication 
are  conferred  upon  them.  It  was  held  at  common  law,  that  the 

1  Hurl  but  v.  Marshall,  62  Wis.  590;  sin,    Missouri,    Ohio.     Pennsylvania 
Terwilliger  v.  Gt.  Western  Tel.  Co.,  59  and  Missouri  make  it  a  misdemeanor 
111.  249;  Hughes  v.  Parker,  19  N.  H.  for  an  officer  or  employe  of  a  railroad 
181 ;  Ex  parte  Wheeler,  2  Abb.  Pr.  N.  to  be  interested  in  the  business  of 
S.  (N.  Y.)  361.  transportation  as  a  common  carrier 

2  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8540,  over  such  road. 

citing  laws  of  Wisconsin,   Missouri,  *  People  v.  Webster,  10  Wend.  (N. 

Arkansas.  Y.)  554. 

8  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8540,  6  State  v.  Ancker,  2  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.) 

citing  laws  of  Pennsylvania,  Wisoon-  .245. 


§208 


CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES. 


293 


power  to  appoint  agents  rests  with  the  stockholders  at  large, 
but  this  doctrine  is  almost  entirely  swept  away  as  to  mere 
agents.  It  was  also  held  that  the  courts  can  not  judicially 
know  that  a  particular  board  or  body  of  a  corporation  not 
created  by  a  public  statute  is  authorized  by  the  charter  and 
by-laws  to  appoint  agents,  where  no  proof  of  the  fact  is  intro- 
duced,1 but  this  doctrine  requires  limitation  and  qualification. 
Principal  governing  officers,  such  as  the  members  of  the  board 
of  directors,  must  be  chosen  by  the  members  of  the  corporation 
unless  otherwise  provided  by  the  charter.  All  of  the  states 
make  provision  by  their  statutes  for  the  incorporation  of  rail- 
roads for  the  choice  of  a  board  of  directors,  who  are  charged 
with  the  immediate  government  and  direction  of  the  affairs  of 
the  corporation,2  and  of  a  president  usually  chosen  by  them.8 
Many  of  the  states  provide  that  the  directors  shall  also  choose 
certain  other  officers,  as  vice-president,4  secretary,5  and  treas- 
urer;6 while  other  states  leave  all  officers  and  agents,  as  these 
states  leave  all  but  those  enumerated,  to  be  selected  by  the 


'Angell  &  Ames  (8th.  ed.),  §277. 
It  has  been  held  that  the  court  can 
not  judicially  know  the  authority  and 
duties  of  officers  of  a  railroad  corpora- 
tion where  they  are  not  denned  by 
law.  Brown  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  67  Mo.  122.  Norof  agents.  Wood 
v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Iowa  196; 
McGowan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 
Mo.  528.  But  see  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  McVay,  98  Ind.  391,  where  the 
court  noticed  the  duties  and  powers  of 
a  "general  manager"  without  proof. 
And  Sacalaris  v.  Eureka,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
18  Nev.  155,  where  the  court  did  the 
same  as  to  a  "superintendent."  We 
think  that  the  courts  may  take  judicial 
notice  of  the  powers  and  duties  of 
many  classes  of  officers  and  agents  of 
railroad  companies.  It  may  be  true 
that  courts  will  not  take  judicial  notice 
of  the  particular  powers  and  duties  of 
officers,  but  that  they  will  take  notice 
of  the  general  scope  and  nature  of  the 


powers  and  duties  of  many  classes  of 
officers  and  agents  is  also  true. 

2  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892,,  §  8043, 
8532. 

3  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §§  8044, 
8533. 

*  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892), §§  8044, 
8533,  citing  laws  of  Ohio,  Wisconsin, 
Dakota,  Georgia,  Florida,  Oklahoma, 
Nevada,  Arizona,  New  Jersey,  Penn- 
sylvania and  Utah. 

5  Stimson's  Am.  Stat. (1892),  §§  8044, 
8533,    citing    laws  of  Massachusetts, 
Vermont,    Connecticut,    New    York, 
Wisconsin,   Nebraska,   Missouri,  Ne- 
vada,   Utah,    North    Carolina,    New 
Mexico,  Dakota,  Montana,  Arizona, 
Georgia,  Oklahoma,  Delaware,  Cali- 
fornia, New  Hampshire,  Ohio.   Kan- 
sas, Arkansas,    Colorado,  Wyoming, 
District   Columbia. 

6  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §§  8044, 
8533,  citing  laws  of  Nevada,  Arizona, 
Massachusetts,  Vermont,  Connecticut, 


294  THE    CORPORATION.  §  209 

directors  in  accordance  with  the  by-laws  that  may  be  adopted, 
or  in  response  to  the  apparent  needs  of  the  corporation.1 

§  209.  Agents  generally. — Agents  are  sometimes  appointed 
for  a  term  certain,  though  they  are  more  often  appointed  to 
serve  at  the  pleasure  of  the  directors  or  principal  officers. 
Except  where  some  other  provision  is  contained  in  the  charter 
or  by-laws,  the  directors  have  implied  power  to  remove  at  any 
time  agents  appointed  by  them,  subject  to  the  rules  which 
govern  similar  contracts  between  the  agents  of  individuals  and 
their  principals.2  But  the  authority  of  a  duly  appointed 
agent  does  not,  necessarily,  cease  with  the  termination  of 
the  office  of  the  board  of  directors  by  which  he  was  appointed  ;8 
such  authority,  as  a  general  rule,  continues  until  revoked, 
unless  a  limit  was  placed  upon  its  duration  when  granted. 

§  210.  Proof  of  the  existence  of  the  relation  of  principal 
and  agent. — The  general  rule  is  that  the  existence  of  the  rela- 
tion of  principal  and  agent  may  be  established  by  direct  evi- 
dence or  by  facts  and  circumstances.  Whether  the  relation 
exists  is  ordinarily,  but  not  always,  a  question  of  fact.*  As  is 
well  known,  the  relation  of  principal  and  agent  can  not  be 
established  by  evidence  of  the  declarations  of  the  person  claim- 
ing to  act  as  agent,5  nor  can  it  be  established  by  evidence  of  a 

New  York, Wisconsin, Nebraska,  Ohio,  Pepoon,  11  Mass.  288;    Exeter  Bank 

North  Carolina,   Maryland,    Dakota,  v.  Rogers,  7  N.  H.  21. 
Montana, Utah,  Georgia, Florida,Qkla-        *  Waterbury  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 

homa,  New  Mexico,  Delaware,  Cali-  21  Blatchf .  314 ;  McDougall  v.  Covert, 

fornia,  Kansas,  Arkansas,  Idaho.  18  Up.  Can.  C.  P.  119;  St.  Louis,  etc., 

1  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §§8044,  Co.  v.  Hendricks,  48  Ark.  177,  s.  c.  2 

8533.   Without  express  power  granted  S.  W.  R.  783 ;  Barrett  v.  Indianapolis, 

to  them,  it  is  the  right  of  the  directors  etc.,  Co.,  9  Mo.  App.  226 ;   Missouri, 

to     appoint    necessary    officers   and  etc.,  Co.   v.  Carpenter,  44  Kan.  257. 

agents  of  the  company,  and  to  provide  See     1     Elliott's    Gen.     Pr.    §    426. 

for    the    payment    of    compensation.  Where  the  facts  are  in  controversy 

Falkiner  v.  Grand  Junction  R.  Co.,  4  the  question  is  for  the  jury.  Franklin, 

Ont.  Rep.  350.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mackey,  83  Hun,  511,  31 

2 Taylor    on  Priv.  Corp.   (2d    ed.),  N.  Y.   Sup.  1057;   Baker  v.  Tibbetts, 

§  650.  162  Mass.  468,  s.  c.  39  N.  E.  R.  350. 

*  Anderson  v.   Longden,   1  Wheat.        5  New  England,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Baxley, 

(U.    S.)  85;    Northampton  Bank  v.  (S.  C.)  21  S.  E.  R.  444;  Burke  v.  Frye, 


§  211  CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES.  295 

general  understanding  among  business  men.1  The  agents  of 
the  corporation  not  expressly  named  in  the  charter  are  usually 
appointed  by  the  directors  under  their  general  authority  to 
direct  the  affairs  of  the  corporation.8  Such  an  appointment 
should,  when  practicable,  be  proved  by  the  records  of  the 
corporation,  and  can  in  no  case  be  established  by  the  acts  of 
the  assumed  agent  without  proof  that  they  were  adopted 
or  ratified  by  the  corporation.8  But,  as  a  general  rule,  no 
formal  resolution  of  the  board  of  directors  is  required  to 
appoint  an  agent  or  define  his  powers.*  It  is  not  necessary 
that  the  agent's  authority  be  conferred  by  writing.*  The, fact 
of  his  agency  may  be  proved  by  showing  what  he  has  been  ac- 
customed to  do  for  his  principal  with  the  latter  s  acquiescence.6 

§  211.  Proof  of  authority. — It  is  not  enough,  as  a  general 
rule,  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  relation  of  principal  and 
agent,  but,  ordinarily,  there  must  be  some  evidence  of  the 
authority  and  its  scope.  In  the  case  of  general  superior  officers, 
as  president,  general  manager,  and  the  like,  the  court  may  in- 
fer, in  a  general  way,  the  existence  of  authority.  In  the  case 
of  mere  agents,  where  nothing  has  been  done  toward  executing 
a  contract  made  by  one  who  assumes  to  act  for  the  corporation, 
and  damages  for  non-performance  are  sought  to  be  recovered, 
the  plaintiff  must  affirmatively  show  that  the  agent  had  author- 

(Neb.)  62  N.  W.  R.  476;    Brady  v.  D.  Supp.  (N.   Y.)  398;    Goodwin  v. 

Nagle,  (Tex.  Ct.  App.)  29  S.  W.  R.  Union  Screw  Co.,  34  N.  H.  378.  It  may 

•943;  Taylor  v.  Second  Av.,  etc.,  Co.,  be  made  "by  the  usual  course  of  busi- 

17  J.  &  S.  (N.  Y.)  513;  Marvin  v.  Wil-  ness."    Bank  of  Middlebury  t?.  Rut- 

ber,  52  N.  Y.  270;  Hirschmann  v.  Iron  land,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Vt.  159. 

Range,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Mich.  384;  Co-  5Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  Rutland, 

lumbus,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Powell,  40  Ind.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Vt.  159;  Nicholas  v. 

37 ;  Lindsay  v.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,  46Ga.  Oliver,  36  N.  H.  218. 

447.  6  Hamilton  v.  Newcastle,   etc.,  R. 

1  McGregor  v.  Hudson,    (Tex.    Ct.  Co.,  9  Ind.  359;  Whitney  w.  South 

App.)  30  S.  W.  R.  489.  Paris  Mfg.  Co.,  39  Me.  316.    His  au- 

8  For  statute  provisions  to  this  effect  thority  may  be  implied  from  his  course 

see  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  Law  (1892),  of  action  and  its  ratification  by  the 

§  8533,  citing  the  laws  of  twenty-two  corporation.     Perkins  v.  Washington 

states.  Ins.  Co.,  4  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  645;   Elys- 

8  Waterman  on  Corp.,  323.  ville  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Okisko  Co.,  1  Md. 

4  Bank  of  Lvons  v.  Demmon.  Hill  &  Ch.  392. 


296  THE    COEPORATION.  §  212 

ity  to  bind  the  corporation.1  Evidence  that  a  person  is  an 
agent  of  the  company  is,  ordinarily,  not  sufficient  to  establish 
his  authority  to  bind  the  company  by  his  acts,  but,  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  evidence  that  the  relation  of  principal  and  agent 
exists  must  be  supplemented  by  evidence  showing  the  nature 
and  extent  of  the  agent's  authority.2 

§  212.  Agency  inferred.  —  The  law  will  often  infer  an 
agency  from  the  general  character  of  the  acts  which  one  assum- 
ing to  act  for  the  corporation  has  been  permitted  to  do,8  al- 
though they  do  not  come  strictly  within  the  terms  of  his  em- 
ployment, and  the  agent  will  be  held  to  possess  the  power  to- 
bind  his  principal  within  the  limits  of  the  authority  with  which 
he  has  apparently  been  clothed  by  the  principal  in  respect  to 
the  subject-matter.4  The  corporation  will,  as  a  general  rule, 
be  bound  by  the  acts  of  an  agent  whom  it  has  permitted  to 
pursue  a  particular  line  of  conduct  for  a  considerable  period 
without  objection.5  Thus,  where  the  board  of  managers  of  a 
railroad  company  permitted  the  president  to  assume  entire  con- 
trol of  the  business  of  the  company  for  three  years,  and  to 

1  Fister  v.  LaRue,  15  Barb.  323 ;  At-  McVay,  98  Ind.  391 ;    Alabama,  etc., 

lantic  Co.  v.  Vigilancia,  73  Fed.  452.  R.  Co.  v.  Kidd,  29  Ala.  221;  City  of 

2Bonnell    v.    State,    64    Ind.    498;  Covington  v.  Covington  Bridge  Co., 

Brown  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Mo.  10  Bush.  (Ky.)  69;  Mechanics' Bank 

122;  McGowant?.  St  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  N.  Y. 

61  Mo.  528;  Highland  Av.,  etc.,  Co.  599.   And  authority  to  act  in  a  certain 

r.   Walters,  91  Ala.  435,  8  So.  R.  57;  matter  will  carry  with  it  authority  to 

Chattanooga,   etc.,  Co.  v.  Liddell,  85  bind  the  corporation  in  all  things  in- 

Ga.  482,  s.  c.  21  Am.  St.  R.  169;    Nail  cident  thereto.      Bodine  v.  Exchange 

v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  129  Ind.  260,  Fire  In*.  Co.,  51  N.  Y.  117;  Newell  v. 

264.  Smith,  49  Vt.  255. 

slsbell  77.  Brinkman,  70  Ind.  118;        5  Caldwell   v.  Nat.»  Mohawk  Valley 

Hotchin  v.  Kent,  8  Mich.  526;  Wash-  Bank,  64  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  333.     A  single 

burn  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Head  recognition  of  a  single  act  of  an  as- 

(Tenn.)  638;    Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  sumed  agent,  if  sufficiently  unequivo- 

v.  Kidd,  29  Ala.  221 ;  Perkins  77.  Port-  cal,  positive  and  comprehensive  in  its 

land,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Me.  573;  Tanner  character,  may  be  sufficient  to  estab- 

v. Oil  Creek  R.  Co.,  53  Pa.  St.  411.  lish   an  agency   to  do  other  similar 

*  Pickering  v.   Busk,   15  East.  38;  acts.     Wilcox  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  77.  Powell,  40  24  Minn.  269. 
Ind.   37;    Louisville,   etc.,    R.  Co.  v. 


§    213  CORPORATE    REPRESENTATIVES.  297 

make  such  purchases  for  the  company  as  he  deemed  necessary, 
giving  notes  and  corporate  securities  in  payment,  and  at  the 
end  of  the  three  years  assumed  control  of  the  road,  together  with 
all  the  property  so  acquired,  and  continued  to  use  it  without 
questioning  the  manner  in  which  it  was  obtained,  the  company 
was  held  bound  by  all  the  acts  of  the  president  during  the 
time  he  held  control  of  its  road.1  But,  unless  his  authority  is 
shown  to  have  been  enlarged  by  the  course  of  business  which 
the  corporation  has  permitted  him  to  pursue,  or  by  ratifying 
acts  not  embraced  in  his  original  authority,2  an  agent  under  a 
general  appointment  to  do  specified  things  has  only  limited 
special  powers.8 

§  213.  Powers,  duties  and  authority  of  officers  and  agents 
generally. — An  attempt  is  made  in  some  of  the  states  to  out- 
line the  duties  of  certain  officers  of  railroad  companies,  but 
most  of  the  states  leave  this  matter  to  be  controlled  by  the  by- 
laws. As  between  themselves  and  the  corporation,  the  officers 
and  agents  have  only  such  powers  as  are  directly  or  impliedly 
conferred  upon  them  by  the  charter,  or  by  the  terms  of  their 
appointment.4  Where  the  charter  provides  that  certain  powers 
of  the  corporation  shall  be  exercised  by  particular  officers  or 
agents,  only  such  officers  or  agents  may  exercise  them,  and 
any  attempt  by  other  persons  to  bind  the  corporation  by  the 
exercise  of  such  powers  will  ordinarily  be  voidable,5  but  there 
may  be  circumstances  which  will  prevent  the  corporation  from 
avoiding  the  acts  of  such  officers  or  agents.  The  general  rule 
is  that  where  the  duties  of  an  officer  or  agent  are  defined  by 
law,  or  prescribed  in  the  charter  or  articles  of  association,  or 
established  by  usage,  a  person  dealing  with  the  corporation  is 
bound  to  know  the  limitations  upon  his  authority  thus  deter- 

JOlcott  v.  Tioga  R.   Co.,  27  N.  Y.  'Wilson  v.  Genesee  Mut.  Ins.  Co., 

546.    And  see  Kelley  v.  Newburyport,  14  N.  Y.  418. 

etc.,  Horse  R.  Co.,  141  Mass.  496.  *  Angell  &  Ames  on  Corp.  {8thed.)r 

2  Commonwealth  v.  Ohio,   etc.,  R.  §  280. 

Co.,  1  Grants'  Gas.  (Penn.)  329,  and  "Union  Mut.  F.  Ins.  Co.  ».  Keyser, 

cases  cited  in  preceding  notes.  32  N.  H.  313. 


298 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§213 


mined.1  It  has  been  held  by  some  of  the  courts  that  he  must, 
in  doubtful  cases,  acquaint  himself  with  the  extent  of  such  au- 
thority, or  submit  to  the  consequences  of  an  omission  to  do  so.2 
As  between  the  corporation  and  third  persons,  where  the 
agent's  power  is  not  limited  by  the  charter  or  by  positive  law,  the 
corporation  will  be  held  bound  by  his  acts  performed  within 
the  scope  of  his  apparent  authority  ;  and  this  is  true  not  only 
of  his  contracts,  but  of  all  his  other  acts  and  omissions.8  Thus 

1  Adriance    v.     Roome,     52    Barb.        3  Ranger     v.     Great    Western     R. 
(N.    Y.)    399;    State  v.    Commercial    Co.,  5  H.  L.  Gas.  72;   Reed  v.  Home 


Bank,  14  Miss.  218 ;  Ernest  v.  Nich- 
olls,  6  H.  L.  Cas.  401.  Persons  deal- 
ing with  the  officers  of  a  corporation, 
or  with  persons  assuming  to  represent 
it,  are  chargeable  with  notice  of  the 
purpose  of  its  creation  and  its  powers 
and  with  the  authority,  actual  or  ap- 
parent, of  its  officers  or  agents  with 
whom  they  deal.  Wilson  v.  Kings 
County  Elev.  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y.  S.  R. 
SI,  114  N.  Y.  487,  21  N.  E.  R.  1015; 
Bocock  v.  Alleghany  Coal  &  Iron  Co., 
82  Va.  913,  1  S.  E.  R.  325;  White- 
hurst  v.  Whitehurst,  83  Va.  153,  1  S. 
E.  R.  801;  Memphis,  etc.,  Elevator 
Co.  v,  Memphis  &  C.  R.  Co.,  85  Tenn. 
703,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  798,  5  S.  W.  R.  52. 
2  Risley  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
1  Hun  (N.  Y.)  202,  in  which  there  is 
a  dictum  to  the  effect  that  one  con- 
tracting with  an  officer  of  the  corpo- 
ration must  be  informed  as  to  his 
powers  set  forth  in  the  by-laws. 
But  the  principle  upon  which  the  case 
is  based  is  that  one  dealing  with  a 
corporation  must  ascertain  with  cer- 
tainty the  authority  of  a  person  pro- 
fessing to  act  for  the  corporation  un- 
less he  has  been  held  out  by  the  corpo- 
ration as  possessing  the  powers  in 
question  or  has  before  acted  for  it  in 
the  same  capacity ;  and  failing  to  do 
this  he  must  abide  the  consequences 
of  his  neglect.  Adriance  v.  Roome, 
52  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  399;  Salem  Bank  v. 
Gloucester  Bank,  17  Mass.  1. 


Savings  Bank,  130  Mass.  443; 
Chestnut  Hill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rutter, 
4  Serg.  &  R.  6 ;  Washburn  v.  Nashville, 
etc.,  Co.,  3  Head.  (Tenn.)  638;  Nash- 
ville, etc.,  Co.  v.  Carroll,  6  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)  347;  Clouse  ».  Canada  South- 
ern, etc.,  Co.,  4  Ont.  28,  a.  c.  14  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  R.  Cases  456 ;  Langan  v. 
Great  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  30  L.  T.  (N. 
S.)  173;  Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Stewart,  25  Iowa  115;  New  York,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Bates,  68  Md.  184,  s.  c.  11  Atl. 
R.  705 ;  Olcott  v.  Tioga,  etc.,  Co.,  27 
N.Y.  546 ;  Hirschmann  v.  Iron  Range, 
etc.,  Co.,  97  Mich.  384;  Ecker  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  Co.,  8  Mo.  App.  223.  If  an 
agent  is  invested  with  the  indicia  of 
authority,  the  company  will  be  liable 
to  innocent  third  persons  for  the  acts 
of  the  agent  within  the  scope  of  the 
authority  with  which  he  appears  to  be 
clothed,  although  he  may  transcend 
his  actual  authority  or  violate  instruc- 
tions, but  this  rule  does  not  prevail 
where  the  authority  of  the  agent  is 
prescribed  by  the  corporate  charter. 
Madison,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Norwich,  etc., 
Society,  24  Ind.  457;  American,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Minneapolis,  St.  Paul,  etc., 
Co.,  44  Minn.  93,  s.  c.  46  N.  W. 
R.  143;  Goff  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  Co.,  28 
111.  App.  529;  Illinois,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Jonte,  13  111.  App.  424;  Meyer  v. 
Harnden,  etc.,  Co.,  24  How.  Pr.  290; 
Hull  v.  East  Line,  etc.,  Co.,  66  Texas 
619,  s.  c.  2  S.  W.  R.  831 ;  Harrison  t>. 


§213 


CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES. 


299 


it  is  held  liable  for  the  frauds,  the  misrepresentations,1  and 
even  the  torts,2  of  its  authorized  agents,  committed  in  the 
course  of  their  employment.3  In  an  action  of  trespass  against 
a  railroad  company  and  its  president,  who  was  also  the 
manager  of  a  construction  company,  which  had  contracted 
with  the  railroad  company  to  construct  its  road,  it  appeared 
that  as  such  manager  of  the  construction  company,  he  made 
a  contract  with  contractors  to  build  a  certain  portion  on  a 
line,  "  as  shown  by  a  map  designating  the  surveys,  both 
on  file  in  the  office  of  the  chief  engineer  "  of  the  railroad,  with 
such  variations  as  should  be  determined  on  by  the  construction 
company  ;  that  as  such  he  notified  the  contractors  to  commence 
the  work  "as  per  contract,"  and  that  they  underlet  four  sec- 


Kansas  City,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Mo.  App. 
332;  Lake  Shore  etc.,  Co.  v.  Foster, 
104  Ind.  293,  s.  c.  4  N.  E.  R.  20,  54 
Am.  R.  319;  Brooke  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  Co.,  108  Pa.  St.  529;  Winchell  v. 
National,  etc.,  Co.,  64  Vt.  15,  s.  c.  23 
Atl.  R.  728. 

1  Bank  of  U.  S.  v.  Davis,  2  Hill  (N. 
Y.)  451;  New  York,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
Schuyler,  34  N.  Y.  30. 

2  Drake  v.   Kiely,  93  Pa.   St.  492; 
Moore  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Corp.,  4  Gray 
(Mass.^  465;  Whiteman  v.  Wilming- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Harr.  (Del.)  514; 
Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKee,  99 
Ind.  519,  where  the  company's  de- 
tective caused  the  arrest  of  an  inno- 
cent person,  and.  the  company    was 
held  liable  in  damages.    Ranger  v. 
Great  Western,  etc.,  Co.,  5  H.  L.  Cases 
72;  Noltonv.Western  R.  Co.,  15  N.  Y. 
444;  Miller  v.  Burlington,  8  Neb.  219; 
Brokaw  v.   New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  32 
N.  J.  L.  328 ;  Gilleuiater  v.  Madison, 
etc.,  Co.,  5  Ind.  339;  State  v.  Morris, 
etc.,  Co.,  23  N.  J.  L.  360;  Quinn  v. 
South  Carolina,  etc.,  Co.,  29  So.  Car. 
381,  s.  c.  7  S.  E.  R.  614,  1  L.  R.  A. 
682;   Cohen  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,  69  N. 
Y.  170;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kirk, 
102  Ind.  399,  s.  c.  52  Am.  R.  675 ;  Hus- 


sey  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  Co.,  98  N.  C.  34, 
s.  c.  2  Am.  St.  R.  312;  Payne  v.  West- 
ern, etc.,  Co.,  13  Lea  (Tenn.)  507,  s. 
c.  49  Am.  R.  666;  Craker  v.  Chicago, 
etc., Co.,  36  Wis.  657,  s.  c.  17Am.  R.504 ; 
Smith  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,Co.,45N.Y. 
S.  R.  865;  Stewart  v.  Brooklyn,  etc., 
Co.,  90  N.  Y.  588,  s.  c.  43  Am.  R.  185 ; 
Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hack,  66  111. 
238;  Ramsden  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  104 
Mass.  117. 

8  The  old  common  law  doctrine  that 
a  master  is  not  liable  for  the  willful  act 
of  the  servant,  although  performed 
within  the  line  of  duty,  has  been 
overthrown.  Craker  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
Co.,  36  Wis.  657,  s.  c.  17  Am.  R.  504; 
Perkins  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Mo. 
201;  Heenrich  v.  Pullman,  etc.,  Co., 
20  Fed.  R.  100;  De  Camp  v.  Mississip- 
pi.etc. ,12  Iowa 348;  Toledo,  etc., R.Co. 
v.  Harmon,  47  111.  298 ;  Indianapolis, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Anthony,  43  Ind.  183 ;  Terre 
Haute,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jackson,  81 
Ind.  19,  s.  c.  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 
Cases  178,  Quigley  v.  Central,  etc., 
Co.,  11  Nev.  350;  Ritchie  v.  Waller, 
27  L.  R.  A.  161,  and  notes;  Pennsyl- 
vania Co.  v.Weddle,  100  Ind.  138,  and 
cases  cited. 


300  THE    CORPORATION.  §  213 

tions  to  a  contractor,  who  committed  the  trespass  ;  the  presi- 
dent also  wrote  the  body  of  a  letter  purporting  to  be  signed  by 
the  construction  company  to  the  contractors,  stating  that  it  was 
deemed  advisable  by  the  executive  committee  of  the  railroad 
(of  which  committee  he  was  a  member)  to  change  the  line  of  sur- 
vey at  that  place,  and  requesting  them  to  await  instructions,  and 
suspend  operations  ;  the  contractors  stopped  work,  but  were 
paid  for  the  work  on  plaintiff's  land,  on  estimates  approved  by 
the  chief  engineer  in  drafts  approved  by  the  executive  commit- 
tee, and  it  was  held,  that  the  testimony  of  a  director  of  the  rail- 
road company  that  there  was  a  contract  with  the  construction 
company,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  latter  company  was  work- 
ing under  the  railroad  company's  franchise,  and  with  its  consent, 
was  enough  to  show  a  liability  on  the  part  of  the  railroad  com- 
pany for  whatever  the  sub-contractors  did  bona  fide  and  in  the  line 
of  their  employment.1  The  corporation  is  also  liable  for  the 
negligence  of  its  agents  or  servants  resulting  in  the  failure  to 
perform  duties  imposed  upon  it  for  consequent  injury  to  one 
to  whom  such  duties  are  owing,2  even  though  the  servants  were 
carefully  selected  with  reference  to  their  competency.'  The  em- 
ployer's duty  is  not  fully  discharged  when  he  exercises  care  in 
the  selection  of  employes,  although  it  is  his  duty  to  exercise  such 
care4  but  he  is  liable  for  not  seeing  to  it  that  his  employes  perform 

1  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Drennan,        3  Gillenwater  v.   Madison,  etc.,  R. 
26  111.  App.  263.     A  corporation  can  Co.,  5  Ind.  339.     See,  generally,  Mc- 
not,  by  its  by-laws,  or  any  constating  Clang  v.  Dearborne,  134  Pa.  St.  396,  s. 
instrument,    avoid    liability   for    the  c.  19  Am.  St.  R.  708;  Golden  v.  New- 
wrongful  acts  of  its  officers  or  serv-  brand,  52  Iowa  59,  s.  c.  35  Am.  R.  257; 
ants  performed  within   the  scope  of  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.   v.   Harrison, 
their  authority.      Sherman    v.   Com-  48   Miss.    112,  s.   c.    12  Am.   R.   356; 
mercial  Printing  Co.,  29  Mo.  App.  31.  Baird  v.  Shipman,  132  111.  16,  s.  c.  22 

2  Brown  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Am.  St.  R.  514;  Blake  v.  Ferris,  5  N. 
Wis.  342;  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Hoag-  Y.  (1  Selden)  48,  s.  c.  55  Am.  Dec. 
land,  78  Ind.  203;  Byrne  v.  Wilson,  304;  Georgia,  etc., R.Co.  v.  Dougherty, 
15  Irysh.  C.  L.  332.    This  is  true,  al-  86  Ga.  744. 

though  the    passenger  traveled  free,  4 Western  Stone  Co.  v.  Whalen,  151 

under    a    contract    whereby    he    as-  111.  472,  s.  c.  42  Am.  St.  R.  244;  Hilts 

sumed  all  risks  of  accidents.    Ohio,  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Mich.   437; 

etc.,  R.  Co.  ».  Selby,47Ind.471 ;  John-  Oilman  v.  Eastern,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Allen 

son  v.  Missouri  Pacific,  etc.,  Co.,  96  233,  s.  c.  87  Am.  Dec.  635;  Oilman  v. 

Mo.  340.  Eastern,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Allen  433,  s.  c. 


§  214 


CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES. 


301 


their  duties  with  reasonable  care,  skill  and  diligence.  As 
already  suggested,  the  employer  is  not  exonerated,  although 
the  negligence  consisted  in  disobeying  orders.1 

§  214.  Authority  of  agent — Line  of  duty. — The  principal 
is  liable  only  for  acts  done  within  the  scope  of  the  agent's 
authority,  express  or  implied.2  Beyond  the  scope  of  authority 


DOAm.Dec.210 ;  Monahanr.  Worcester, 
150  Mass.  439,  s.  c.  15  Am.  St.  R.  226; 
Grube  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Co.,  98  Mo. 
330,  s.  c.  14  Am.  St.  R.  645 ;  Lee  v.  Mich- 
igan Central,  etc.,  Co.,  87  Mich.  574; 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stupak,  123 
Ind.  210;  Hatt  v.  Nay,  144  Mass.  186; 
Davis  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Mich. 
105,  s.  c.  4  Am.  R.  364;  Chicago,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Shannon,  43  111.  338;  Toledo, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Bailey,  145  111.  159;  Wa- 
bash,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McDaniels,  107  U. 
S.  454;  Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Young,  19 
Kans.  488;  Wright  v.  New  York,  etc., 
Co.,  25  N.  Y.  562. 

1  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Derby, 
14  How.  (U.  S.)  468.   A  person  seeking 
to  charge  a  corporation  with  the  act  of 
its  officers  or  authorized  agents  is  not 
affected  by  secret  instructions  limiting 
the  apparent  powers  of  such  officers 
or  agents.    Benesch  v.  John  Hancock 
Mat.  L.  Ins.  Co.  (C.  P.),  32  N.  Y.  S. 
R.  73. 

2  The  general  subject  was  well  con- 
sidered in  the  case  of  Chicago,  etc., 
Co.   v.   Bryant,  65  Fed.  R.  969,  974. 
The  reporter  in  his  head  notes  makes 
this  statement  of  the  case:  "A  yard- 
master,  after  6  P.  M.,  on  being  relieved 
from  duty,  took  a  passenger  car  and 
engine   to  give  himself  and  fellow- 
servants   a  free   ride  to  and  from   a 
meeting  of  theirs,  without  notice  or 
permission  from  any  officer  who  had 
authority  to    permit  the  passage  of 
such  a  train.     Held  that  such  act,  not 
having  been  done  in  the  course  of  his 
employment,  but  for  his  own  ends  ex- 


clusively, and  without  authority  to 
carry  passengers  for  the  company, 
and  having  no  apparent  authority, 
except  possession  of  the  train,  the 
company  was  not  liable  as  to  a  passen- 
ger for  injury  to  one  on  the  train." 
In  the  course  of  the  opinion  the  court 
used  this  language :  "Moreover,  it  is  a 
fatal  objection  to  the  liability  of  this 
company  for  the  acts  of  this  yard- 
master  in  operating  this  train  that 
they  were  not  in  the  course  of  his- 
employment  for  the  company,  but  for 
his  own  ends  exclusively,  while  he 
was  at  liberty  from  his  master's  serv- 
ice. The  master  is  not  liable  for  an 
act  done  by  a  servant  when  he  is  free 
from  his  service,  and  is  not  attempt- 
ing to  discharge  any  duty  to  his  mas- 
ter imposed  upon  him  by  his  employ- 
ment, but  is  pursuing  his  own  ends 
exclusively,  even  though  the  act  could 
not  have  been  done  without  the  facili- 
ties afforded  by  his  relation  to  his 
master."  In  Mitchell  v.  Crassweller, 
13  C.  B.  237,  a  carman,  whose  duty  it 
was  to  put  the  horse  and  cart  of  his 
master  in  his  stable  after  the  day's 
work  was  completed,  obtained  the 
keys  of  the  stable  for  that  purpose, 
and  then  drove  in  another  direction 
on  his  own  business,  without  the  con- 
sent of  his  master.  On  his  return  he 
drove  his  master's  horse  and  cart 
against  and  injured  a  third  person,  but 
the  master  was  held  tq  be  exempt  from 
liability  forthis  injury.  In  Cousins  r. 
Hannibal.etc., Railroad  Co.,66  Mo.572, 
the  superintendent  of  the  company 


302 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§214 


or  duty  he  is  a  stranger  to  his  principal  and  can  not  bind  him. 
Very  many  cases  hold  that  the  master  is  not  liable  for  a  serv- 
ant's willful  and  malicious  trespass  which  he  has  neither  com- 
manded nor  ratified  and  which  was  evidently  perpetrated  to 
gratify  the  private  hate  or  malignity  of  the  servant,  although 
done  under  color  of  a  discharge  of  the  duty  which  he  has  un- 
dertaken for  his  employer.1  Thus  it  is  held  that  where  a  per- 
son who  applies  to  have  his  baggage  checked,  and  by  his 
abusive  language  provokes  a  quarrel  with  the  baggageman,  in 
the  course  of  which  the  baggageman  injures  him  with  a 
hatchet,  he  can  not  hold  the  railroad  company  liable  for  his  in- 
juries.8 The  principle  is  one  of  wide  sweep  and  is  illustrated 
took  an  idle  locomotive  from  its  round-  form  doctrine  laid  down  by  all  author- 


house  in  the  night,  and  ran  it  two  and 
one-half  miles  for  a  doctor  for  a  sick 
neighbor.  On  the  way  he  carelessly 
drove  the  engine  upon  and  killed  the 
plaintiff's  mule.  But  the  supreme 
court  of  Missouri  held  that  the  com- 
pany was  not  liable  for  the  death  of 
the  mule.  In  Morier  v.  St.  Paul,  etc., 
Railway  Co.,  31  Minn .351-353, 17  N.W. 
R.  952,  a  case  in  which  an  action  waa 
brought  against  the  company  for  dam- 
ages that  resulted  from  a  fire  kindled 
by  its  sectionmen  on  its  right  of  way  to 
cook  their  dinners  on  a  day  when  they 
were  working  for  the  company,  before 
and  after  their  dinner,  Judge  Mitchell, 
of  the  supreme  court  of  the  state  of 
Minnesota,  states  this  rule  in  these 
words :  "If  the  act  be  done  while  the 
servant  is  at  liberty  from  the  service, 
and  pursuing  his  own  ends  exclu- 
sively, the  master  is  not  responsible. 
If  the  servant  was,  at  the  time  when 
the  injury  was  inflicted,  acting  for 
himself,  and  as  his  own  master,  pro 
tempore,  the  master  is  not  liable.  If 
the  servant  step  aside  from  his  mas- 
ter's business,  for  however  short  a 
time,  to  do  an  act  not  connected  with 
such  business,  the  relation  of  master 
and  servant  is  for  the  time  suspended. 
Such,  variously  expressed,  is  the  uni- 


ities.  2  Thomp.  Neg.  885,  886 ;  Shear. 
&  R.  Neg.,  §§62,  63;  Cooley  Torts, 
533,  et  seq. ;  Little  Miami  Railroad  Co. 
v.  Wetmore,  19  Ohio  St.  110 ;  Storey  v. 
Ashton,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  476;  Mitchell  v. 
Crassweller,  13  C.  B.  237 ;  McClenag- 
han  v.  Brock,  5  Rich.  Law  17."  To  the 
same  effect  are  Campbell  v.  City  of 
Providence,  9  R.  I.  262,  andGarretzen 
v.  Duenckel,  50  Mo.  104,  107,  111. 

1  McManus  v.  Crickett,  1  East.  106 ; 
Evansville,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baum,  26 
Ind.  70;  Hibbard  v.  New  York,    etc., 
R.  Co.,  15  N.  Y.  455;  Illinois  Central 
R.  Co.  v.  Downey,  18  111.  259.   Where 
one  agrees  to  supply  a  railroad  com- 
pany with  timber  for  construction  of 
its  road,  and  employes  of  subcontrac- 
tors under  him  committed  trespasses 
in  getting  timbers  for  such  construc- 
tion, the  railroad  company  is  not  lia- 
ble under  the  statute  providing  that 
an  employer  is  not  liable  for  torts  of 
his  employes,   engaged  in   an  inde- 
pendent business,  when  there  is  no 
evidence  of  a  ratification  by  the  com- 
pany.    Parker  v.  Waycross  &  F.   R. 
Co.,  81  Ga.  387,  B.  c.  8  S.  E.  R.  871. 

2  Little  Miami  R.  Co.  v.  Wetmore, 
19  Ohio  St.  110.    The  weight  of  au- 
thority holds  the  employer  liable  for 
willful  injuries. 


§  214 


CORPORATE    REPRESENTATIVES. 


303 


by  many  cases  presenting  divers  phases.1  It  is  held  that  an  agent 
employed  to  control  and  supervise  the  lands  of  a  railway  corpora- 
tion can  not  render  the  company  liable  in  damages  for  malicious 
prosecution  by  instituting  a  criminal  prosecution  for  larceny  of 
the  company's  property,  even  though  the  prosecution  is  shown  to 
be  malicious  and  without  probable  cause.2  So  where  a  railroad 
inspector  imprisoned  the  plaintiff  on  a  charge  of  drunkenness  and 
refusal  to  pay  his  fare,  and  preferred  a  charge  against  him  be- 
fore a  magistrate  by  whom  he  was  dismissed,  the  court  held  that 
the  company  was  not  liable  in  the  absence  of  anything  going 
to  show  that  the  inspector  was  authorized  to  make  the  arrest  or 
that  the  fact  of  the  plaintiff  being  in  custody  was  known  to  the 


1  Walker  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  Co.,  121 
Mo.  575,  s.  c.  42  Am.  St.  R.  547; 
Garretzen  v.  Duenckel.  50  Mo.  104,  s. 
c.  11  Am.  R.  405 ;  Cousins  v.  Hannibal, 
etc.,  Co.,  66  Mo.  572;  Mitchell  v. 
Crassweller,  13  Com.  B.  237;Farberw. 
Missouri,  etc.,  Co.  116  Mo.  81;  To- 
wanda,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Heeman,  86  Pa.  St. 
418;  McKenzie  v.  McLeod,  10  Bing. 
385 ;  Farber  v.  Missouri  Pacific  Co.,  32 
Mo.  App.  378  ;McKeont>.  Citizens', etc., 
Co.,  42  Mo.  79;  Walton  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  Co.,  139  Mass.  556;  Cunningham 
v.  Grand  Trunk  Railroad,  31 U.  C.  Q.  B. 
350 ;  StephensontJ.  Southern,  etc.,  Co., 
93  Cal.  558,  s.  c.  27  Am.  St.  R.  226; 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Shields,  47 
Ohio  St.  387,  s.  c.  21  Am.  St.  R.  840. 
In  many  cases  the  question  whether 
the  act  was  performed  within  the 
scope  of  the  agent's  authority  is  one 
of  fact.  Kimball  v.  Cushman,  103 
Mass.  194,  s.  c.  4  Am.  R.  528 :  Redding 
v.  South  Carolina,  etc.,  Co.,  3  S.  C.  1, 
s.  c.  16  Am.  R.  681 ;  Ritchie  ^.Waller, 
63  Conn.  155,  s.  c.  38  Am.  St.  R.  361. 
But  the  question  is  often  one  of  law. 
Stone  v.  Hills,  45  Conn.  44,  s.  c.  29 
Am.  R.  635 ;  Storey  v.  Ashton,  L.  R. 
4  Q.  B.  476.  See,  generally,  Rounds 
v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  64  N.  Y.  129, 


s.  c.  21  Am.  R.  597 ;  Cormack  v.  Digby, 
9 1.  R.  C.  L.  557 ;  Burns  v.  Poulson.  L. 
R.,  8  Com.  P.  563 ;  Sleath  v.  Wilson,  9 
Car.  &  P.  607 ;  Whatman  v.  Pearson, 
L.  R.  3  Com.  P.  422;  Pollock  says, 
"whether  the  servant  is  really  bent  on 
his  master's  affairs  or  not  is  a  question 
of  fact,  but  a  question  which  may  be 
troublesome."  Pollock  on  Torts, 
marginal  page  71.  This  statement  of 
the  law  is  not  entirely  correct,  for 
there  are  cases  in  which  the  court 
must  determine,  as  matter  of  law, 
whether  the  agent  was  acting  within 
the  scope  of  his  authority. 

2Pressley  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 
Fed.  R.  199.  But  if  it  was  part  of  the 
duty  of  a  ticket  agent  of  a  corporation 
to  post  in  his  office  notices  pertaining 
to  the  business  carried  on  there,  the 
corporation  is  liable  for  a  libel  con- 
tained in  a  notice  posted  by  him, 
though  in  excess  of  his  authority. 
Fogg  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co  ,  148  Mass. 
513.  And  the  railroad  company  is 
liable  for  a  malicious  prosecution  in- 
stituted by  the  general  manager,  al- 
though its  charter  did  not  authorize 
his  act.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  James, 
73  Tex.  12,  10  S.  W.  744. 


304  THE    CORPORATION.  §215 

-company.1  If,  however,  the  act  is  within  the  scope  of  the 
agent's  duty,  and  is  performed  in  the  line  of  service,  the  weight 
of  authority  is  that  the  master  is  liable,  although  the  act  is 
willful. 

§  215.  Scope  of  authority — General  conclusion. — The  con- 
flict among  the  authorities  to  which  we  have  referred  makes  it, 
we  know,  hazardous  to  venture  to  state  a  general  conclusion, 
but  we  think  that  it  is  safe  to  affirm  that,  where  cars  or  other 
equipments  or  appliances  are  owned  and  used  for  particular 
purposes  and  this  is  matter  of  general  knowledge,  no  agent  or 
servant  of  a  railway  company  has  authority  to  impose  a  duty 
upon  the  company  by  inviting  a  third  person  to  use  such  equip- 
ments or  appliances  for  his  own  pleasure  or  convenience,  such 
person  not  being  in  the  service  of  the  company,  having  no 
business  relations  with  it,  and  there  being  no  emergency  war- 
ranting a  departure  from  the  ordinary  course  of  conduct  or  busi- 
ness. We  have,  indeed,  stated  our  general  conclusion  in  nar- 
rower terms  than  the  best  reasoned  cases  warrant,  and  are  in- 
clined to  think  the  conclusion  should  be  stated  in  broader 
terms.  In  our  opinion,  no  agent  or  servant  of  a  railroad  com- 

1  Eastern  Counties  R.  Co.  v.  Broom,  under  an  authority  to  make  arrests  in 

15  Jur.  297,  2  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  406.    But  certain  cases,  conferred  upon  railway 

where  the  agent  is  employed  to  detect  employes  by  statute.  There  is, however, 

and   arrest  persons   who    unlawfully  a  conflict  of  authority.     The  supreme 

interfere  with  its  business,  and  while  court  of  Maryland,  in  the  case  of  The 

acting  within  the  scope  of  his  employ-  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Brewer,  (Md.)28  Atl. 

ment,  he  arrests  an  innocent  person,  R.  615,  held  that  a  street  railway  com- 

the  corporation  is  liable.    Evansville,  pany  is  not  liable  for  a  malicious  pros- 

etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKee,  99  Ind.  519;  ecution  and  false  arrest  of   an  indi- 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Donahoe,  56  vidual    by  its  president  and    super- 

Tex.162;  Lynch  v.  Metropolitan,  etc.,  intendent    on    a    charge    of    having 

R.  Co.,  90  N.  Y.  77;  Pennsylvania  Co.  passed  counterfeit  money,  unless  such 

r.  AVeddle,  100  Ind.   138 ;  Higgins  v.  officers    have    express   authority   fo» 

Watervliet,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  N.  Y.  23,  s.  such  action  or  it  is   ratified  by  the 

•c.  7  Am.  R.  293;  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  company,   citing  Carter  v.   Machine 

v.  McKee,  92  Ind.  371,  s.  c.  47  Am.  R.  Co.,   51   Md.   290;  Tolchester  Co.  v 

193 ;  Pierce  on  Railroads  277 ;  2  Rorer  Steimmier,  72  Md.  313.     The  conflict 

on  Railroads,  821.    See  Goff  v.  Great  ing  cases  are  collected  in  a  note  •&, 

Northern  R.  Co.,  SOL.  J.  Q.  B.  148,  Ritchie  v.  Waller,  60  Conn.  155,  s.  c. 

holding  a  railroad  company  liable  for  27  L.  R.  A.  161. 
an  arrest  made  by  one  of  its  servants 


CORPORATE    REPRESENTATIVES. 


305 


pany  has  general  authority  to  devote  any  of  the  property  of  the 
company  to  uses  entirely  different  and  foreign  from  that  to 
which  the  property  was  devoted  by  the  corporation.  The 
most  liberal  view  that  can  be  justly  taken  in  favor  of  one  who 
acts  upon  an  invitation  given  by  an  agent  or  servant  of  the 
company  to  use  its  property  for  a  purpose  essentially  different 
from  that  to  which  the  property  is  devoted  by  the  company  is 
that  he  is  a  bare  licensee  to  whom  the  company  owes  no  duty 
except  that  of  doing  him  no  willful  injury.  There  is,  in 
truth,  strong  reason  for  regarding  such  a  person  as  a  mere 
trespasser.  The  cases  which  hold  that  one  who  undertakes  to 
render  service  for  a  railroad  company  upon  the  request  of  an 
agent  or  employe  who  has  no  authority  to  bind  the  company 
by  such  a  request  is  a  mere  volunteer  to  whom  the  company 
is  responsible  for  willful  wrongs,  but  not  for  injuries  resulting 
from  negligence,  support  the  conclusion  stated.1 

§  216.  Contracts  by  agents — General  doctrine. — The  general 
rules  applicable  to  contracts  by  agents  of  corporations  apply  to 
contracts  by  agents  of  railroad  companies,  varied  only  by  the 
peculiar  facts  or  by  the  nature  of  the  business  to  which  the 


1  We  cite  a  few  of  the  many  cases 
which  by  their  direct  judgments  or  by 
their  reasoning  sustain  our  conclusion. 
Ream  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Ind. 
93;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryant,  65 
Fed.  R.  969 ;  Mitchell  v.  Crassweller, 
13  C.  B.  237;  Cousins  v.  Railroad' 
Co. ,66  Mo.  572;  Morier  v.  Railway 
Co.,  31  Minn.  351,  353,  s.  c.  17  N.  W.  R. 
952 ;  Campbell  v.  City  of  Providence, 
9  R.  I.  262;  McClenaghan  v.  Brock,  5 
Rich.  Law  17;  Wyllie  v.  Palmer,  137 
N.  Y.  248,  33  N.  E.  R.  381  ;  Arasmith 
v.  Temple,  11  111.  App.  39;  Flower  v. 
Pennsylvania  Co.,  69  Pa.  St.  210; 
Walton  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  139 
Mass.  556,  s.  c.  2  N.  E.  R.  101 ;  Gulf, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Dawkins,  77  Texas  228,  s. 
c.  13  S.  W.  R.  932;  Texas,  etc.,  R. 

CORP.  20 


Co.  v.  Skinner,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
661,  s.  c.  23  S.  W.  R.  1001;  Mur- 
ray v.  Currie,  L.  R.  6  C.  P.  24; 
Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Douglass,  69 
Miss.  723 ;  Everhart  v.  Terre  Haute, 
etc.,  Co.,  78  Ind.  292;  Mayton  v.  Tex- 
as, etc.,  Co.,  63  Texas  77,  s.  c.  51  Am. 
R.  637 ;  Osborne  v.  Knox,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
68  Me.  49,  s.  c.  28  Am.  R.  16;  Pitts- 
burgh, etc.,  v.  Adams,  105  Ind.  151 ; 
Mellor  v.  Merchants',  etc.,  Co.,  150 
Mass.  362;  Baird  v.  Petit,  70  Pa.  St. 
477;  Washburn  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,3Head  (Tenn.)638;  Gilshannonw. 
Storybrook,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Cush.  228; 
Wright  p.Rawson,  52  Iowa  329;  Keat- 
ing v.  Michigan,  etc.,  Co.,  97  Mich. 
154,  s.  c.  56  N.  W.  R.  346. 


306 


THE    CORPORATION. 


215 


contracts  relate.  It  is  not  our  purpose  to  consider  the  subject 
of  agency  generally,  but  to  treat  it  only  so  far  as  is  necessary 
to  the  unity  and  completeness  of  the  plan  of  our  work.  It 
may  be  said  at  the  outset  that  an  agent  may  bind  the  corpora- 
tion by  any  contract  which  he  may  make  within  the  scope  of 
his  apparent  authority,  although  he  exceeds  his  real  authority, 
unless  the  party  with  whom  he  is  dealing  knows  the  contract 
to  be  one  which  he  is  not  authorized  to  make,  but  he  can  not 
bind  the  company  by  an  act  outside  of  the  real  or  apparent 
scope  of  his  authority.1  It  has  been  held  that  a  railroad  com- 
pany can  neither  be  bound  by  a  contract  made  by  a  person  who 
is  not  its  agent,  nor  can  it  ordinarily  enforce  a  contract  made 
by  a  person  who  is  not  its  agent.2  We  suppose,  however,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  cases  cited  in  the  note  must  be  qualified  by 
the  rule  that  an  effective  ratification  is  equivalent  to  precedent 
authority.  Strictly  speaking,  the  relation  of  principal  and 
agent  can  not  exist  in  the  absence  of  a  contract,  express  or 


1  Harrison  W.Missouri  Pacific  R.  Co., 
74  Mo.  364.  Where  the  brakeman 
took  up  the  tickets  for  the  conductor, 
and  returned  the  wrong  part  of  a  re- 
turn ticket  to  a  passenger,  thinking, 
as  he  testified  that  "one-half  of  the 
ticket  was  good  for  a  ride  either  way" 
the  railroad  was  bound  to  accept  such 
part  of  the  ticket  in  payment  for  the 
return  passage,  and  was  held  liable  in 
damages  for  a  refusal  so  to  do.  Lake 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Fix,  88  Ind.  381. 
Persons  held  out  as  the  general  agent 
and  the  state  agent  of  a  foreign  cor- 
poration, who  employ  a  general  mana- 
ger to  assist  them  in  its  work,  bind 
the  corporation  by  their  contract,  if 
the  other  party  is  ignorant  of  the  limit- 
ation on  their  authority.  Equitable 
Endowment  Assn.  v.  Fisher,  71  Md. 
430.  But  an  officer  of  a  corporation 
not  authorized  to  transact  the  general 
business  of  the  company  with  third 
persons  can  not  bind  the  company  by 
certifying  that  the  company  has  no 
lien  on  certain  shares  of  stock.  Ken- 


ton  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bowman,  84  Ky.  430. 
Katzensteina.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 
N.  C.  688,  s.  c.  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 
Cases  464;  Montgomery,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Hurst,  9  Ala.  513 ;  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Volk,  45  111.  175;  Wood  v.  Ontario, 
etc.,  Co.,  24  Up.  Can.  C.  P.  334 ;  Dye 
v.  Virginia,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Mackey  63; 
Deming  v.  Grand  Trunk,  etc.,  Co.,  48 
N.  H.  455;  Fowldse.  Evans,  52  Minn. 
551,  s.  c.  54  N.  W.  R.  743 ;  Interna- 
tional, etc.,  Co.  v.  Ragsdale,  67  Texaa 
24,  s.  c.  2  S.  W.  R.  515 ;  Beattie  v. 
Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,  90  N.  Y.  643;  St.. 
Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hendricks,  48  Ark. 
177,  s.  c.  2  S.  W.  R.  783 ;  Neibles  v. 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  37  Minn.  151,. 
s.  c.  33  N.  W,  R.  332;  Montgomery, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Hardaway,  (Ala.)  16  So. 
R.  29;  London  &  Northwestern  R_ 
Co.  v.  Bartlett,  7  H.  &  N.  400 ;  Foster  v. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  Co.,  56  Fed.  R.  434. 

2  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Estes,  71  Iowa 
603,  s.  c.  33  N.  W.  R.  124,  30  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  R.  Cases  276;  Estes  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  Co.,  72  Iowa  235. 


§  217  CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES.  307 

implied.1  This  doctrine  sustains  the  decisions  which  adjudge 
that  a  volunteer  can  not  be  regarded  as  the  agent  or  employe 
of  a  railroad  company,  although  he  may,  in  fact,  assume  to 
perform  acts  in  its  service. 

§  217.  Declarations  and  admission  of  agents. — The  familiar 
rule  is  that  a  principal  is  not  bound  by  the  declarations  or  ad- 
missions of  an  agent  unless  made  in  the  course  of  business  or 
line  of  duty  of  the  agent  and  while  "the  transaction  is  depend- 
ing." This  rule  is  one  of  extensive  application.  An  agent 
may  bind  the  corporation  by  his  declarations  and  admissions 
made  in  and  about  the  execution  of  the  duties  of  his  employ- 
ment in  the  same  manner  that  an  agent  of  a  private  individu- 
al may  bind  his  principal.2  It  is,  however,  essential  to  the 
competency  of  such  declarations  that  they  be  not  narratives  of 
past  occurrences,  but  part  of  the  res  gestse* 

§  218.  Declarations  of  agent — Res  gestse. — The  settled  rule 
is  that  the  declarations  of  an  agent  made  after  the  transaction 
is  closed,  or  after  an  event  has  happened,  are  not  admissible 
against  the  principal.*  The  authorities  are  substantially  agreed 

1  Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Bridges,  57  erson  v.  Railroad  Co.,   17  Tex.  560; 
Fed.  R.  753,  s.  c.  57  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Montgomery  R.  Co.  v.  Hurst,  9  Ala. 
Cases  452 ;  Fischer  v.  Merchants'  De-  513;    Union,  etc.,   Co.  v.  Hepner,  3 
spatch,  etc.,  Co.,   13  Mo.  App.  133;  Colo.  App.  313;   International,  etc., 
Kelly  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.,  8   Daly  Co.    v.     Lewis,     (Tex.   Civil   App.) 
(N.  Y.)  291.     In  the  case  first  cited  23  S.  W.  R.  323;  Ohio,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
the  court  said :  "An  agency  is  created  Stein,  133  Ind.  243;  Louisville,  etc., 
—authority  is  actually  conferred,  very  Co.  v.  Buck,  116  Ind.  566. 

much  as  a  contract  is  made,  i.  e.,  by  8To  be  admissible  the  declarations 

an  agreement  between  the  principal  must  be   made  by  the  agent  acting 

and  agent  that  such  a  relation  shall  within  the  scope  of  his  authority,  dum 

exist.    The  minds  of  the  parties  must  fervet  opus.  Bevis  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 

meet   in    establishing   the    agency."  Co.,    26    Mo.   App.   19;     Bensley  v. 

This  rule  does  not  apply  where  the  Brockway,  27  111.  App.  410;  Corrister 

principal    holds   out   another   as  his  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  Co.,  25  Mo.  App. 

agent,  for  in  such  a  case  the  liability  619;  Southerland  v.  Wilmington,  etc., 

rests  upon  the  ground  of  estoppel.  Co.,  106  N.  C.  100,  s.  c.  11  S.  E.  R.  189; 

2  Whitworth  v.  Detroit, etc.,  R.  Co.,  Deere  v.  Bagley,  80  Iowa  197,  8.  c.  45 
81  Mich.  98 ;  Malecek  v.  Tower  Grove  N.  W.  R.  557. 

R.  Co.,  57  Mo.  17;  Covington  R.  Co.  « Borland  v.  Nevada  Bank,  99  Cal. 
v.  Ingles,  15  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  637 ;  Hend-  89,  s.  c.  33  Pac.  R.  737 ;  Holt  v.  Spok- 


308 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§218 


that  the  declarations  are  not  competent  unless  made  under 
such  circumstances  and  at  such  a  time  and  place  as  to  be  re- 
garded as  part  of  the  res  gestas',1  but  there  is  much  diversity  of 
opinion  as  to  what  declarations  can  be  considered  as  part  of 
the  res  gestas.  Some  of  the  cases  have  unduly  extended  the 
rule  and  allowed  prejudicial  declarations  to  go  to  the  jury2  un- 
mindful of  the  sound  principle  that  declarations  of  a  third 
person^are  generally  incompetent  and  that  the  declarations  of 
an  agent  are  held  competent  as  exceptions  to  the  general  rule. 
Other  cases  have  erred,  as  we  think,  in  allowing  expressions 
of  opinion  to  go  in  evidence  as  part  of  the  res  gestae.3  It 

ane,  etc.,  Co.,  (Idaho)  35  Pac.  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  Co.,  106  N.  C. 
R.  39;  Wendt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  100;  Martin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 
(S.  Dak.)  57  N.  W.  R.  226;  Belle-  103  N.  Y.  626;  Waldele  v.  New  York, 
fontaine,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hunter,  33  etc. ,R.Co.,95N.Y.  274,  Luby  V.Hudson 
33  Ind.  335 ;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Me-  River,  etc.,  Co.,  17  N.  Y.  131 ;  Chicago, 
Lelland,  62  Fed.  R.  116;  McCarthy  v.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Becker,  32  Fed.  R.  849; 
Muir,50Ill.App.510;Ft.SmithOilCo.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mara,  26 
v.  Slover,  58  Ark.  168,  8.  c.  24  S.  W.  R.  Ohio  St.  185 ;  Adams  v.  Hannibal,  etc., 
106;  Weideman  v.  Tacoma,  etc.,  Co.,  Co.,  74  Mo.  553;  Memphis,  etc.,  Co. 
7  Wash.  517,  s.  c.  35  Pac.  R.  414;  v.  Womack,  84  Ala.  149;  Pittsburgh, 
Chewningw.  Ensly,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  etc.,  Co.  v.  Theobald,  51  Ind.  246; 
Ala.  493,  s.  c.  14  So.  R.  204 ;  Hunts-  Ohio,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stein,  133  Ind.  243. 
ville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Corpening,  97  Ala.  2  Omaha,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chollette,  41 
681,  s.  c.  12  So.  R.  295 ;  La  Rue  v.  St.  Neb.  578,  s.  c.  59  N.  W.  R.  921 ;  Lin- 
Anthony,  etc.,  Co.,  3  S.  Dak.  637,  derberg  v.  Crescent  Co.,  9  Utah  163,  s. 
s.  c.  54  N.  W.  R.  806;  Johnson  v.  East  c.  33  Pac.  692;  International,  etc., 
Tennessee,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Ga.  810,  s.  c.  Co.  v.  Smith,  (Texas)  44  Am.  & 
17  S.  E.  R.  121 ;  Ohio,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Levy,  Eng.  R.  Cases  324,  s.  c.  14  S.  TV.  R. 
134  Ind.  343,  s.  c.  32  N.  E.  815;  Atchi-  642;  Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Compton,  75 
son,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Parker,  55  Fed.  R.  Texas  667,  s.  c.  13  S.  W.  R.  667;  Hoo- 
595;  Grisim  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  Co.,  84  ker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  76  Wis.  542, 
Wis.  19,  s.  c.  54  N.  W.  R.  104 ;  Chicago,  s.  c.  44  N.  W.  R.  1085,  41  Am.  &  Eng. 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson,  36  111.  App.  564;  R.  Cases  498;  Texas,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Petrie  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  Co.,  27  S.  C.  Lester,  75  Texas  56,  s.  c.  12  S.  W.  R. 
63,  2  S.  E.  R.  837 ;  Waldrop  v.  Green-  955 ;  Gorman  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Co., 
wood,  etc.,  Co.,  28  S.  C.  157,  s.  c.  5  S.  78  Iowa  509,  s.  c.  43  N.  W.  R.  303. 
E.  R.  471;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  8Elledge  v.  National,  etc.,  Co.,  100 
Kelley,  (Ark.)  31  S.  TV.  R.  884.  Cal.  282,  s.  c.  34  Pac.  R.  720.  See 
1  State  v.  Tilly,  3  Ired.  (N.  C.)  Law  Metropolitan,  etc.,  Co.  t>.  Collins,  1 
424 ;  Vickburg,  etc.,  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  119  App.  D.  C.  383;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
TJ.S.99;Durkeer.CentralPacific,etc.,  Paup,  (Ark.)  s.  c.  22  S.  W.  R.  213; 
Co.,  69  Cal.  533;  State  v.  Pomeroy,  25  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hill,  90  Ala.  71, 
Kan.  349;  Michigan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cole-  s.  c.  9  L.  R.  A.  442,  8  So.  R.  90. 
man,  28  Mich.  440,  446 ;  Southerland 


§  219 


CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES. 


309 


seems  to  us  that  an  opinion  of  a  witness  can  not  be  regarded 
as  part  of  an  occurrence  or  transaction,  and  that  only  the 
facts  connected  with  the  occurrence  can  be  strictly  said  to  form 
part  of  the  res  gestss. 

§  219.  Declarations  must  relate  to  transaction  or  event  in 
controversy. —  Declarations  of  an  agent  not  relating  to  the 
transaction  or  occurrence  are  not  admissible  against  the  prin- 
cipal, nor  are  declarations  not  connected  with  matters  over 
which  the  agent  has  authority.1  It  has  been  held  that  declara- 
tions of  an  agent,  although  made  at  the  time  of  the  occurrence, 
are  not  competent  against  the  principal  because  not  connected 
with  it.2  It  is  important  that  the  rule  admitting  declarations 
of  agents  be  confined  within  its  legitimate  limits,  as  its  exten- 
sion is  likely  to  result  in  unjust  injury. 


1  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Christie,  5 
W.  Va.  325;   Missouri,    etc.,   Co.    v. 
Stults,  31  Kan.  752,    s.   c.   15  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  97,  3  Pac.  R.  522;  Chilli- 
cothe  v.  Raynard,  80  Mo.  185 ;  Wells 
v.  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Miss.  24,  s.  c. 
6  So.  R.  737;  Kirbyw.  Great  Western, 
etc.,  Co.,  18  L.  T.  N.  S.  658. 

2  Butler  v.   Manhattan  R.    Co.,  143 
N.  Y.  417,   s.  c.  42  Am.  St.  R.  738. 
We  quote  from  the  opinion  the  follow- 
ing: "We  think  there  was  error  also 
in  one  of  the  rulings  upon  the  admis- 
sion of  evidence.    The  plaintiff's  wife 
testified  to  the  closing  of  the  gate  and 
the  blow  received,  and  stated  that  at 
the  time  the  guard  was  looking  in  the 
opposite  direction ;  that  immediately 
after  the  blow  she  made  an  exclama- 
tion of  pain.    Then  plaintiff's  counsel 
then  asked  the    witness   'What  the 
guard  said  in  reply  to  her  exclamation 
of  pain.'    The  question  was  objected 
to  by  the  counsel  for  the  defendant  as 
incompetent  and  hearsay,  whereupon 
the  plaintiff's  counsel  said :  'I  intend  to 
prove  that  the  brakeman  in  charge  of 
the  brakes  at  the  moment  of  the  blow 


did  not  treat  her  (the  plaintiff's  wife) 
with  respect,  but,  on  the  contrary,  in- 
sulted her.'  The  trial  judge,  after 
warning  the  plaintiff's  counsel,  finally 
allowed  the  question  to  be  put,  and 
the  witness  answered.  He  said:  'I 
can  go  to  hell ;  shut  up.'  The  defend- 
ant's counsel  excepted  to  the  evi- 
dence. The  only  claim  made  in  sup- 
port of  the  ruling  of  the  court  is  that 
the  remark  of  the  brakeman  was  part 
of  the  res  gestce.  We  think  the  ruling 
can  not  be  supported  upon  this  ground. 
The  only  circumstance  upon  which  it 
can  be  claimed  to  have  been  part  of 
the  res  gestce  was  |its  connection  in 
point  of  time  with  the  transaction 
under  investigation,  viz. :  The  alleged 
injury  from  the  closing  of  the  gate. 
While  proximity  in  point  of  time  with 
the  act  causing  the  injury  is,  in  every 
case  of  this  kind,  essential  to  make 
what  was  said  by  a  third  person  com- 
petent evidence  against  another  as 
part  of  the  res  gestce,  that  alone  is  in- 
sufficient, unless  what  was  said  may 
be  considered  part  of  the  principal 
fact,  and  so  a  part  of  the  act  itself .  But, 


310  THE    CORPORATION.  §  220 

§  220.   Exercise  of  authority  by  agents  —  Illustrative  cases. 

— As  a  general  rule  the  authority  of  an  agent  extends  to  the 
doing  of  all  subordinate  acts  which  properly  accompany  the 
principal  act  which  he  is  to  do.  Thus,  a  power  given  by  a  cor- 
poration to  an  agent  to  purchase  property  for  the  corporation 
necessarily  carries  with  it  the  power  to  obligate  the  company 
to  pay,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  a  by-law  forbids  the 
contracting  of  any  debt  for  a  company  except  by  order  of  the 
directors.1  If  he  has  never  been  clothed  with  any  real  or  ap- 
parent authority  by  the  corporation,  the  person  who  deals  with 
him  relying  upon  his  representations  as  to  his  authority  has  no 
recourse  on  any  one  but  the  person  who  assumes  to  be  the  agent 
of  the  corporation.2  And  where  the  acts  done  are  outside  of 
the  ordinary  duties  of  similar  agents  in  corporations  generally, 
the  presumption  will  be  that  they  were  done  without  authori- 
ty.3 Accordingly,  it  is  held  that  without  a  special  authority 
conferred  upon  him  in  the  particular  instance,  neither  an 
assistant  road-master  nor  a  master  of  transportation  can  be  pre- 

as  in  this  case,  the  act  was  complete  at  issue,  viz.,  whether  the  plaintiff's 

before  the  remark  of  the  brakeman  wife  sustained  an  injury  through  the 

was  made,  although  closely  connected  defendant's  negligence,   and,  having 

with  it  in  point  of  time,  and  was  not  been  admitted  against  the  protests  of 

one  naturally  accompanying  the  act,  the  defendant's  counsel,  its  admission 

or  calculated  to  unfold  its  character  or  was  reversible  error." 

quality,  it  was  not  admissible  as  res  1  Arapahoe  Cattle  &  Land  Co.   v. 

gestce.    It  was  as  independent  of  the  Stevens,  13  Colo.  534,  28  Am  &  Eng. 

principal  fact,  and  as  incompetent  as  Corp.  Cas.  12,  22  Pac.  823. 

evidence,  as  though  the  act  and  the  2Talladega  Ins.  Co.  v.  Peacock,  67 

remark  had  been  much  further  sepa-  Ala.  253 ;  Risley??. Indianapolis,  etc., R. 

rated  in  point  of  time.   Res  gestce  in  a  Co.,  1  Hun  (N.  Y.)  202.  Even  in  cases 

case  like  this  implies  substantial  coin-  of  negotiable  instruments,  those  deal- 

cidence  in  time,  but  if  declarations  of  ing  with  an  agent  must  inquire  into 

third  persons  are  not  in  their  nature  a  his  authority.     Silliman  v.  Fredricks- 

part  of  the  fact,  they  are  not  admis-  burg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Gratt.  119.     An 

sible  in  evidence,  however  closely  re-  agency  can  not  be  proved  by  proof  of 

lated  in  point  of  time.     See  Waldele  the  oral  declarations  of  the  supposed 

v.  New   York,    etc.,    R.    R.   Co.,   95  agent  himself.     Missouri  Pacific  R. 

N.  Y.  274,  47  Am.  R.   41,   and  cases  Co.  v.  Stults,  31  Kan.  752. 

cited.    The  remark  of  the  brakeman  3  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McVay, 

was  brutal,  and  for  that  reason  was  98  Ind.  391:   Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

calculated  to  prejudice  the  jury,   but  v.  Taft,  28  Mich.  289. 
it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question 


§  221  CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES.  311 

surned  to  have  authority  to  represent  a  railroad  company  in 
claiming  disputed  titles.1  And  the  track-master  of  a  railroad 
company,  having  charge  of  a  section  of  its  road-bed,  which  in- 
cludes an  ash  pit,  has  no  authority  to  make  a  contract  allow- 
ing one  to  have  all  the  coals  and  ashes  dumped  by  locomotives 
at  the  pit  as  compensation  for  keeping  it  clear.2  The  fact  that 
a  civil  engineer  of  a  railroad,  who  had  no  special  authority  to 
employ  men,  told  a  man  to  see  to  delivering  some  freight  which 
was  on  the  steps  of  the  freight  house,  and  to  look  to  things 
there,  and  remain  until  the  company  discharged  him,  creates 
no  right  of  action  against  the  company  ;  and  such  an  employ- 
ment does  not  become  binding  upon  the  company  by  being 
ratified  by  the  station  agent  who  is  not  shown  to  have  had 
authority  in  the  matter.8 

§  221.  Scope  of  authority — Illustrative  cases.  —  A  person 
climbed  upon  a  railroad  train  on  which  he  was  forbidden  by 
the  rules  of  the  company  to  ride,  and  was  compelled  by  an  em- 
ploye of  the  company  who  had  no  authority  over  the  train,  to 
alight  while  it  was  in  motion,  and  was  thereby  injured.  The 
company  was  held  not  liable.*  It  has  been  held  that  a  loco- 
motive engineer,  being  subordinate  to  the  conductor  in  charge 
of  the  train,  has  no  authority  to  impose  a  duty  upon  a  railroad 
company  to  persons  whom  he  permits  to  ride  on  the  train  in 
violation  of  the  rules  of  the  company.5  A  similar  doctrine  is 
held  with  reference  to  the  authority  of  the  baggage-master  to 
permit  persons  to  ride  on  a  train,6  and  a  like  doctrine  was  ap- 

1  Drew  v.  Comstock,  57  Mich.  176,  the  company  would  be  liable.    Carter 
23  N.  W.  R.  721.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Ind.  552 ; 

2  Little  v.  Kerr,  44  N.  J.  Eq.  263,  14  Rounds  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 
Atl.  613.  N.  Y.  129 ;  Benton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

3  Willis  t>.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Co.,  55  Iowa  496. 

Mich.  160.  6  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Casey,  9  111. 

*  Towanda  Coal  Co.  v.  Heeman,  86  App.  632,  citing  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

Pa.  St.  418;  Marion  ».  Chicago,  etc.,  Mitchie,  83  111.  427. 

R.  Co.,  59  Iowa  428.     But  if  one  with  6  Reary  r.  Louisville,   etc.,   Co.,  40 

authority  to    put  him  off  the   train  La.  Ann.  32,  s.  c.  8  Am.  St.  R.  497,  34 

should  do  so  in  an  improper  manner  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cases  277,  3  So.  R. 

and  thereby  cause  him  to  be  injured,  390. 


312 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§222 


plied  in  a  case  where  a  person  was  riding  on  the  train  by  invi- 
tation of  a  brakeman.1  A  somewhat  different  doctrine  was 
held  in  a  case  where  a  person  was  invited  to  get  on  an  engine,8 
but  the  doctrine  of  the  case  referred  to  seems  to  us  to  be  unsound. 
An  employe  has  110  authority  to  invite  persons  to  ride  on  the 
hand-car  for  their  own  pleasure  or  convenience.8  It  has,  how- 
ever, been  held  that  a  train-master  has  authority  to  invite  persons 
to  ride  on  a  hand-car,*  but  in  our  opinion  this  decision  is  er- 
roneous, for  a  hand-car,  as  every  one  is  bound  to  know,  is  not 
kept  or  used  by  a  railroad  company  for  carrying  persons  not  in 
its  service  or  having  business  with  it.  In  a  well  considered  case 
it  was  held  that  a  section  foreman  had  no  authority  to  invite 
persons  to  ride  on  a  hand-car,5  and  the  doctrine  asserted  in  that 
case  we  regard  as  the  true  one. 

§  222.   Authority  of  agents — Employment  of  surgeons. — 

A  number  of  cases  have  arisen  in  recent  years  presenting  ques- 
tions relating  to  the  employment  of  physicians  and  surgeons,  and 


1  Candiff  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  42 
La.  Ann.  477,  s.  c.  7  So.  R.  601. 

2  Nashville,  etc.,  Co.r.Erwin,  (Tenn.) 
3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cases  465.     But 
see  Ohio,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Allender,  47  111. 
App.  484. 

8  International,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cock,  68 
Texas  713,  s.  c.  5  S.  TV.  R.  635.  See 
Pool  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  56  Wis  227, 
8.  c.  14  N.  TV.  R.  46. 

4  International,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Prince, 
77  Texas  560,  s.  c.  44  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
R.   Cases  294,   14  S.  TV.  R.  171.    See 
Prince  v.  International,  etc.,  Co.,  64 
Texas  144. 

5  Hoar  v.  Maine  Central  Co.,  70  Me. 
65,  s.  c.  35  Am.  R.  299.  The  court  cited 
the  cases  of  Graham  v.  Toronto,  etc., 
Co.,  23  Up.  Can.  (C.  P.)  541;  Sheer- 
man  v.  Toronto,  etc.,  Co.,  34  Up.  Can. 
Q.  B.  451,   and  in  the  course  of  the 
opinion  said :     "A  master  is  bound  by 
the  acts  of  his  servant  in  the  course  of 
his  employment,  but  not  by  those  ob- 


viously and  utterly  outside  of  the 
scope  of  such  employment.  If  not 
common  carriers  a  section  foreman 
with  his  hand-car  has  no  right  to  im- 
pose upon  the  defendant  the  onerous 
responsibilities  arising  from  that  rela- 
tion. He  has  no  right  to  accept  pas- 
sengers for  transportation  and  bind 
the  defendants  for  their  safe  carriage, 
and  every  man  may  safely  be  pre- 
sumed to  know  this  much.  If  the 
risk  is  much  greater  by  this  mode  of 
conveyance,  the  plaintiff's  intestate, 
by  adopting  it,  assumed  the  extra  risk, 
arising  therefrom  and  must  be  held  to 
abide  the  unfortunate  consequences. 
No  one  becomes  a  passenger  except 
by  the  consent,  express  or  implied,  of 
the  carrier.  There  is  no  allegation  of 
express  consent  by  the  defendants, 
nor  of  anything  from  which  consent 
can  be  implied  that  the  plaintiff's  in- 
testate should  be  carried  at  their  risk 
by  this  unusual  mode  of  conveyance." 


§222 


CORPORATE    REPRESENTATIVES. 


313 


the  subject  merits  more  than  a  general  reference.  It  may  be  af- 
firmed that  the  employment  of  a  physician  or  surgeon  is  not  ordi- 
narily within  the  scope  of  the  authority  of  a  subordinate  agent  or 
employe,  but  that  there  may  be  extraordinary  cases  giving  author- 
ity to  employ  a  surgeon  or  physician.  Neither  a  road-master,1 
section  agent,2  yard-master,8  nor  station-master,*  will  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  authority  to  employ  a  physician  to  attend  a  serv- 
ant of  the  company  injured  in  the  line  of  his  duties.  So, 
also,  it  is  held  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  duties  of  the  corn- 
company's  solicitor,5  or  surgeon,6  or  engineer,7  or  conduc- 


1  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McVay, 
98  Ind.  391. 

2  Tucker  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 
Mo.  177. 

8Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taft,  28 
Mich.  289. 

4  Cox  v.  Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 
Exch.  268.  A  railroad  company  will 
be  held  to  be  legally  liable  to  furnish 
necessary  medical  attendance  and 
care  to  passengers  injured  by  its  fault, 
since  it  has  contracted  to  carry  them 
safely,  and  is  liable  for  any  failure  to 
do  so.  But  no  such  liability  attaches 
when  they  are  hurt  by  an  inevitable 
accident,  such  as  the  derailment  of  a 
train  by  a  cyclone.  Union  Pacific  R. 
Co.  v.  Beatty,  35  Kans.  265.  And  a 
railroad  company  will  be  held  liable 
for  any  necessary  care  bestowed  upon 
an  injured  employe  at  the  instance 
and  request  of  the  principal  agent, 
which  it  may  have  upon  the  ground 
and  in  a  position  to  engage  such  care, 
in  an  emergency  calling  for  immedi- 
ate action.  Since  an  employer  does 
not  stand  to  his  servants  as  a  stranger, 
but  owes  them  the  duty  imposed  by 
the  dictates  of  humanity.  Terre 
Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co*  v.  McMurray,  98 
Ind.  358;  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Brown,  107  Ind.  336.  But  such  au- 
thority by  implication  from  necessity 
will  not  be  extended  any  further  than 
the  necessities  of  the  case  require. 


Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  121 
Ind.  353. 

5  Neither  a  conductor  nor  a  solicitor 
of  a  railroad  company  can  ordinarily 
contract  for  surgical  attendance  upon 
an  injured  passenger  or  employe,  so 
as  to  bind  the  company.     St.  Louis, 
A.  &  T.  R.  Co.  v.  Hoover,  53  Ark.  377. 

6  Mayberry  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
75  Mo.  492;  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Brown,  107  Ind.  336. 

7  In  an  action  by  a  physician  against 
a  railroad  company  for  professional 
services  rendered   to  an  employe  of 
the  company  who  had  sustained  an 
injury  on  its  -cars,  it  was  held  that 
evidence    that    the  engineer  of   the 
train  on  which  the  injury  happened, 
telegraphed  to  a  station  agent  to  have 
a  doctor  at  the  station  when  the  train 
arrived,  does  not  show  an  employment 
of  the  plaintiff  by  the  company,  in  the 
absence  of  evidence  of  the  authority 
of  the  engineer  to  bind  the  company. 
Cooper  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  13  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  R.  276.     But  it 
would  seem  that  evidence  that  he  was 
in  sole  charge  of  the  train,  and  the 
employe's     injuries      required      im- 
mediate attention  would  be  sufficient 
to  show  his  authority.    Terre  Haute, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McMurray,  98  Ind.  358; 
Marquette,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Taft,  28 
Mich.  289,  per  Cooley,  J.     The  doc- 
trine of  these  cases  last  cited  is  to  be 


314 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§222 


tor1  from  which  such  authority  can  be  presumed.  But  an 
emergency  calling  for  immediate  action  in  order  to  save  life  or 
prevent  suffering  may  be  sufficient  to  confer  authority  upon  the 
subordinate  to  employ  necessary  surgical  aid,  if  he  is  the  highest 
representative  of  the  company  on  the  ground.2  There  may  be 
cases  of  immediate  urgency  when  it  will  be  within  the  scope 
of  the  agent's  employment  to  render  those  imperative  services 
which  the  dictates  of  justice  and  humanity  hold  to  be  due 
from  an  employer  to  a  servant  injured  while  engaged  in  his 
service  ;s  and  not  only  this,  but  in  cases  of  urgent  emergency 
it  may  become  his  duty  to  take  such  measures  as  will  prevent 


carefully  limited  and  rigidly  confined 
to  cases  where  there  is  pressing  and 
urgent  emergency  requiring  imme- 
diate action.  There  is,  of  course,  no 
general  duty  resting  on  the  employer 
to  care  for  sick  or  wounded  em- 
ployes, and  the  duty  to  obtain  the 
services  of  a  surgeon  is  not  a  general 
one,  but  a  transient  one  arising  out  of 
and  only  existing  during  an  emer- 
gency. An  agent  can  not  do  more  than 
the  immediate  urgency  requires  with- 
out exceeding  his  authority. 

1  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoover, 
53  Ark.  377 ;  Tucker  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
E.  Co.,  54  Mo.  177 ;  Terre  Haute,  etc., 
E.  Co.  v.  McMurray,  98  Ind.  358. 
See,  Northern  Central  E.  Co.  v.  State, 
29  Md.  420. 

2 Terre  Haute,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Murray, 98  Ind.  358. 

8  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Murray, 98  Ind.  358.  In  Marquette, 
etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Taft,  28  Mich.  289, 
Judge  Cooley  says,  "We  shall  not 
stop  to  prove  that  there  is  a  strong 
moral  obligation  resting  upon  any 
one  engaged  in  a  dangerous  business, 
to  do  what  may  be  immediately  neces- 
sary to  save  life  or  prevent  an  injury 
becoming  irreparable,  when  an  acci- 
dent happens  to  a  person  in  his  em- 


ploy. We  shall  assume  this  to  be  too 
obvious  to  require  argument  *  *  * 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  within 
the  scope  of  somebody's  employment 
for  a  railway  company  to  cause  a 
beast  which  is  injured  in  carriage  or 
run  over  at  a  crossing  to  be  picked  up 
and  have  the  attention  proper  and 
suitable  to  its  case ;  and  if  no  one  is 
authorized  to  do  as  much  for  the 
faithful  servant  of  the  company  who 
is  in  like  manner  injured,  but  all  per- 
sons in  its  employ  are  impliedly  for- 
bidden to  incur  any  expense  beyond 
what  may  be  necessary  to  remove  him 
out  of  the  way  of  their  trains  and 
machinery — even  to  convey  him  to 
his  house,  or  to  save  his  life  by  bind- 
ing up  a  threatening  wound — then,  if 
such  is  the  law,  the  courts  must  not 
hesitate  to  apply  it,  even  though  it  be 
impossible  to  avoid  feeling  that  it 
ought  not  to  be  the  law,  and  that  no 
business  of  this  extensive  and  hazard- 
ous nature  ought  to  be  suffered  to  be 
carried  on  with  no  one  for  the  major 
part  of  the  time  empowered  to  rec- 
ognize and  perform  a  duty  which,  at 
least  on  moral  grounds,  is  so  obvious 
and  imperative.  But  we  do  not  think 
such  is  the  law." 


§222 


CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES. 


315 


needless  suffering  and  loss  of  life.1  And  even  though  the  agent 
had  no  authority  to  engage  a  physician,  such  an  employment 
may  be  ratified,  and  it  is  held  that  a  physician  employed  by  the 
conductor  of  a  train  to  care  for  a  man  injured  by  the  train  can 
recover  against  the  railroad  company  for  his  services  if,  after 
knowledge  of  his  employment  by  the  conductor,  the  company 
failed  to  notify  him  that  it  would  not  be  responsible."  The 
authority  of  such  a  subordinate  agent,  however,  arises  only 
with  the  emergency  which  makes  it  necessary  for  him  to  pos- 
sess it,  and  ends  with  such  emergency.8  And  neither  a  con- 
ductor,* a  road-master,5  a  section  agent,6  a  station  agent,7  nor 


1  In  the  case  of  Northern  Central  R. 
Co.  v.  State,  29  Md.  420,  96  Am.  Dec. 
545,  a  man  was  so  injured  by  a  collis- 
ion with  the  defendant's  train  as  to 
become  unconscious.    The  company's 
agents  believing  him  to  be  dead,  but, 
without  careful  examination,  laid  him 
upon  a  box  in  a  tool  house  and  left 
him    without    care  over  night.    The 
man  recovered  consciousness  in  the 
night,  but,  because  of  the  lack  of  at- 
.tention  to  his  wounds,  bled  to  death. 
The  court  held  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
agents  in  charge  of  a  railroad  train  to 
take  care  of  one  injured  by  the  train 
which  they  are  operating,  and  to  do 
it  with  a  proper  regard  to  his  safety 
and  the  laws  of  humanity.    And  that 
the  above  facts  were  evidence  that  he 
came  to  his  death  by  the  negligence  of 
the  company's  servants,  although  he 
may  have  been  negligent  in  getting 
upon  the  track  in  the  first  place. 

2  Terre  Haute  &  I.  R.  Co.  v.  Stock- 
well,  118  Ind.  98,  20  N.  E.  650.  To  the 
same  effect  see  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Rodrigues,  47  111.  188,  where  a  letter 
was  written  to  the  general  superin- 
tendent by  the  station  agent,  by  whom 
a  nurse  and  physician  were  employed, 
stating  the  facts,  and  he  did  not  dis- 
claim liability  for  the  company.     To- 
ledo, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prince,  50  111.  26, 


holding  that  the  superintendent,  to  es- 
cape liability,  should  repudiate  the 
station  agent's  act  in  such  a  case  and 
direct  him  to  apprise  the  surgeon  of 
such  dissent.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  McVay,  98  Ind.  391,  holding  the 
company  bound  by  a  ratification  by 
the  general  manager  of  a  contract  for 
nursing  made  by  the  road-master.  In- 
dianapolis, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  67 
111.  295. 

3  Louisville,  etc.,  R.Co.r.  Smith,  121 
Ind.  353. 

*  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris, 
67  111.  295.  A  conductor  having  pro- 
cured or  consented  to  the  attendance 
of  a  competent  surgeon  upon  an  in- 
jured brakeman  can  not  bind  the  com- 
pany by  engaging  additional  surgeons. 
Louisville,  N.  A.  &  C.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 
121  Ind.  353,  6  L.  R.  A.  320,  22  N.  E. 
775. 

5  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McVay, 
98  Ind.  391. 

6Tuckerr.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. ,54 
Mo.  177.  But  see  Bigham  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa  534,  44  N.  W. 
805. 

7  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reisner,  18 
Kan.  458,  where  the  court  says :  "The 
authorities  cited  sustain  the  proposi- 
tion that  a  station  agent  of  a  railroad 
company  is  not  authorized,  by  virtue 


316 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§222 


the  company's  physician  possessing  authority  to  purchase 
medicines  on  the  company's  credit,1  can  bind  it  by  a  contract 
for  nursing  and  care  bestowed  on  an  employe  during  a  pro- 
tracted illness,  though  such  contracts  may  be  ratified  by  the 
company2  and  made  binding  upon  it  if  it  owes  either  a  legal 
or  moral  obligation  to  the  injured  party.3  In  the  case  of  officers 
and  superior  agents  having  general  authority  to  enter  into  con- 
tracts for  the  company,  however,  the  courts  hold  that  authority 
to  procure  care  and  medical  attendance  of  an  injured  employe 
is  incident  to  such  general  authority.  Accordingly  it  is  held 
that  the  general  manager,4  or  the  general  superintendent,5  or 
an  assistant  superintendent,6  having  general  supervising 


of  his  position  as  such  agent,  to  em- 
ploy a  hotel-keeper,  at  the  expense  of 
the  company,  to  attend  to  one  of  its 
brakemen,  injured  while  working  for 
the  company,  nor  to  furnish  such  em- 
ployes with  board  and  lodging  while 
disabled." 

1  May  berry  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
75  Mo.  492,  11  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  29. 

2  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mor- 
ris, 67  111.  295 ;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  McVay,  98  Ind.  391. 

3  In  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Vay,  98   Ind.   391,   the    court    says: 
"There  is  no  evidence  as  to  how  Bar- 
nett  was  injured ;  but  inasmuch  as  the 
general  manager  ratified  contracts  for 
taking  care  of  him,  and  the  company 
paid  for  such  service  (except  the  claim 
of  appellee) ,  it  should  be  presumed — 
there  being  no  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary— that  the  injury  was  so  inflicted 
as  that  the  contract  for  his  care  was 
not  ultra  vires." 

4  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reisner,  18 
Kan.  458;  Walker  v.  Great  Western 
R.   Co.,  L.  R.  2  Exch.  228.     In  this 
case,    Chief    Baron    Kelley,    in    the 
course    of    the    argument,  inquired, 
"Must  a  boai-d  be  convened  before  a 
man  who  has  both  legs  broken  can 
have    medical     assistance?"      Louis- 


ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McVay,  98  Ind. 
391,  where  it  is  held  that  the  courts 
will  presume  a  general  authority  on 
the  part  of  one  holding  the  position 
of  "general  manager." 

5  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis, 
126  Ind.  99;  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Stockwell,  118  Ind.  98;  Atchison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reecher,  24  Kan.  228; 
Cairo,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Mahoney,   82 
111.  73;  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rod- 
rigues,  47  111.  188.  Contra,  Stephenson 
v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Duer  (N. 
Y.)  341.  See  Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Taft,   28  Mich.  289,  where  a  divided 
court,  in  an  opinion  written  by  Judge 
Cooley,  Christancy,  C.  J.,  concurring, 
held  that  he  has  such  power,  Graves 
and  Campbell,  J.  J.,  dissenting. 

6  Bigham  v.  Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  79  Iowa  534;    Pacific  R.  Co.  •». 
Thomas,  19  Kan.  256.     See  Brown  a. 
Missouri,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   67  Mo.    122, 
holding  that  a  division  superintendent 
would  not  be  presumed  to  have  power 
to  bind  the  company  for  "  a  small  bill 
of  drugs  furnished  a  woman  who  had 
been  hurt  by  the  locomotive  or  cars 
of  the  company."      The  court  says: 
"  No  proof  was  offered  as  to  the  duties 
of  such  officer,  and  the  courts  can  not 
take  judicial  notice  of  them." 


222 


CORPORATE    REPRESENTATIVES. 


317 


authority  over  the  interests  of  a  railroad  company  possesses 
authority  to  make  such  contracts  on  behalf  of  the  company.1 
And  in  England  it  is  held  that  the  sub-inspector  of  railway 
police  has  implied  power  to  employ  surgical  aid  for  an  injured 
employe.2  If  the  railroad  company  assumes  to  furnish  a  phy- 
sician or  surgeon  to  treat  an  injured  passenger3  or  employe,* 

plaintiff  in  such  an  unskilled  and  neg- 
'ligent  manner  as  to  render  itill-shaped 
and  forever  useless  to  him  in  the  per- 
formance of  any  manual  labor.  There 
is  no  allegation  or  proof  that  the  phy- 
sician and  surgeon  so  alleged  to  have 
been  employed  by  the  defendant  com- 
pany was  not  competent  and  skilled 
in  the  line  of  his  profession ;  and,  in 
the  absence  of  such  allegation  and  the 
proof  to  sustain  it,  the  defendant  is 
not  liable  for  any  negligent  exercise 
by  such  surgeon  of  his  profession  in 
the  treatment  of  the  plaintiff.  Even 
though  we  should  admit  it  to  be  with- 
in the  corporate  powers  of  such  a  com- 
pany to  obligate  itself  to  the  rendition 
of  medical  or  surgical  aid  to  its  sick 
or  injured  employes,  by  assuming  it  as 
a  duty  or  otherwise,  or  to  become 
liable  under  any  circumstances  for 
any  negligence  of  any  such  surgeon 
acting  in  the  line  of  his  profession, 
still  it  seems  to  be  well  settled 
that  it  will  have  performed  its  entire 
duty  in  that  respect  when  it  employs 
a  person  of  ordinary  competence  and 
skill  in  that  profession ;  and  that,  hav- 
ing done  so,  it  can  not  be  held  liable 
for  the  carelessness  or  negligence  of 
such  surgeon  in  the  performance  of 
his  duties  as  such.  Secord  v.  Rail- 
way Co.,  18  Fed.  Rep.  221 ;  McDonald 
v.  Mass,  etc.,  Hospital,  120  Mass.  432; 
O'Briens.  Cunard  Steamship  Co.,  154 
Mass.  272;  Laubheim  v.  De  Koning- 
lyke  N.  S.  Co.,  107  N.  Y.  228.  From 
what  has  been  said  it  becomes  unnec- 
essary to  notice  the  errors  as  they  are 
specifically  assigned." 


1  See  Trenor  v.  Central  Pacific  R. 
Co.,  50  Cal.  222;  Cox  v.  Midland 
Counties  R.  Co.,  3  Exch.  268;  Tucker 
v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mo.  177; 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  •».  Morris,  67 
111.  295. 

'Langan  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 
30  L.  T.  N.  S.  173. 

3  In  Secord  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
18  Fed.  Rep.  221,  224,  Shiras,  J.,  says: 
"If  it  assumes  the  responsibility  of  en- 
gaging a  surgeon,  and  placing  him  in 
charge  of  parties  that  may  be  injured, 
then  it  is  responsible  thus  far;  that 
the  person  it  selects  must  be  a  compe- 
tent man ;  he  must  be  reasonably  fitted 
for  the  duties  which  he  is  called  upon 
to  perform.     In  other  words,  it  will 
not  do  for  the  company  to  take  up 
some  incompetent  man,  who  is  not  fit 
by  education  or  experience  to  under- 
take the  responsibilities  of  any  case 
that  maybe  placed  in  his  hand.     If  it 
•does  engage  a  physician  and  surgeon 
who  is  sufficiently  experienced,  that 
is  all  tha't  can  be  expected  of  the  rail- 
road company,  and  is  all  of  its  lia- 
bility." 

4  In  the  case  of  South  Florida  R. 
Co.  v.  Price,  Notes  of  Cases,  October, 
1893,  the  supreme  court  of    Florida 
says:     "The    plaintiff,    however,   in 
this  case  undertakes  in  his  declaration 
to  fasten  liability  upon  the  defendant 
company  upon  a  further  charge  that 
a  surgeon,  who  was  employed  by  said 
company  to  render  medical  and  surgi- 
cal aid  to  injured  employes,  did,  in  the 
exercise  of  his  duty  as  such  physician 
and  surgeon,  set  the  injured  arm  of 


318  THE    CORPORATION.  §  223 

it  takes  upon  itself  only  the  obligation  to  furnish  a  competent  • 
man,  skilled  in  his  profession,  and  having  done  so  is  not 
responsible  if  he  proves  negligent  in  caring  for  this  particular 
patient.  In  the  absence  of  an  express  contract  entered  into 
on  behalf  of  the  company  by  some  one  authorized  to  represent 
it,  a  physician  can  have  no  claim  against  the  company  for 
services  rendered  to  an  injured  employe  or  passenger.  He  can  f 
not  render  the  services  gratuitously  and  then  sue  the  railway 
company  upon  an  implied  assumpsit.1  And  even  though  the 
company's  representative  may  have  promised  on  behalf  of  the 
company  that  his  bill  should  be  paid,  a  physician  can  not 
hold  it  liable  where  it  does  not  appear  that  the  services  were 
rendered  in  reliance  upon  such  promise  or  upon  the  credit  of 
the  company.2 

§  223.  Physicians  and  surgeons.  —  If  a  railroad  exercises 
reasonable  care  in  selecting  a  physician  or  surgeon  to  treat  an 
injured  employe  it  is  not  liable  for  the  acts  of  such  surgeon  or 
physician.8  The  physician  or  surgeon  so  employed  does  not 
become  the  agent  of  the  company.  As  we  have  elsewhere  said, 
there  is  no  general  duty  to  care  for  sick  or  injured  employes 

'Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rodrigues,  Ind.  83,  s.  c.  40  N.  E.  R.  138;  Laub- 

47  111.  188;  Ellis  v.  Central  Pacific  R.  heim  v.  De  Koninglyke,  etc.,  Co.,T07 

Co.,  5  Nev.  255.  N.  Y.  228,  s.  c.  13  N.  E.  R.  781 ;  Eighmy 

2  Northern  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Pren-  v.  Union  Pac.  Railway  Co.,  (Iowa) 
tiss,.ll  Md.  119;  Canney  ».  South  Pa-  61  N.W.  R.  1056;  McDonald  v.  Mass., 
cine  Coast  R.  Co.,  63  Cal.  501,  where  etc.,  Hospital,  120  Mass.  432;  Secord 
the  court  says:  "The  plaintiff,  in  his  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  Railway  Co.,  18  Fed. 
testimony  and  on  the  trial,  admitted,  R.  221 ;  Union  Pac.  Railway  Co.  v. 
and  his  witnesses  proved,  that  the  Artist,  60  Fed.  R.  365;  Fire  Insurance 
services  were  rendered  in  pursuance  Patrol  v.  Boyd,  120  Pa.  St.  624,  s.  c.  15 
of  his  original  employment  by  those  Atl.R.  553;  O'Brien  v.  Cunard  Steam- 
who  were  wounded,  and  not  other-  ship  Co.,  154  Mass.  272,  s.  c.  28  N. 
wise.  There  was,  therefore,  no  con-  E.  R.  266 ;  Haas  v.  Missionary  Society, 
tract,  express  or  implied,  between  the  etc.,  26  N.  Y.  Supp.  868,  s.  c.  6  Misc. 
plaintiff  and  the  defendant  in  rela-  R.  281 ;  Van  Tassell  v.  Manhattan, 
tion  to  the  services  which  are  the  sub-  etc.,  Hospital,  15  N.  Y.  Supp.  620; 
ject  of  the  suit,  and  as  there  is  no  Allan  ».  State  Steamship  Co.,  132  N.Y.  ? 
prejudicial  error  in  the  record  the  91,  s.  c.  30  N.  E.  R.  482;  South  Rail- 
judgment  and  order  are  affirmed. "  road  Co.  v.  Price,  32  Fla.  46,  13  So.  R. 

3 Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co. ».  Sullivan,  141  638. 


§  224  CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES.  319 

or  to  employ  surgeons  to  attend  them.1  There  may  be  excep- 
tional cases  where  an  urgent  emergency  imposes  upon  the  com- 
pany a  special  duty  to  secure  surgical  attention,  but,  as  else- 
where said,  such  a  duty  is  transient  and  special,  coming  into 
existence  with  the  emergency  and  with  the  emergency  expir- 
ing.8 

§  224.  Delegation  of  power  by  directors. — The  directors  are 
held  to  be  superior  officers  and  as  such  possessors  of  very  ex- 
tensive powers,  and  they  may  delegate  to  agents  or  employes 
authority  of  wide  scope,8  but  they  can  not  delegate  powers 
which  they  are  specially  required  to  exercise  by  the  provi- 
sions of  the  charter,*  or  by  necessary  implication.  The  powers 
which  they  are  held  by  implication  to  be  unable  to  delegate 
are  generally  said  to  be  such  as  require  the  exercise  of  judicial 
or  personal  discretion  as  a  board,6  such  as  declaring  dividends, 
making  calls,  leasing  the  franchises  and  property  of  the  com- 
pany or  executing  a  mortgage  upon  them,  or  entering  into  a 
consolidation  agreement  with  another  company,  where  such 
powers  are  lodged  in  the  directors.6  What  powers  are  and 
what  are  not  specially  enjoined  upon  the  directors  personally 
and  required  to  be  executed  by  them  in  person  must  generally 
be  ascertained  from  the  charter  or  act  of  incorporation.  Powers 
of  a  legislative  or  judicial  nature  necessarily  exercised  in  govern- 

1  Smith  Master  &  Servant  (Blacks'  may  appoint  all  necessary  subordinate 

ed.),  302 ;  Wennell  v.  Adney,  3  B.  &  P.  officers.    Kitchen  v.  Cape  Girardeau, 

252 ;  Cooper  v.  Phillips,  4  C.  &  P.  581 ;  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Mo.  514. 

Sellen  v.  Norman,  4  C.  &P.80;Newby  *  In  re  County  Palatine  Loan,  etc., 

v. Wiltshire,  2  Esp.739 ;  Sevier  v.  Birm-  Co.,  Cartmell's  Case,  43  L.  J.  Eq.  588 ; 

ingham,  etc.,  Co.,  92  Ala.  258,  9  So.  Silver  Hook  Road  v.  Greene,  12  R.  I. 

R.  405 ;  Toledo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rodrigues,  164 ;  Farmers'  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Chase, 

47  Til.  188;  Toledo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Prince,  56  N.  H.  341;  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

50  Til.  26 ;  Cairo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mahoney,  Ritchie,  40  Me.  425 ;  Read  v.  Memphis, 

82  111.  73;  Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Beatty,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  545. 

35  Kan.  265,  s.  c.  57  Am.  R.  160.  6  Farmers'  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Chase, 

8  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.   v.  Sullivan,  56  N.   H.   341 ;   Silver  Hook»  Road  v. 

141  Ind.  83,  s.  c.  40  N.  E.  R.  138.  Greene,  12  R.  1. 164;  Percy  v.  Millau- 

8  Hoyt  v.  Thompson,  19  N.  Y.  207;  don,  3  La.  568. 

Burrill    v.    Nahant     Bank,    2    Mete.  6  See,  ante  under  the  various  titles  of 

(Mass.)  163;  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  dividends,  calls,  etc. 
v.  Fisk,  33  N.  H.  297.     The  directors 


320  THE    CORPORATION.  §  225 

ing  the  corporation  can  not  be  delegated  unless  the  statute  by 
express  words  or  fair  implication  confers  a  right  to  delegate 
them. 

§  225.    Employment  of    subagents    and    servants.  —  The 

general  rule  is  that  the  authority  of  an  agent  can  not  be  dele- 
gated unless  power  to  delegate  is  expressly  or  impliedly  con- 
ferred upon  him.  Authority  to  employ  subagents  may  often 
be  implied  from  the  rank  and  position  of  the  agent,  but,  as  a 
rule,  agents  of  inferior  rank  and  limited  authority  can  not 
rightfully  employ  other  agents  or  servants.  Ordinarily  a  mere 
agent  can  not,  without  the  authority  or  consent,  express  or 
implied,  of  the  corporation,  employ  another  to  perform  the 
duties  required  of  him  so  as  to  bind- the  corporation,  especially 
in  anything  which  requires  the  exercise  of  judgment  and  dis- 
cretion,1 or  of  skill,2  in  its  performance.  But  in  the  case  of 
superintendents,  managers  and  agents  invested  with  general 
powers,  an  authority  to  employ  subordinate  agents  is  implied 
from  necessity  and  custom,  even  if  not  expressly  given.8 

§226.  Notice  to  agents  or  officers.  —  Notice  given  to,  or 
knowledge  acquired  by,  an  officer*  or  an  agent  of  the  corporation, 
when  acting  for  the  corporation  within  the  scope  of  his  author- 

1  Brewster    v.    Hobart,    15    Pick,  such  person  is  an  employe  of  the  rail- 
(Mass.)  302;  Gillis  v.  Bailey,  21  N.  H.  road,  with  all  of  an  employe's  rights. 
149;  Silver  Hook  Road  v.  Greene,  12  Sloan  v.  Central  E.  Co.,  62  Iowa  728. 
R.  I.  164 ;  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ritchie,  *  Notice  to  the  president  when  act- 
40  Me.  425.  ing  for  the  corporation  is  notice  to  the 

2  Everhart  v.  Terre  Haute,  efcc.,  R.  corporation.    Hoffman,    etc.,   Co.    v. 
Co.,  78  Ind.  292,  where  a  brakeman  Cumberland,  etc.,   Co.,  16  Md.   456; 
employed  plaintiff  to  perform  some  of  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Gifford,  47  Iowa 
his  duties,  and  the  plaintiff  being  in-  575;  Barnes  v.  Trenton  Gas  Co.,  27  N. 
jured  by  the  company's  negligence,  J.  Eq.  33.    But  the  notice  or  informa- 
the  company  was    held    not    liable,  tion  must  be  given  or  acquired  while 
Kent  Com.  (9th  ed.),  854,  856.  he  was  acting  as  president.  Winches- 

3  Wood's    Field    on    Priv.    Corp.  ter  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Md. 
(1883),     §183.      When    the     regular  231 ;  Miller  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co., 
brakeman  is  absent,  and  the  proper  24  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  312.  So  notice  to  the 
and  safe  management  of  the  train  so  secretary  was  held  sufficient.  Trenton 
requires,  the  conductor  has  authority  Banking  Co.  v.  Woodruff,  2  N.  J.  Eq. 
to    supply    the   place  of    the   absent  117. 

brakeman,  and,   for  the  time  being, 


§226 


CORPORATE    REPRESENTATIVES. 


321 


ity,1  concerning  matters  about  which  he  is  acting  or  has 
authority  to  act,  will  be  imputed  to  the  corporation.*  But  the 
knowledge  must  be  shown  to  relate  to  the  business  of  his 
agency,  and  must  not  be  merely  casual  knowledge,  but  knowl- 
edge acquired  while  acting  as  agent.3  And  the  corporation  will 
be  chargeable  with  notice  of  all  facts  within  the  knowledge  of 
a  person  assuming  to  act  for  it,  relative  to  the  business  in  hand, 
in  case  it  ratifies  and  adopts  his  acts.*  Notice  to  or  notice  ac- 
quired by  an  individual  stockholder  will  not  bind  the  corpora- 
tion,5 and  the  fact  that  he  afterwards  becomes  an  officer  will 
not  render  it  binding.6  The  weight  of  authority  is  to  the  effect 
that  notice  to  an  agent  at  some  previous  time  and  when  he 
was  engaged  in  a  different  business  will  not  bind  his  principal 
unless  it  is  shown  to  have  been  actually  disclosed  to  him,7  and 
the  better  reason  supports  this  rule.  Very  respectable  author- 


1  Schenck  v.   Mercer  County   Mut. 
Ins.  Co.,  24  N.  J.  L.  447;  Goodall*. 
New  Eng.  Mut.  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  25  N.  H. 
169.     But  such  knowledge  should  be 
imputed  to  the  corporation  only  so 
long    as    the    agency    remains ;    and 
where  an  agent  possessing  knowledge 
not  acquired  by  any  usage,  custom  or 
course  of   business  of  the  company, 
such   as  knowledge  of  the  arbitrary 
mark  of  a  consignee  of  goods  shipped 
by  railroad,  ceases  to  serve  as  agent, 
the  company  can  not  be  charged  with 
such  knowledge.   Great  Western  Rail- 
way v.  Wheeler,  20  Mich.  419.     See, 
generally,  Pittsburgh, etc. ,Co.i7.  Ruby, 
38  Ind.  294;  Ohio,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Collarn, 
73  Ind.  261. 

2  It  is  essential  that  notice  should 
relate    to    matters    over   which     the 
authority   of  the  agent  extends  and 
should  be  more  than  mere  casual  in- 
formation gathered  as  an  individual. 
Day  v.  Wamsley,  33  Ind.  145. 

8  Brown  c.  Bankers',  etc.,  Tel.  Co., 
30  Md.  39. 

*Hovey  v.  Blanchard,  13  N.  H.  145. 
CORP.    21 


5  Danville  Bridge  Co.  v.  Pomroy,  15 
Pa.   St.  151;   Nashville,  etc.,   R.  Co. 
v.  Elliott,  1  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  611 ;  Black 
v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  40. 

6  Housatonic    Bank    v.    Martin,  42 
Mass.  (1  Met.)  294;  Union  Canal  Co. 
v.  Loyd,  4  W.  &  S.  (Pa.)  393. 

'Miller  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co., 
24  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  312;  Reed's  Appeal, 
34  Pa.  St.  207;  Keenan  v.  Missouri 
Ins.  Co.,  12  Iowa  126;  Pepper  t>. 
George,  51  Ala.  190;  U.  S.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Shriver,  3  Md.  Ch.  381 ;  Winchester  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Md.  231; 
Plympton  v.  Preston,  4  La.  Ann.  356; 
Washington  Bank  v.  Lewis,  22  Pick. 
(Mass.)  24;  Astor  v.  Wells,  4  Wheat. 
(U.  S.)  466.  In  McComb  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Fed.  R.  426,  it  was  held 
that  an  officer  could  not  be  made  a 
party  to  a  bill  of  discovery  when  he 
did  not  derive  his  information  in  his 
official  capacity,  but  derived  it  from  a 
participation  in  the  creation  of  the 
corporation. 


322 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§227 


ity,  however,  holds  that  notice  or  knowledge  received  by  an 
agent  before  he  was  appointed  as  such  is  imputable  to  the 
principal  in  regard  to  matters  in  which  he  is  afterward  em- 
ployed, if  it  can  be  shown  that  the  facts  were  then  present  in 
the  agent's  mind ;  but  this  doctrine  we  regard  as  unsound.1 
The  rule  in  England8  is  that  which  we  have  said  we  believe 
to  be  supported  by  the  better  reason.8 

§227.  Ratification. — Even  though  the  agent  is  not  shown 
to  have  received  any  authority  from  the  corporation,  and  it 
does  not  appear  that  be  has  been  held  out  to  the  world  as  pos- 
sessing any  such  authority,  and  no  former  acts  of  his  are  shown 
from  which  his  authority  as  an  agent  could  be  presumed,  yet 
the  corporation  will  be  bound  if  it  is  shown  to  have  ratified 
the  particular  act  in  question  *  by  express  adoption  of  the  con- 
tract,5 either  in  whole  or  in  part,5  by  availing  itself  of  the  pro- 
ceeds or  benefits  arising  from  an  execution  of  the  contract  by 
the  other  party,7  or  by  neglecting  to  disavow  and  actively  con- 


1  The  Distilled  Spirits,  11  Wall.  (U. 
S.)   356;    Fairfield  Savings  Bank  v. 
Chase,  72  Me.  226;  Ingallsr.  Morgan, 
10  N.  Y.  178;  Hovey  v.  Blanchard,  13 
N.  H.  145;  Lebanon  Savings  Bank  v. 
Hollenbeck,  29  Minn.  322. 

2  Dresser  v.  Norwood,  17  C.  B.  N.  S. 
466 ;  But  the  older  cases  hold  to  the 
other  rule.  Preston  v.  Tubbin,  1  Vern. 
286;  Lowther  v.  Carlton,  2  Atk.  242; 
Hiern  v.  Mill,  13  Ves.  114. 

s  For  cases  forming  exceptions  to  the 
general  rule  that  notice  to  the  agent  is 
notice  to  the  principal,  see  Thompson, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Capitol,  etc.,  Co.,  65  Fed.  R. 
341;  Allen  v.  South  Railroad  Co.,  150 
Mass.  200,  s.  c.  22  N.  E.  R.  917;  Ken- 
nedy v. Green,  3  Mylne  &  K.  699 ;  Espin 
v.  Pemberton,  3  De  Gex  &  J.  547 ;  Rol- 
land  v.  Hart,  L.  R.  6Ch.  App.678 ;  Cave 
v.  Cave,  L.  R.  15  Ch.  Div.  639;  Kettle- 
well  v. Watson,  L.  R.  21  Ch.  Div.  685, 
707;  Innerarity  v.  Bank,  139  Mass. 
332;  De  Kay  v.  Hackensack  Water 


Co.,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  158;  Frankel 
v.  Hudson,  82  Ala.  158,  2  So.  R. 
758.  The  doctrine  of  the  cases  cited 
is  that  when  the  agent  is  attempting 
to  defraud  his  principal  notice  to  him 
is  not  notice  to  the  principal. 

4  Stuart  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 
Jur.  209,  10  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  57.    Evi- 
dence that  representatives  of  a  cor- 
poration   agreed    that    certain    land 
should  be  used  as  a  highway  and  that 
such  agreement  was  afterward  ratified 
is  not  rendered  inadmissible  by  the 
fact  that  no  such  authority  was  given 
the  representatives  in  the  resolution 
authorizing  the  purchase  of  the  land. 
People  v.  Eel  River  &  E.  R.  Co.,  98- 
Cal.  665. 

5  McLaughlin  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,. 
8  Mich.  99. 

6  U.  S.  Rolling  Stock  Co.  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Ohio  St.  450. 

7Bangor,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  47 
Me.  34;  Scott  v.  Middletown,  etc.,  R- 


§  227  CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES.  323 

denm  the  unauthorized  act  for  a  long  time  and  until  innocent 
third  persons  have  been  thereby  induced  to  put  themselves  in 
a  position  from  which  they  can  not  be  taken  without  loss  if 
the  act  should  be  held  invalid.1  What  is  a  reasonable  time 
in  which  to  disavow  an  act  of  the  agent  after  being  informed 
of  what  he  has  done  will  depend  upon  the  particular  circum- 
stances of  the  case.  If  the  corporation  and  its  officers  have 
knowledge  that  the  other  contracting  party  is  making  large  ex- 
penditures on  the  faith  of  the  contract,  they  must  act  promptly 
if  they  would  disaffirm  it.z  Ratification  from  long  silence  has 
been  held  a  question  for  the  jury.8  But  ratification  should 
not  be  lightly  presumed,  especially  where  the  act  is  wholly  be- 
yond the  ordinary  duties  of  the  officer  or  agent  performing  it  ;* 
for  no  individual  member  can  represent  the  corporation  in 
its  aggregate  capacity,  except  by  consent.  Thus,  proof  that 
the  plaintiff's  men  were  seen  at  work  upon  a  turnpike  road  by 
different  members  of  the  corporation  owning  it,  and  by  its 
agent  who  was  authorized  to  bind  the  corporation  only  by 
written  contracts,  was  held  insufficient  to  establish  a  claim  for 
pay  for  such  work,  where  it  was  not  shown  that  any  authorized 
agent  of  the  corporation,  or  any  one  who  had  previously  acted 
for  the  corporation  in  such  matters,  had  requested  that  the 
work  should  be  done  or  promised  to  pay  for  it.5 

Co.,  86  N.  Y.  200 ;  Gilman,  etc.,  R.  Co.  2  U.  S.  Rolling  Stock  Co.  v.  Atlantic, 

v.    Kelly,   77  111.    426;  Davidson    v.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Ohio  St.  450. 

Bridgeport,  8  Conn.  472;  Hilliard  v.  3  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Reed,  36  Mich. 

Goold,  34  N.  H.  230.  When  a  corpora-  263.  See  1  Elliott's  Gen.  Pr.,  §  426. 

tion  receives,  without  objection,  the  *  Kersey  Oil  Co.  v.  Oil  Creek,  etc., 

benefit   of   a  contract  made  by  any  R.  Co.,  12  Phila.  374. 

agent  in  its   behalf,  for    a   purpose  5  Hayden  v.  Middlesex  Turnp.  Co., 

authorized  in  its  charter,  it  may  be  10  Mass.  397.     See  Cox  v.  Midland  R. 

presumed  to  have  authorized  or  rati-  Co.,  18  Law  J.  N.  S.  Exch.  65.     But 

fied  the  contract.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  where  an  engineer  who  had  previously 

Co.  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.,  131  U.  S.  371.  made  such  contracts  which  had  been 

Sheldon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Eickemeyer,  ratified  by  the  corporation,  promised 

etc.,  Co.,  90  N.  Y.  607 ;  Hazlehurst  v.  that  parties  furnishing  materials  to 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Ga.  13;  U.  build  a  bridge  for  the  company  should 

S.  Rolling  Stock  Co.  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  be  paid,   it  was  held  bound  by  such 

R.  Co.,  34  Ohio  St.  450.  promise.    Beattie  v.  Delaware,  etc.,R. 

Co.,  90  N.  Y.  643.  , 


324 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§228 


§  228.  Acts  that  may  be  ratified. — It  is  competent  for  a 
railroad  company  to  ratify  any  act  of  an  agent  performed  within 
the  scope  of  the  corporate  power.  The  general  rule  is  that  a 
corporation  can  only  ratify  contracts  which  it  has  power  to 
enter  into,1  and  it  is  powerless  to  ratify  one  which  it  is  pro- 
hibited from  making  by  its  charter,  by  public  policy  or  by 
general  statute.2  It  is,  in  general,  true  that  a  void  act  can  not 
be  ratified.  A  recovery  may  be  had  on  the  quantum  meruit  in 
many  cases  for  the  value  of  the  property  actually  received  by 
the  company.  Such  a  recovery  does  not,  as  a  general  rule, 
rest  upon  the  void  contract,  but  there  are  cases  which  hold  thjat 
a  recovery  can  be  had  on  the  contract.8 

§  229.  Ratification — What  constitutes. — A  ratification  will 
be  presumed  only  in  case  the  corporation  was  aware  of  all  the 
material  facts  and  circumstances  which  would  influence  it  in 
adopting  or  rejecting  the  contract,4  or  had  such  means  of 
knowing  that  it  was  chargeable  with  negligence  in  not  being 
informed  of  them.5  The  rule  stated  is  a  familiar  one,  and  little 
else  than  its  bare  statement  is  required.  We  refer  in  the  note 


1  Scott  v.  Middletown,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
86  N.  Y.  200;  U.  S.  Rolling  Stock  Co. 
v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Ohio  St. 
450;  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  R.  I.  260;  Pacific  R. 
Co.  v.  Thomas,  19  Kan.  256;  Board, 
etc.,  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Ind. 
85 ;  Miller  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  Co.,  36  Vt. 
452. 

z  Such  a  contract  is  as  if  no  contract 
had  ever  been  made,  and,  of  course, 
incapable  of  ratification.  Alexander 
v.  Cauldwell,  83  N.  Y.  480;  Davis  ». 
Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  131  Mass.  258; 
Martin  v.  Zellerbach,  38  Cal.  300 ;  Tay- 
mouth  Tp.  v.  Koehler,  35  Mich.  22. 

3  Hitchcock  v.  Galveston,  96  U.  S. 
341 ;  Dill  v.  Inhabitants  of  Wareham,  7 
Metcf .  438 ;  Schipper  v.  City  of  Aurora, 
121  Ind.  154, 158 ;  State  Board,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Citizens', etc., Co. ,47  Ind.407 ;  Bissell 


v.  Michigan,  etc.,  Co.,  22  N.  Y.  258; 
DeGroff  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  21  N. 
Y.  124 ;  Missouri  Pacific  Co.v.  Sidell,  67 
Fed.  R.  464 ;  Whitney  Arms  Co.  v.  Bar- 
low, 63  N.  Y.  62 ;  Railway  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Carthy, 96 U.S.  258 ;  Bank  ^.Patterson, 
7  Cranch.  299 ;  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.,  131  U.  S.  371,  B.C.  9 
Sup.  W.  R.  770;  Davis  v.  Old  Colony 
Railroad  Co.,  131  Mass.  258 ;  Louisiana 
tf.Wood,  102  U.  S.  294 ;  City  of  Parkers- 
burg  v.  Brown,  106  U.  S.  487,  s.  c.  1 
Sup.  Ct.  R.  442;  Pennsylvania,  etc., 
Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  118  T).  S. 
290,  s.  c.  6  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1094. 

4  Oilman,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  77 
111.  426. 

5  Hotchin  v.  Kent,  8  Mich.  526 ;  Ex- 
change Bank  v.  Monteath,  17  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  171. 


§  230  CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES.  325 

to  a  few  of  the  great  number  of  cases  which  assert  and  apply 
the  rule.1 

§  230.  Compensation  of  officers. — As  a  general  rule  there  is 
no  implied  promise  to  pay  corporate  officers  anything  for  their 
services,  but  they  are  presumed  to  serve  without  compensation 
unless  some  provision  for  payment  is  made  by  statute,  by  con- 
tract, or  by  resolution  of  the  board  of  directors.2  Where  a  cer- 
tain compensation  is  agreed  upon  before  the  services  are  ren- 
dered, payment  of  it  will  be  enforced.  Accordingly,  it  is  held 
that  a  by-law  of  a  corporation,  providing  that  "no  debts  shall 
be  contracted  by  the  company  unless  there  are  funds  in  the 
treasury  to  meet  the  same,"  does  not  apply  to  the  salary  of  the 
secretary  of  such  corporation,  especially  when  it  has  received 
the  consideration  for  the  indebtedness  contracted.3  And  a  by- 
law or  resolution  adopted  by  the  directors  of  a  corporation  that 
the  salary  of  the  president  shall  be  paid  monthly  out  of  the 
money  that  may  come  into  the  hands  of  the  treasurer  from  the 
first  sale  of  bonds  is  held  not  to  exempt  the  corporation  from 

1  Western,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Armstrong,  Swartz  v.  Duncan,  38  Neb.  782,  s.   c. 

152  U.  S.  346,  s.  c.  14  Sup.  Ct.  R.  572 ;  57  N.  W.  R.  543. 

Battaglia  v.  Thomas,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  2  Officers  of  corporations  are  pre- 
563,  s.  c.  23  S.  W.  R.  1118 ;  First  Nat.  sumed  to  perform  the  duties  of  their 
Bank  v.  Badger,  etc.,  Co.,  54  Mo.  trust  gratuitously,  unless  otherwise 
App.  327;  Russrc.Telfener,  57  Fed.  R.  provided  by  a  statute  or  a  contract. 
973;  Sherrill  r.  Weisiger,  etc.,  Co.,  114  Smith  v.  Putnam,  61  N.  H.  632;  Bar- 
N.  C.  436,  s.  c.  19  S.  E.  R.  365.  It  is  ril  v.  Calendar  Insulating  &  W.  P.  Co., 
familiar  and  established  law  that  the  50  Hun  257,  s.  c.  19  N.  Y.  S.  R.  877; 
act  of  an  agent  must  be  ratified  in  Toponce  v.  CorinneMill,  C.  &  S.  Co., 
ioto  or  entirely  repudiated.  Rader  6  Utah  439,  24  Pac.  R.  534.  There  is 
v.  Maddox,  150  U.  S.  128,  s.  c.  14  Sup.  no  implied  promise  to  pay  the  presi- 
Ct.  R.  46;  Nicklaser.  Griffith,  59  Ark.  dent  of  a  private  corporation  for  his 
641,  26  S.  W.  R.  381 ;  Stanard  Milling  services.  McAvity  v.  Lincoln  Pulp  & 
Co.  v.  Flower,  46  La.  Ann.  315,  s.  c.  15  P.  Co.,  82  Me.  504,  20  Atl.  82.  See 
So.  R.  16;  Brown  «.  Parsons,  10  Utah  McMullen  v.  Ritchie,  64  Fed.  R.  253; 
223,  s.c.  37  Pac.  346;  Graff  w.Callahan,  Starbuck  v.  Housatonac  R.  Co.,  83 
158  Pa.  St.  389,  s.  c.  27  Atl.  R.  1009 ;  Hun  534,  s.  c.  32  N.  Y.  S.  87 ;  Potts  v. 
Tallman  v.  Kimball,  74  Hun  279.  A  Rose  Valley  Mills,  167  Pa.  St.  310,  31 
principal  who  seeks  to  escape  liability  Atl.  R.  655. 

for  the  unauthorized  act  of  the  agent  '  McCracken  v.  Halsey  Fire  Engine 

must  repudiate  it  within  a  reasonable  Co.,  57  Mich.  361,  24  N.  W.  R.  104. 
time  after  it  comes  to  his  knowledge. 


326 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§231 


liability  therefor  in  case  the  bonds  are  not  sold.1  Officers  and 
agents,  of  whom  active  duties  are  required,  not  chosen  from 
among  the  directors  are,  ordinarily,  entitled  to  a  reasonable 
compensation  for  services  rendered  at  the  request  of  the  corpo- 
ration or  of  its  authorized  representatives.1  Payment  for  labor 
as  well  as  for  materials  useful  in  carrying  on  the  business  of 
the  corporation  may  usually  be  made  in  money  or  its  equiva- 
lent; and,  if  in  the  latter,  the  transaction  can  not  be  im- 
peached for  error  of  judgment  on  the  part  of  the  officers  as  to 
the  value  of  the  services  or  property.* 

§  231.   Individual  liability    of    agents    for    their  torts. — 

Although  the  corporation  becomes  bound  to  answer  for  any 
wrongs  committed  by  an  agent  in  the  course  of  his  employ- 
ment, the  agent  is  not  thereby  discharged  from  liability.  He 
must  answer  for  his  frauds/  misrepresentations,5  and  other 
wrongful  acts,6  even  though  he  does  them  by  the  express  direc- 
tion of  a  superintendent  or  other  superior  officer  of  the  corpo- 
ration.7 


1  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hyde, 
122  Ind.  188.  But  a  resolution  fixing 
the  salary  of  a  charter  officer  elected 
for  one  year  at  a  sum  certain  per 
month  does  not  necessarily  fix  that 
rate  for  the  year.  Bennett  v.  St.  Louis 
Car  Roofing  Co.,  23  Mo.  App.  587. 

*  Rogers  v.  Hastings,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 
Minn.  25;  Missouri  River  R.  Co.  v. 
Richards,  8  Kan.  101 ;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Grove,  39  Kan.  731.  Where, 
at  the  request  of  a  corporation,  a  man 
became  its  general  agent  and  pur- 
chased a  large  number  of  shares  of  its 
capital  stock,  and  gave  active  and 
valuable  service  to  the  company,  ex- 
pecting that  when  it  became  prosper- 
ous he  would  have  a  large  salary  for 
the  future,  with  some  compensation 
for  the  past,  but  with  no  agreement  as 
to  salary — the  fact  that  he  stated  sev- 
eral times  to  other  stockholders  that 
he  was  serving  without  compensation 
will  not  defeat  his  right  to  reasonable 


pay  for  his  services  when  the  corpora- 
tion has  become  insolvent.  Bard  v. 
Banigan  (C.  C.  D.  Conn.)  39  Fed.  R. 
13. 

3  Arapahoe  Cattle  &    Land  Co.  v. 
Stevens,  13  Colo.  534,  28  Am.  &  Eng. 
Corp.  Cas.  12,  22  Pac.  823. 

4  Dodgson's  Case,  3  De  Gex  &  S.  85 ; 
Atty-Gen.    v.    Corp.    of  Leicester,  7 
Beav.  176. 

5  Salmon  ».   Richardson,   30  Conn. 
360;  Meyer  v.  Amidon,  45  N.  Y.  169; 
Fusz  v.  Spaunhorst,  67  Mo.  256;  Hen- 
derson v.  Lacon,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  249. 

6Horner  v.  Lawrence,  37  N.  J.  L. 
46;  Harriman  v.  Stowe,  57  Mo.  93; 
Crane  v.  Onderdonk,  67  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
47;  Berghoff  v.  McDonald,  87  Ind. 
549;Elmore  r.Brooks,6  Heisk.(Tenn.) 
45;  Richardson  v.  Kimball,  28  Me. 
463. 

7  City  of  Duluth  v.  Mallett,  43  Minn. 
204,  where  the  conviction  of  an  en- 
gineer for  obstructing  a  crossing  was 


§  232  CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES.  327 

§  232.  Bonds  of  officers  and  agents. — The  officers  and  agents 
of  a  corporation  are  liable  to  it  for  any  losses  occasioned  by 
their  misconduct  or  neglect,1  and  it  is  competent  for  the  corpo- 
ration to  take  a  bond  from  an  officer  or  agent  to  secure  the 
faithful  performance  of  his  duty.  The  right  to  require  such 
a  bond  is  given  by  statute  in  many  states,2  but  such  statutes 
are  but  an  affirmance  of  the  common  law,8  and  any  corpora- 
tion may  pass  a  valid  by-law  requiring  security  to  be  given  by 
its  agents.4  Even  though  the  charter  prescribes  the  security 
to  be  taken,  such  provision  will  be  held  merely  directory  and 
a  different  bond  may  be  enforced  against  the  sureties  in  case  of 
the  agent's  default.5  If  the  bond  is  executed  and  delivered  to 
the  corporation,  and  the  officer  enters  upon  the  discharge  of 
his  duties,  it  may  be  enforced  against  the  sureties  upon  a 
breach  of  its  conditions  without  showing  any  formal  acceptance 
•of  it  by  the  directors.6  A  total  failure  to  execute  any  bond 
whatever  will  not  prevent  the  person  appointed  to  an  office 
from  being  a  legal  agent  of  the  corporation,  even  where  the 
charter  provides  that  he  shall  "give  bond  before  he  enters  up- 
on the  duties  of  his  office,"7  although  a  failure  to  require  a 
bond  may  render  the  officers  whose  duty  it  was  to  require  the 
bond  liable  for  any  loss  resulting  from  their  failure  to  do  so.* 

upheld,  though  it  appeared  that  he  5  As  where  the  charter  prescribed  a 

acted  only  in  obedience  to  orders.  bond  with  two  sureties,  and  a  bond 

1  Pontchartrain  R.  Co.  v.  Paulding,  with    only    one    surety    was    taken. 

11  La.  41;  Lexington  R.  Co.  v.  Brid-  Bank  of  Northern  Liberties  v.  Cres- 
ges,  7  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  556.  son,  12  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  306. 

2Stimson'sAm.Stat.  (1892),  §§8046,  6  Amherst  Bank  v.   Root,  2  Mete. 

S533,   citing  laws   of   Massachusetts,  (Mass.)  522. 

Vermont,  Connecticut,  New  York,  7Bank  of  United  States  ».  Dand- 
Pennsylvania,  Arkansas,  West  Vir-  ridge,  12  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  64.  But  if 
ginia,  Texas,  Nevada,  Utah,  Indiana,  the  charter  especially  provided  that 
Michigan,  Illinois,  Arizona,  Colorado,  he  should  not  be  deemed  for  any  pur- 
Montana,  Wyoming,  District  of  Co-  pose  in  his  office  until  an  approval  of 
lumbia.  his  bond  by  the  proper  board,  any  acts 
8  Angell  &  Ames  (8th  ed.),  §285.  which  he  did  before  such  approval 
*Bank  of  United  States  v.  Dand-  would  be  utterly  void.  Bank  of  United 
ridge,  12  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  64.  See  States  ».  Dandridge,  12  Wheat.  (U. 
Bank  of  North  Liberties  v.  Cresson,  S.)  64,  per  Story,  J. 

12  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  306;  Peppin  v.t  8  Pontchartrain  R.  Co.  v.  Paulding, 
Cooper,  2  B.  &  Aid.  431.                        '  11  La.  41. 


328  THE    CORPORATION.  §  232 

A  bond  is  not  void  as  to  the  obligors  because  it  is  signed  by 
the  officers  who  should  examine  and  approve  it,1  nor  because 
the  officer  neglected  to  be  sworn.2  But,  if  the  principal  knows 
of  some  fact  which  will  materially  affect  the  liability  of  the 
sureties,3  as  that  he  is  being  cheated  by  an  agent,4  and  applies 
for  security  for  the  good  conduct  of  the  agent,  but  conceals 
this  fact  from  the  one  who,  in  ignorance  of  it,  becomes  a  surety 
for  the  agent,  the  obligation  so  obtained  may  be  avoided  by 
the  surety.  The  corporate  representative  must,  if  fit  oppor- 
tunity offers,  inform  the  surety  of  any  material  facts  within 
his  knowledge  relative  to  the  trustworthiness  of  the  officer, 
such  as  prior  defaults  and  the  like,  or  the  surety  will  not  be 
bound.5  And  the  corporation  can  not,  upon  misconduct  of 
the  agent  amounting  to  a  substantial  breach  of  the  bond  after 
it  is  executed,  retain  him  in  its  employ  and  yet  hold  the  sure- 
ties liable  for  his  future  defaults,  unless  notice  is  given  to  the 
sureties  and  they  expressly  or  impliedly  consent  to  the  agent's 
retention.6  The  fact  that  the  agent  is  retained  will  not  relieve 
the  surety  from  a  liability  already  accrued.7  As  a  general  rule 
the  corporation  is  not  bound  upon  discovering  that  an  officer 
is  in  default  to  dismiss  the  officer  and  notify  the  sureties 
in  order  that  they  may  take  measures  to  protect  themselves.8 
And  where  the  officer  or  employe  was  a  defaulter  at  the  time  of 
giving  the  bond,  but  this  fact  was  unknown  to  the  company, 

1  Amherst  Bank    v.  Root,  2  Mete.  Bank  v.   Cooper,  36  Me.  179;  Dins- 
(Mass.)  522.  more  v.Tidball,  34  Ohio  St.  411 ;  Graves 

2  State  Bank  v.  Chetwood,  8  N.  J.  v.  Lebanon  Nat.  Bank,  10  Bush.  (Ky.) 
L.  1.  23;  State  v.  Atherton,  40  Mo.  209. 

'Franklin  Bank  v.  Stevens,  39  Me.  6 Phillips  v.   Foxall,   L.  R.  7  Q.  B. 

532.  666;   Taylor  v.   Bank  of  Ky.,  2  J.  J. 

*Maltby's  Case,  cited  in  1  Dow.  294.  Marsh   (Ky.)564;  Wilmington,  etc., 

Where  a  station  agent  at  the  time  of  R.  Co.  v.  Ling,  18  S.  C.  116. 

signing  the  official  bond  is  in  default,  7  State  Bank  v.  Chetwood,  8  N.  J.  L. 

and  the  sureties  are  not  informed  of  1 ;  Union  Bank  v.  Forstall,  11  La.  211. 

that  fact,  they  will  not  be  bound.  Wil-  .  8  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shaeffer, 

mington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ling,  18  S.  C.  59  Pa.  St.  350;  Morris  Canal,  etc.,  Co. 

116.  v.  Van  Vorst's   Admx.,   21  N.  J.  L. 

8  Western  N.  Y.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Clin-  100;  Peel  v.  Tatlock,  1  Bos.  &  Pull, 

ton,  66  N.  Y.  326;  ^Etna  Life  Ins.  Co.  419  f  Grocers'  Bank  v.  Kingman,  Id 

v.    Mabbett,   18  Wis.   667;    Franklin  Gray  (Mass.)  473. 


§  232  CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES.  329 

or  where  the  corporation  retains  him  in  its  employ  after  his 
default,  but  in  ignorance  of  his  misconduct,  the  surety  is  not 
thereby  discharged,  even  though  such  ignorance  arises  from 
the  negligence  of  officers  of  the  corporation  in  failing  to  ex- 
amine into  the  accounts  of  the  person  under  bond.1  The 
mere  fact  that  a  balance  was  due  from  the  agent  to  the  princi- 
pal on  account  of  money  received  by  him,  where  it  did  not 
carry  an  imputation  of  misconduct  on  the  part  of  the  agent, 
was  held  not  a  material  fact,  the  concealment  of  which  would 
release  the  surety.2  And  the  fact  that  a  balance  is  found  to  be 
due  from  the  agent  to  the  corporation,  and  he  is  afterward 
allowed  to  continue  in  its  employ  will  not  necessarily  release 
the  sureties,  for  it  is  only  where  the  default  is  evidently  a  dis- 
honest one,  amounting  to  a  breach  of  the  bond,  that  the  corpo- 
ration is  bound  to  discharge  the  delinquent.8  A  bond  will  be 
presumed  to  be  executed  with  reference  to  the  time  for  which 
the  officer  or  agent  is  appointed,  if  for  a  term  certain,  and  the 
sureties  can  not  be  held  liable  for  his  misconduct  in  any  sub- 
sequent terms  for  which  he  may  be  chosen.4  But  they  may,  by  the 
use  of  apt  words  in  the  bond,  bind  themselves  for  an  indefi- 
nite number  of  successive  terms  during  which  he  may  hold  his 
position.5  Where  one  gives  a  bond  as  an  officer  of  a  corpo- 
ration whose  charter  will  soon  expire,  his  bondsmen  can  not 
be  held  liable  for  his  defalcations  while  acting  as  an  officer 
under  an  extension  of  the  charter.6  But  the  adoption  of  a  by- 
law changing  the  time  for  holding  the  annual  meeting,  or 

1  Bowne  v.  Mt.   Holly  Nat.  Bank,  *  Chelmsford  Co.  v.  Demarest,7  Gray 
45  N.  J.  L.  360;    Watertown  F.  Ins.  (Mass.)?;  Manufacturers',  etc.,  Loan 
Co.  v.  Simmons,  131  Mass.  85;  Atlas  Co.v.  Odd    Fellows'   Hall   Assn.,  48 
Bank  v.  Brownell,  9  R.  I.  168;  Black  Pa.  St.  446;  Exeter  Bank  v.  Rogers,  7 
v.  Ottoman  Bank,  15  Moore  P.  C.  472.  N.  H.  21. 

2  Guardians,  etc.,w.  Strother,  24  Eng.  5  Middlesex  Manf.  Co.  v.  Lawrence, 
Law  &  Eq.  183,  s.  c.  22  L.  T.  84;  Wil-  1  Allen  (Mass.)  339.     See  Lexington, 
mington,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Ling,  18  S.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elwell,8  Allen  (Mass.) 
Car.  116;  Watertown  Ins.  Co.  v.  Sim-  371;   Eastern   R.   Co.  v.  Coring,  138- 
mons,  131  Mass.    85.     See  Vilwig  v.  Mass.  381 ;  Consolidated  Nat.  Bank  w. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Va.  449.  Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Fed.  R.  874. 

8  Atlantic,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Barnes,        6 Thompson  v.  Young,  2  Ohio  334. 
64  N.  Y.  385;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Kasey,  30  Gratt.  (Va.)  218. 


330  THE    CORPORATION.  §  233 

changing  the  mode  of  conducting  the  business  of  the  corpo- 
ration after  the  termination  of  a  lease  of  its  property  will  notdis- 
charge  the  sureties.1  It  has  also  been  held  that  the  obligation 
of  a  bond  is  not  avoided  by  the  amalgamation  of  the  company 
to  which  it  was  given  with  another  under  an  act  of  parliament 
providing  that  all  the  securities  of  the  old  companies  should 
be  vested  in  the  new,  and  the  duties  of  the  officer  were  un- 
changed.2 

§  233.  Sureties — Bonds  of  officers  and  agents. — The  rules 
which  govern  as  to  the  effect  of  changes  in  obligations  of 
sureties  apply  to  sureties  on  the  bonds  of  corporate  officers  and 
agents.  We  shall  not  discuss  the  subject  at  length,  but  will 
refer  to  some  general  rules.  A  change  in  the  contract  in  any 
material  part,  without  the  consent  of  the  surety,  will  discharge 
him  from  his  obligation  ,3  as  where  one  who  is  working  for  a  salary 
goes  to  work  on  a  commission,4  or  where  one  who  gives  bond 
as  agent  for  an  insurance  company  which  has  no  authority  to 
engage  in  banking  is  intrusted  by  it  with  the  business  of  bank- 
ing for  the  corporation,  and  embezzles  funds  intrusted  to  him 
for  that  purpose.8  But  a  surety  on  the  bond  of  a  ticket  seller, 
conditioned  for  his  faithful  performance  of  "all  the  duties  of  the 
said  office  which  are  or  may  be  imposed  upon  him  under  this  or 
any  future  appointment, ' '  is  not  released  by  the  fact  that  the  capi- 
tal stock  of  the  corporation  is  increased,  that  the  travel  becomes 
much  greater,  and  that  the  ticketagent's  salary  is  nearly  doubled 
after  the  bond  is  given.6  The  sureties  on  the  official  bond  of  an 
officer  or  agent  of  a  private  corporation  conditioned  for  the  faith- 
ful performance  of  his  duties  will  not  be  held  to  any  greater 
liability  than  would  attach  to  the  agent  if  no  bond  were  given, 

1  Lexington,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Elwell,  5  Blair  v.  Perpetual  Ins.  Co.,  10  Mo. 
S  Allen  (Mass.)  371.  559. 

2  Eastern  Union  R.  Co.  v.  Cochrane,  6  Eastern  R.  Co.  v.  Loring,  138  Mass. 
24  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  495;  London,  etc.,  381;  Strawbridge  v.   Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Goodwin,  3  Exch.  320.  R.  Co.,  14  Md.  360.     See,  also,  Bank 

8  Miller  v.  Stewart,  9  Wheat.  (TT.  S.)  of  Wilmington  v.  Wollaston,  3  Harr. 

680.  (Del.)  90;  Morris  Canal  &  Banking 

4 Northwestern  R.  Co.  v.  Whinray,  Co.  v.  Van  Vorst's  Admx.,  21  N.  J.  L. 

26  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  488.  100. 


$  233  CORPORATE  REPRESENTATIVES.  331 

unless  the  language  of  the  bond  clearly  requires  it.1  Such  a 
bond  has  reference  to  the  agent's  honesty,8  and  binds  him  only 
to  the  reasonable  skill  and  ordinary  diligence  in  performing 
the  duties  of  his  office 8  to  which  he  is  bound  by  the  terms  of 
an  ordinary  employment.  And  where  a  sum  of  money  belong- 
ing to  the  corporation  is  stolen  from  the  agent  without  his 
fault,  his  sureties  can  not  be  held  liable  upon  a  bond  which 
provides  that  he  shall  "well,  truly  and  faithfully  perform  the 
duties  required  of  him,  *  *  *  and  promptly  pay  over  and 
promptly  account  for  all  mone}rs  belonging  to  said  company 
which  shall  be  received  by  him  as  such  agent."*  The  cor- 
poration can  not,  without  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  stock- 
holders, condone  gratuitously  the  fraud  of  its  officers.5 

1  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  of  property  coming  into  his  hands. 

120111.  603;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mowbray    v.   Antrim,    123    Ind.  24; 

Jackson,  33  Alb.  L.J.  239;  Planters',  Wayne  Pike  Co.   v.   Hammons,   129 

etc.,  Bank  v.  Hill,  1  Stew.  (Ala.)  201.  Ind.  368. 

•Union  Bank  v.  Clossey,  10  Johns.  4  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ».  Bartlett, 

(N.  Y.)  271,  11  Johns.  182.  120  111.  603 ;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ». 

8  American  Bank  v.  Adams,  12  Pick.  Jackson,  33  Alb.  L.  J.  239.    So  where 

(Mass.)  303.    An  officer  of  a  private  property    is    lost    without   his   fault, 

corporation  is  liable  only  for  the  care  Mowbray  v.  Antrim,  123  Ind.  24. 

required    of    an  ordinary  trustee  or  5  Hazard  v.  Duraut,  11  E.  I.  195. 
bailee  for  hire,  and  is  not  an  insurer 


CHAPTER    XII. 


DIRECTORS. 

§234.  Different  classes  of  officers—    §254. 
Generally. 

235.  The  governing  board — Gener-        255. 

ally. 

236.  Governing  board  not  the  cor-        256. 

poration.  257. 

237.  The  board  of  directors  repre- 

sents the  corporation.  258. 

238.  Directors — Generally. 

239.  Number  of  directors.  259. 

240.  Directors — How  chosen — Gen- 

erally. 260. 

241.  Elegibility  to  the  office  of  di-        261. 

rector. 

242.  Ineligibility   because    of  con-        262. 

nection  with  competing  lines.        263. 

243.  Election  of  ineligible  person  to 

office  of  director.  264. 

244.  Officers  de  facto — Generally. 

245.  Election  of  ineligible  person —        265. 

Who  may  question  right  to 
office.  266. 

246.  Directors  de  facto — Illustrative 

"    cases.  267. 

247.  De    facto    director s — Two 

boards.  268. 

248.  Holding  over— Failure  to  elect.        269. 

249.  Powers    of    directors — Source 

of.  270. 

250.  Powers 

ally. 

251.  Powers 

252. 
253. 


of    directors — Gener- 


of  directors — Illustra- 
tive cases. 
Directors— Powers  of— Organic 

changes. 

Directors— Extent  of  authority 
—Generally. 

(332) 


271. 

272. 
273. 

274. 


Powers  of  directors,  general 
conclusion. 

Directors — Official  a  c  t  i  o  n — 
Preliminary. 

Directors— Official  action. 

Directors — Delegation  of 
authority. 

Directors — D  elegation  of 
authority — Illustrative  cases. 

Directors — Action  where  the 
mode  is  prescribed. 

Directors— Meetings. 

Directors— Meetings— S  t  a  t  e  d 
and  special. 

Directors  —  Meetings — Notice. 

Directors—  Meetings — Proxies 
— Quorum. 

Directors — Meetings  outside  of 
the  state. 

Directors  —  Proceedings  —  Re- 
cord. 

Directors — Corporate  records 
as  evidence. 

Proof  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
board  of  directors. 

Notice  to  directors. 

Director  s — Admissions  and 
declarations. 

Ratification  of  the  acts  of  di- 
rectors. 

Directors — Removal  from 
office. 

Compensation  of  directors. 

Directors — Relation  to  stock- 
holders— Preliminary. 

Directors  considered  trustees. 


§  234  DIRECTORS.  333 

§  275.   Directors  as  trustees — Illustra-    §  279.   Directors— Liability  in  matter 
tive  cases.  of  contract. 

276.  Directors — Dealings  with  cor-        280.   Directors — Errors  of  judgment. 

poration.  281.   Directors — Liability  for  negli- 

277.  Termination  of  fiduciary  rela-  gence. 

tions.  282.   Directors — Fraud  on  third  per- 

278.  Directors— Liability    of — Gen-  sons. 

erally. 

§  234.  Different  classes  of  officers — Generally. — In  the  pre- 
ceding chapter  we  have  in  a  general  way  treated  of  the  officers 
and  agents  of  railway  companies  and  shall  now  consider  that 
class  of  corporate  officers  that  may  be  said  to  be  the  governing 
officers  of  the  corporation.  Some  of  these  officers  are  invested 
with  powers  that  resemble  governmental,  legislative  and  judi- 
cial powers,  while  others  are  executive  or  ministerial  officers. 
The  common  law  rule  was  quite  strict  and  under  it  only  the 
members  of  the  board  of  directors,  or  the  governing  board  by 
whatever  name  designated,  were  regarded  as  officers  of  such 
superior  rank  and  authority  as  to  constitute  them  very  much 
more  than  agents  and  servants,1  but  this  doctrine  has  been 
greatly  limited. 

§  235.  The  governing  board  —  Generally.  —  The  power  of 
corporate  government  is  vested  in  a  board  of  officers  generally 
denominated  "board  of  directors"  or  "board  of  trustees."  The 
governing  board  is  the  highest  representative  of  the  corpora- 
tion. The  members  of  the  board  are  the  officers  in  whom  are 
lodged  the  primary  and  highest  corporate %  powers.  They  ac- 
tively exercise  the  powers  of  the  corporation,  and,  while  it  is 
true  that  the  powers  they  exercise  are  in  a  sense  delegated  to 
them,  yet  their  powers  are  not  delegated  powers  in  the  same 
sense  as  are  the  powers  conferred  upon  agents,  attorneys  or 
employes.2  The  governing  board  must,  under  many  statutes, 

1  Priestley  v.  Fowler,  3  M.  &  W.  1 ;  Macph.  (Sc.  Ct.  of  Sessions,  3d  Ser.) 

Hutchinson  v.  York,  etc.,  Co.,  5Exch.  102;  Bartonshill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Reid,  3 

343 ;  Murray  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  Macq.  266. 

1  McMullan  (S.  C.)  385;    Farwell  v.  2  Bliss  v.  Kaweah,  etc.,  Co.,  65  Cal. 

Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Mete.  (Mass.)  49;  502.     See,   generally,  Conro  v.   Port 

McFarlane  v.  Caledonian,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Henry,  etc.,  Co.,  12  Barb.  27;  Union, 


334  THE    CORPORATION.  §236 

exercise  all  corporate  powers,  for,  while  the  shareholders  select 
the  members  of  the  board,  the  board  exercises  powers  which 
those  who  put  them  in  office  can  not  rightfully  exercise.  As  a 
rule  corporate  powers  must  be  exercised  by  the  governing  board, 
or  through  agents  and  servants  appointed  directly  or  indirectly 
by  it.  Where  the  act  of  incorporation  requires  corporate  pow- 
ers to  be  exercised  by  the  governing  board  they  can  not  be  ex- 
ercised by  any  other  corporate  department  officers  or  agents, 
for  where  the  mode  of  corporate  action  is  prescribed  it  must 
be  pursued.1  The  members  of  the  governing  board  are  usually 
designated  as  the  directors,  and  we  shall  employ  that  term  as 
a  generic  one  denoting  the  officers  invested  with  the  principal 
governmental  powers. 

§  236.  Governing  board  not  the  corporation. — The  board  of 
directors  is  not  the  corporation  unless  made  so  by  the  act  of 
incorporation.2  Statements  are  found  in  some  of  the  books 
and  cases  which  seem  to  indicate  that  the  board  of  directors 
constitute  the  corporation.8  These  statements,  as  we  believe, 
assert  an  erroneous  doctrine,  for  broad  and  comprehensive  as 
are  the  powers  of  the  board  of  directors,  the  body  politic  and 
corporate  is  distinct  from  the  board,  and  there  are  corporate 
powers  which  the  board  can  not  exercise.  The  board  can  not, 
unless  expressly  authorized  by  the  act  of  incorporation,  pre- 

etc.,  Co.  v.  Rocky  Mountain,  etc.,  Co.,  Oxford,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Utah  265,  s.  c.  4 

2  Col.    565;    McCullough  v.  Moss,  5  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  234;  Miller  v. 

Den.  (N.  Y.)  567, 575 ;  Dana  v.  Bank  of  Rutland,    etc.,    R.   Co.,   36  Vt.   452; 

United  States,  5  Watts  &  S.  223.  Cleveland,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Himrod, 

1  Beatty  v.  Manne  Ins.  Co.,  2  Johns  etc.,  Co..  37  Ohio  St.  321.  Judge  Red- 

109;    People  v.  Utica,   etc.,   Co.,    15  field    says:     *'As    a    general   rule   it 

Johns  358,  383;  New  York,  etc.,  Co.  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  the  board 

v.  Ely,  2  Cow.  678 ;  Ex  parte  Wil locks,  of  directors  have  all  the  power  which 

7  Cow.  402;  Hosack  v.  College,  etc.,  5  resides  in  the  corporation,  subject  to 

Wend.  547.  such  restrictions  only  as  are  imposed 

z  Grant  on  Corporations,  365 ;    Reg.  upon  by  the  charter  and  by-laws  of 

v.  Paramore,  10  A.  &  E.  286;    Regina  the  corporation."     Redfield  on  Rail- 

v.  York,  2  Q.  B.  847;  Mayor,  etc.,  v.  ways,  136.  This  statement,  we  venture 

Simpson,  8  Q.  B.  65.  to  say,  with  deference  to  its  learned 

8  Maynard  v.  Firemen's  Ins.  Fund,  author,   is  somewhat  too  broad  and 

34  Cal.  48.    See,  generally,  Hoyt  v.  requires  limitation. 
Thompson,  19  N.  Y.  207 ;   Leavitt  v. 


§  237  DIRECTORS.  335 

scribe  the  qualifications  of  its  own. members,  enact  by-laws, 
amend  articles  of  association,  increase  capital  stock  or  effect  a 
consolidation  with  another  company,  for  power  to  do  these 
things,  and  others,  dwells  elsewhere.1 

§  237.     The  board  of  directors  represents  the  corporation. 

— When  duly  organized  and  officially  acting  within  the  scope 
of  the  authority  conferred  upon  it  by  the  charter  or  the  valid 
by-laws  of  the  corporate  body,  the  board  of  directors  represents 
and  acts  for  the  corporation  to  the  exclusion  of  the  individual 
stockholders.  As  we  have  elsewhere  said,  action  by  the  stock- 
holders where  the  charter,  or  act  of  incorporation,  requires  ac- 
tion by  the  board  of  directors,  is  ineffective.  In  such  cases  the 
stockholders  are  substantially  strangers  to  the  corporation  so 
far  as  corporate  action  is  concerned.  They  elect  the  directors, 
but  they  can  not  perform  the  duties  or  exercise  the  functions 
enjoined  upon  the  board  of  directors  by  law.  The  stock- 
holders are  not  co-owners  of  the  corporate  property,  and  hence 
can  not  act  in  regard  to  it  as  joint-owners  of  property  can  do 
where  the  title  is  in  natural  persons.2  Shareholders  can  not 

1  State  v.  Adams,  44  Mo.  570;  Day-  R.  711,  the  court  said:  "It  is  the  fa- 
ton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  1  Disney  miliar  law  that  a  corporation  has  a 
(Ohio)  84 ;  Commonwealth  v.  Cullen,  personality  of  its  own  distinct  from 
18  Pa.  St.  133;  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  that  of  its  stockholders,  that  it  is  not  af- 
Allerton,  18  Wall.  233.  In  Nashua,  fected  in  the  remotest  degree  by  con- 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Fed.  tracts  made  by  its  stockholders  with 
R.  821,  "The  general  power  of  the  third  parties,  whether  they  own  much 
board  of  directors  to  perform  all  cor-  or  little  of  its  capital  stock,  and  is  not 
porate  acts  refers  to  ordinary  trans-  bound  to  discharge  any  personal  obli- 
actions  and  not  to  fundamental  and  gations  assumed  by  its  stockholders." 
organic  changes,  like  increasing  its  The  court  cited  Pullman,  etc.,  Co.  •». 
capital  stock  or  leasing  its  plant,"  Missouri  Pacific  Co.,  115  II.  S.  587,  6 
citing  Cass  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  194;  Moore,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Fed.  R.  640 ;  Thomas  v.  Railroad  Co.,  Towers,  etc.,  Co  ,  87  Ala.  206,  s.  c.  6  So. 
101  U.  S.  71.  R.41, 13  Am.  St.R.  23 ;  Davis,  etc.,Co. v. 

*  Williamson  v.  Smoot,  7  Mart.  (La.)  Davis,  etc.,  Wagon  Co.,  20  Fed.  R.  699. 

O.  S.  31 ;  Mickles  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  The  court  also  distinguished  the  case 

Bank,  11  Paige  118,  s.  c.  42  Am.  Dec.  from  that  of  Beal  v.  Chase,  31  Mich. 

103;  Spurlock  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  490.  The  case  of  American,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

Co.,  90  Mo.  199;  Burrall  v.  Bushwick  Taylor  Manuf.  Co.,  46  Fed.  R.  152,  is 

R.  Co.,  75  N.  Y.  211.  In  the  case  of  the  same  case  as  that  from  which  we 

American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Norris,  43  Fed.  have  quoted  and  was  heard  upon  att 


336  THE    CORPORATION.  §  238 

convey  the  corporate  real  estate  for  the  reason  that  the  title  is 
in  the  corporation,1  and  conveyances  must  be  made  by  the 
authorized  representatives  of  the  corporation.  A  conveyance 
made  by  all  the  stockholders  may  be  upheld  in  equity  where 
facts  are  alleged  and  proved  sufficient  to  invoke  the  assistance 
of  the  court  of  conscience,  but  the  conveyance  in  and  of  itself 
is  not  effective  to  carry  the  title.2  In  various  modes  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  authority  of  the  stockholders  to  act  for  the  cor- 
poration has  been  presented  and  the  conclusion  generally  de- 
clared is  that  it  is  only  in  exceptional  cases  that  their  acts  can 
be  regarded  as  those  of  the  corporation.8  A  stockholder  may, 
of  course,  be  appointed  an  agent  of  the  corporation  and  his 
acts,  within  the  scope  of  his  authority,  will  be  binding  on  the 
corporation,  but  his  authority  will  be  attributable  to  his  ap- 
pointment and  not  to  his  position  as  a  shareholder.* 

§  238.  Directors — Generally. — The  principal  officers  of  a 
private  corporation  are,  as  already  indicated,  the  directors.  A 
choice  of  directors  is  an  essential  step  in  its  organization,  and 
in  many  of  the  states  it  is  specified  that  the  corporate 
powers  are  to  be  exercised  by  them.5  It  is  competent  for  the 
legislature  to  constitute  the  board  of  directors  the  corporation, 
and  where  there  is  a  statute  making  the  directors  the  corpora- 
tion, they  are  necessarily  the  possessors  of  the  whole  corporate 
power  not  elsewhere  lodged.  But,  as  a  rule,  directors  are 
elective  officers,  chosen  as  the  chief  representatives  of  the 
corporation. 

amended  bill.     See,  generally,  Han-  Mete.  (Mass.)  371 ;  Mofiat  v.  Winslow, 

cock  v.  Holbrook,  9  Fed.  R.  353 ;  Rail-  7  Paige  124 ;  Gillett  v.  Bowen,  23  Fed. 

road  Co.  v.  Howard,  7  Wall.  392.  R.  625 ;  Whitman  v.  Cox,  26  Me.  335 ; 

1  Wheelock  v.  Moulton,   15  Vt.  519;  Langdon    v.    Hillside,   etc.,    Co.,    41 

Myers  v.  Perigal,  2  DeGex,  M.  &  G.  Fed.  R.  609;  Tomlinsont?.  Bricklayers' 

599;  Edwards  v.  Hall,  6  DeGex,  M.  &  Union,  87  Ind.  308. 

G.   74,   92;   Baldwin  v.   Canfield,  26  2  American,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Taylor,  etc.. 

Minn.  43.     See,  generally,  Harris*.  Co.,  46  Fed.  R.  152;  Society,  etc.,  v. 

Muskingum,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Blackf.  267;  Abbott,  2  Beav.  559. 

Carothersfl.  Alexander,  74  Texas  309,  *  Gordon  v.  Swan,  43  Cal.  564. 

s.  c.  12  S.  W.  R.  4 ;  Shay  v.  Terolumie,  *Taylor  Priv.  Corp.  §  187. 

«tc.,  Co.,  6  Cal.  73 ;  Smith  v.  Kurd,  12  5  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8060. 


§  239  DIRECTORS.  337 

§239.  Number  of  directors.  —  The  number  of  directors  is 
fixed  by  charter  or  by  the  law  providing  for  the  incorporation  of 
railroads,  or  is  left  to  be  determined  by  the  stockholders  within 
certain  limits.  Where  the  number  is  not  fixed  by  the  charter, 
or  the  statute  under  which  the  company  is  organized,  it  may 
be  fixed  by  the  stockholders  by  appropriate  action.  Where  the 
number  is  fixed  definitely  by  the  constating  articles  or 
articles  of  association  it  can  not  be  changed  except  in  the 
manner  provided  by  law,  or  by  an  authorized  change  or  amend- 
ment of  such  articles.1 

§  240.  Directors — How  chosen — Generally. — Directors  are 
usually  chosen  by  the  stockholders.2  In  the  absence  of  statu- 
tory provisions  vesting  the  power  elsewhere  it  properly  resides 
in  the  stockholders  of  the  company.  The  members  compose 
the  corporation  and  it  is  for  them  to  choose  their  representa- 
tives in  some  authorized  or  appropriate  mode,  unless  the  stat- 
ute prescribes  the  mode ;  but  in  the  event  that  a  mode  is  pre- 
scribed the  stockholders  can  not  rightfully  pursue  any  other. 
As  we  shall  see  presently,  an  immaterial  or  unsubstantial 
deviation  from  the  mode  prescribed  will  not  vitiate  the 
election. 

§  241 .  Eligibility  to  the  office  of  director. — Where  the  act 
of  incorporation  requires  that,  to  render  a  person  eligible  to 
the  office  of  director,  he  shall  possess  certain  prescribed  quali- 
fications, he  can  not  be  rightfully  chosen  to  the  office  unless 
he  possesses  the  required  qualifications.  In  this,  as  in  all  other 
matters,  the  act  under  which  the  company  is  incorporated 
constitutes  the  paramount  law.3  At  common  law,  any  person 
capable  of  acting  as  the  business  agent  for  another  may  be  a 
director.*  Persons  under  the  disability  of  coverture  or  in- 

1  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8532.  Utah,  Georgia,  Alabama,  New  Mex- 

2Stimson's  Am.  Stat.,  §8532,  .citing  ico,  Arizona,  Oklahoma, 

laws  of   Connecticut,  Vermont,  New  3  Horton  v.  Wilder,  48  Kans.  222,  B. 

York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  In-  c.  29  Pac.  R.  566;  State  v.  Manufact- 

diana,  Illinois,  Minnesota,  Nebraska,  urers',  etc.,  Co.,  24  L.  R.  A.  252,    29 

Maryland,  West  Virginia,  North  Car-  W.  L.  Bull.  160. 

olina,    Arkansas,    Texas,    Montana,  *  People  v.  Webster,  10  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)  554. 
CORP.    22 


338  THE    CORPORATION.  §  242 

fancy  are  eligible  to  the  office  of  director  unless  the  statutory 
law  interdicts  the  selection  of  such  persons.  Non-residents 
may,  in  the  absence  of  statutory  prohibition,  be  eligible  to 
the  office  of  director,1  but  if  residence  is  required  by  the  stat- 
ute a  non-resident  is  ineligible.  Where  the  statute  does  not 
make  the  ownership  of  stock  essential  to  eligibility  to  the 
office  of  director  a  person  who  is  not  a  stockholder  may  be 
elected.2  If  the  charter  or  by-laws  enacted  in  accordance  with 
it  require  that  directors  shall  be  stockholders,  then  the  per- 
sons chosen  must  be  the  owners  of  stock.8  It  has  been  held 
that  where  one  is  appointed  director  by  the  articles  of  associa- 
tion he  is  a  de  jure  officer,  although  he  did  not  at  the  time  of 
his  appointment  own  the  number  of  shares  required  by  the 
articles  of  association.4  The  conclusion  reached  in  the  case 
cited  in  the  note  is  placed  upon  the  ground  that  the  articles  of 
association  only  relate  to  officers  appointed  in  the  future. 

§  242.  Ineligibility  because  of  connection  with  competing 
lines. — It  is  held  that  a  director  of  one  company  is  incompetent 
to  serve  as  director  of  a  company  having  adverse  interests, 

1  Commonwealths.  Hemingway,  131  37.     It  is  held  that  actual  beneficial 
Pa.  St.  614,  s.  c.  18  Atl.  R.  992.     See  ownership  is  requisite.   Bainbridge  v. 
State  v.  Smith,  15  Or.  98,  s.  c.  14  Pac.  Smith,  L.  R.  41  Ch.  Div.  462,  s.  c.  33 
R.  814.  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cases  172 ;  Ex  parte 

2  Wight    v.    Springfield,    etc.,   Co.,  Stock,  33  L.  J.  Ch.  731 ;  Matter  of  New- 
117    Mass.    226,    s.    c.    19    Am.    R.  comb,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  16.     See  Cum- 
412;    Spering's    Appeal,    71    Pa.    St.  mingtJ.  Prescott,  2  Younge  &  C.  Exch. 
11,    s.    c.    10     Am.    R.    684;     In    re  488;  Chemical,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Colwell, 
St.   Lawrence    Steamboat  Co.,  44  N.  132N.Y.  250,  s.c.  SON.  E.R.644;  Com 
J.  529;  Ex  parte  Stock,  33  L.  J.  Ch.  monwealth  v.   Detwiller,  131  Pa.  St. 
731;  Kerchner  v.  Gettys,  18  So.  Car.  614;     Nathan  v.  Tompkins,   82  Ala. 
521 ;  He  British,  etc.,  Assn.,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  437 ;  Richards  v.   Attleborough,  etc., 
Div.  306.     See  Penobscott,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bank,  148  Mass.  187,  s.  c.  19  N.  E.  R. 
Dummer,  40  Me.  172,  s.  c.  63  Am.  Dec.  353,    1    L.   R.   A.   781;  Hazlehust  v. 
654;  Despatch  Line  v.  Bellamy,  etc.,  Savannah,   etc.,    R.   Co.  43  Ga.   13; 
Co.,  12  N.  H.  265,  s.  c.   37  Am.  Dec.  Matter  Argus  Printing  Co.,  1  N.  Dak. 
203;  Fey  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  Co.,  32  111.  434,  s.  c.  26  Am.  St.  R.  639;  Pulbrook 
App.  618 ;   Ee  Corporate  Directors,  7  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  9  Ch.  Div. 
Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  178.      See,  generally,  610. 

Trisconi  v.  Winship,  43  La.  Ann.  45;  *  Karuth's  Case,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  506; 
Beardsley  v.  Johnson,  121  N.  Y.  224.  Portal  v.  Emmens,  1  Com.  PI.  Div.  664. 

3  Bartholomew  v.  Bently,  1  Ohio  St. 


§  243  DIRECTORS.  339 

and,  if  chosen,  the  court  will  remove  him  and  replace  him  by 
trustees  of  its  own  appointing.1  The  decisions  to  which  we 
refer  seem  to  be  supported  by  sound  reason.  Directors  occupy 
fiduciary  relations  to  the  corporation  and  they  ought  not  to  be 
interested  adversely  to  the  corporation.  It  has,  however,  been 
held  that  the  fact  that  a  stockholder  intends,  if  elected  a 
director,  to  vote  for  an  arrangement  by  which  another  corpo- 
ration will  control  the  company  can  not,  though  such  an 
arrangement  be  illegal,  affect  the  validity  of  his  election.2 

§  243.   Election  of  ineligible  person  to  office  of  director. — 

It  is  generally  held  that  the  election  of  an  ineligible  person 
to  the  office  of  director  is  voidable  only  and  not  absolutely 
void.8  If  the  election  is  not  void,  but  merely  voidable,  it 
would  seem  to  follow  that  the  person  chosen  is  invested  with 
color  of  office  and,  ordinarily,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere 
usurper.  He  is  not,  to  be  sure,  an  officer  de  jure,  but  it  seems 
to  us  that  he  is  to  some  extent  and  for  some  purposes  a  corporate 
representative;  but  th ere  are  authorities  holding  that  an  ineligible 
person  can  not  be  a  de  facto  officer.*  It  is  also  held  that  votes 
cast  for  an  ineligible  candidate  are  "thrown  away."  For  the 
reasons  given  and  upon  the  authorities  referred  to  in  the  next 
paragraph,  we  are  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  an  ineligible 
candidate  formally  elected  and  inducted  into  office  may  be  an 
officer  de  facto.6 

§  244.   Officers  de  facto  —  Generally. — Where  the  rights  of 
third  persons  are  involved  an   officer  may  be  such  de  facto, 

Pearson  v.  Concord  R.  Co.,  62  N.  *  People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

H.  537.  In  West  Virginia  a  corpora-  Barb.  344;  Craw  v.  Easterly,  54  N.  Y. 

tion  may  provide  by  by-law  that  no  679 ;  Easterly  v.  Barber,  65  N.  Y.  252. 

person  who  is  attorney  against  it  in  a  5  Mr.  Cook  says:  "Votes  cast  for  a 

suit  shall  be  eligible  to  serve  as  direc-  person  not  eligible  to  office  can  not 

tor.  Cross  v.  West  Virginia  Central,  elect  him.  He  is  not  even  a  de  facto 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  W.  Va.  342.  officer  and  may  be  ousted  by  legal 

2  Ohio  &  M.  R.  Co.  v.  State,  49  Ohio  proceedings."  Cook  on  Stockholders 

St.  668.  (3ded.),620. 

8  The  doctrine  goes  back  to  the  case  6  Horton  v.  Wilder,  48  Kan.  222,  s. 

of  Crawford  v.  Powell,  2  Burr.  1Q13.  c.  29  Pac.  R.  566. 


340  THE    CORPORATION.  §  244 

although  in  strict  right  he  is  not  eligible  to  the  office  and  has 
not  been  legally  elected.  It  would  be  a  hardship  upon  third 
persons  who  deal  with  corporations  to  require  them  at  their 
peril  to  determine  whether  persons  acting  as  corporate  officers 
under  color  of  right  are  in  fact  the  officers  of  the  corporation. 
The  question  is  essentially  different  in  cases  where  third  per- 
sons are  concerned  from  what  it  is  in  cases  where  the  person 
claiming  to  be  an  officer  asserts  some  right  by  virtue  of  the 
office.  Where  there  is  color  of  right  under  a  corporate  election 
and  corporate  recognition  of  the  acts  of  the  person  claiming  to 
be  a  director,  third  persons  who  in  good  faith  act  upon  the 
belief  that  he  is  an  officer  are  entitled  to  protection.  The  same 
principle  which  protects  persons  who  deal  with  persons  having 
color  of  right  to  a  public  office  should  protect  those  who  deal 
with  representatives  of  corporations,  for  it  would  be  unjust  to 
require  persons  dealing  with  corporate  representatives  acting 
as  officers  under  color  of  right  to  investigate  and  decide 
whether  the  claim  to  office  is  well  founded.  The  same  prin- 
ciple which  upholds  acts  of  corporations  de  facto  ought  to  be 
sufficient  to  uphold  the  acts  of  persons  who  with  color  of  right 
assume  the  functions  of  corporate  officers.  We  believe  the 
conclusion  we  have  stated  to  be  supported  by  principle  and 
authority.1 

1  Selma,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Tipton,  5  Ala.  eligible  and  his  place  is  filled  by  elec- 

787,  s.  c.  39  Am.  Dec.  344;    Despatch  tion,  he  is  not  even  a  director  de  facto, 

Line,  etc.,  v.  Ballamy,  12  N.  H.  205;  and  service  of  process  on  him  is  void. 

Wallace  v.  Walsh,  125  N.  Y.  26;    De-  There  is,  as  everyone  knows,  an  es- 

marest  v.  Flack,  128  N.  Y.  205;  At-  sential  difference  between  cases  where 

lantic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnston,  70  N.  C.  the  rights  of  innocent  third  persons 

348;  Moses  v.  Tompkins,  84  Ala.  613;  are    involved    and    cases  where  the 

Burr  v.  McDonald,  3  Gratt.  215 ;  Ca-  rights  of  the  claimant  are  asserted  by 

hill  v.  Kalamazoo,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Dougl.  him,  and  so  there  is  between  cases 

(Mich.)   124,  s.  c.  43  Am.  Dec.  457 ;  involving  rights  of  third  persons  and 

Rockville,  etc.,  v.  Van  Ness,  2  Cranch.  cases  where  the  state  assails  the  right 

C.  C.  449;    Tucker  v.  Aiken,  7  N.  H.  of  the  claimant  to  the  office.    Ebaugh 

113,  135 ;  Atlas  Nat.  Bank  v.  Gardner,  v.  German,  etc.,  Church,  3  E.  D.  Smith 

etc.,Co.,8Biss.537.  Contra,  Inre New-  60;  In  re  County,  etc. ,Co.,  L.  R.  5  Ch. 

comb,  18  N.Y.  Supp.  16.    In  Beardsley  App.  288 ;  People  v.  Albany,  etc.,  Co., 

v. Johnson,  121  N.Y.  224,24  N.E.  R.380,  55  Barb.  344.     See,  generally,  Cooper 

it  was  held  that  if  a  person  elected  to  v.  Curtis,  30  Me.  488 ;  Mechanics',  etc., 

the    office    of    director  becomes    in-  Bank  v.  Burnet,  etc.,  Co.,  32  N.  J.  Eq~ 


§  245  DIRECTORS.  341 

§  245.  Election  of  ineligible  person — Who  may  question 
right  to  office. — A  private  person  who  has  no  interest  what- 
ever in  the  affairs  of  a  railroad  corporation  can  not  successfully 
challenge  the  right  of  an  ineligible  person  to  hold  the  office 
to  which  he  was  chosen,  except  in  cases  where  it  is  otherwise 
provided  by  statute.  One  who  actively  and  knowingly  partici- 
pates in  securing  an  illegal  election  and  the  choice  of  persons 
not  qualified,  can  not  be  heard  to  complain  of  the  result  of  the 
election.  If  the  complainant  has  been  guilty  of  an  intentional 
wrong  he  is  not  in  a  situation  to  invoke  the  assistance  of  the 
courts.1 

§  246.  Directors  de  facto — Illustrative  cases. — Persons  act- 
ing as  officers  although  their  term  of  office  had  expired  and 
they  were  holding  over  have  been  held  to  be  officers  de  facto, 
but  it  seems  to  us  that  they  should  be  regarded  as  officers  de 
jure.'  Officers  chosen  at  a  day  other  than  that  specified  are  at 
least  officers  de  facto,  and  there  is  authority  as  well  as  reason 
for  holding  them  to  be  officers  de  jure  in  the  just  sense  of  the 
term.8  It  has  been  held  that  a  director  elected  by  a  minority 
of  the  stockholders  is  a  de  facto  director.*  So  an  officer  elected 
under  an  unconstitutional  statute  has  been  held  to  be  an  officer 
de  facto.6  Officers  elected  at  a  meeting  held  outside  of  the  state 
have  been  held  to  be  de  facto  officers.6  Directors  discharging 

236;  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnston,  also,  Baird  v.  Bank  of  Washington,  11 

70  N.   C.   348;     Charitable  Assn.   v.  S.  &  R.  411. 

Baldwin,  1  Metcf .  (Mass.)  359.  5  Leach  v.  People,  122  111.  420,  s.  c.  12 

1  Wiltz  v.  Peters,  4  La.  Ann.  339.  N.  E.  R.  726.     See,  generally,  Mallett 
Matter  of  Application    of  Syracuse,  v.  Uncle  Sam,  etc.,  Co.,   1   Nev.  188; 
etc.,  Co.,  91  N.  Y.  1.  Plymouth  v.   Painter,  17  Conn.  585; 

2  Thorington  v.  Gould,  59  Ala.  461.  State  v.  Curtis,  9  Nev.  325 ;  Hamlin  v. 

3  In  Beardsley  v.  Johnson,  121  N.Y.  Kassafer,  15  Ore.  456,  s.  c.  15  Pac.  R. 
224,  s.  c.  24  N.  E.  R.  380,  the  provisions  778. 

of  a  statute  requiring  the  corporate  6Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McPherson, 

election  to  be  held  on  a  designated  35  Mo.  13,  s.c.  86  Am.  Dec.  128,  citing 

day   were    directory,    and  directors  Trustees,  etc.,  v.  Hills, 6  Cow.  23;  All 

chosen  on  a  day  different  from  that  Saint's  Church  v.  Lovett,  1  Hall  (N. 

specified  were  held  officers  de  jure.  Y.  S.  Ct.)  191 ;  John  v.  Farmers',  etc., 

*  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsylva-  Bank,    2    Blkf .    ( Ind.  )    367,     s.    c. 

nia,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Pa.  St.   131.    See,  20    Am.    Dec.    119;    Mining   Co.    t>. 


342  THE    CORPORATION.  §  247 

the  functions  of  office  and  holding  under  color  of  appointment 
by  the  legislature  are  de  facto  directors.1  It  has  been  ad- 
judged that  directors  may  be  such  de  facto  although  the  cor- 
poration was  illegally  or  irregularly  organized.2  We  suppose, 
however,  that  there  can  be  no  officers  de  facto,  and,  of  course, 
no  officers  de  jure,  where  there  is  no  statute  authorizing  the 
organization  of  the  corporation  for  in  such  a  case  there  could 
be  no  color  of  right,  and  color  of  right  is  essential  to  create  an 
officer  de  facto.  Mere  irregularities  in  the  mode  of  conducting 
an  election  will  not,  unless  very  material  and  substantial,  im- 
pair the  title  of  the  persons  chosen  as  directors,  and  as  to  third 
persons,  officers  chosen  will  be  de  facto  officers,  although  there 
may  be  many  irregularities  and  errors  in  conducting  the  elec- 
tion. 

§  247.  De  facto  directors — Two  boards. — If  there  are  two 
boards  of  directors  the  question  as  to  whether  there  can  be  de 
facto  directors  is  perplexing.  If  those  claiming  to  be  directors 
have  color  of  title,  are  not  mere  usurpers,  and  have  acted  as 
directors  for  a  considerable  length  of  time,  we  think  that  as  to 
third  persons,  acting  in  good  faith  and  without  notice,  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  business,  they  should  be  regarded  as  direct- 
ors de  facto.3  The  question  is,  of  course,  radically  different 
where  it  arises  in  a  suit  or  action  by  innocent  third  persons 
from  what  it  is  when  it  arises  in  a  suit  or  action  by  one  claim- 
ing rights  as  an  officer,  or  in  a  suit  or  action  by  one  who  ac- 
tively participates  in  giving  the  claimants  color  of  office  and 

Anglo  Californian,  etc.,  Bank,  104  U.  Mooney,  5  Colo.  282;  Savage  v.  Ball, 

S.  192.     See  Anglo   Californian,  etc.,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  142;  Smith  v.  Erb,  4  Gill. 

Bank  v.  Mah'oney,  etc.,  Co.,  5   Sawy.  437;  People  v.  Staton,  73  N.  C.  546,  s. 

255,  258.    See,  also,  Commonwealth  v.  c.  21  Am.  R.  479. 

Milton,  12  B.  Mon.  222,  s.  c.  54  Am.  2  Hackensack,  etc.,  Co.  v.  DeKay, 

Dec. 522;  Aspinwall  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  Co.,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  548. 

20  Ind.  329,  s.  c.  83  Am.   Dec.   329;  s  Lebanon,    etc.,   Co.   v.  Adair,   85 

Bradford  v.  Frankfort,   etc.,    R.   Co.,  Ind.  244;  Waterman  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

142  Ind.  383,  40  N.  E.  R.  741, 41  Id.  819.  Co., 139 111.658,  s.c.  15  L.R. A.  418 ;  Gen- 

1  Ellis  v.  North  Carolina,  etc.,  68  N.  esee    Tp.  v.   McDonald,    98    Pa.   St. 

C.  423.     See,  generally,  Smith  r.  Bank  444. 
of  the  State,  18  Ind.327 ;  Humphreys  v. 


§  248  DIRECTORS.  343 

seeks  to  obtain  personal  benefit  through  the  acts  of  such  per- 
sons, for  in  such  cases  there  is  reason  for  holding  that  the  cor- 
poration is  not  bound  by  the  acts  of  the  claimants  of  the  office.1 

§  248.  Holding:  over — Failure  to  elect. — Where  officers  are 
elected  for  a  designated  term  and  the  stockholders  fail  to  elect 
at  the  time  fixed  for  the  election,  the  officers  will  hold  over, 
unless  the  statute  otherwise  provides,  and  their  official  acts 
will  bind  the  corporation.2  A  failure  to  elect  officers  at  the 
time  prescribed  does  not  work  a  dissolution,  unless  the  statute 
expressly  or  impliedly  makes  such  failure  operate  as  a  dissolu- 
tion.3 Where  the  stockholders  refuse  or  neglect  to  elect  officers 
and  corporate  affairs  are  put  in  jeopardy  by  such  failure,  or 
the  rights  of  property  are  thereby  prejudiced  the  court  may, 
upon  the  suit  of  a  party  who  shows  equity,  and  makes  it  appear 
that  his  rights  are  in  danger  of  being  impaired  or  destroyed, 
appoint  a  receiver  to  take  charge  of  the  affairs  of  the  corpora- 
tion.4 

§  249.  Powers  of  directors — Source  of. — The  statute  under 
which  a  railroad  company  is  organized  is  the  source  of  power 
and  the  stockholders  can  not  invest  the  persons  chosen  as 
directors  with  powers  not  conferred  upon  the  corporation  by 
the  charter.5  The  stockholders  have  authority  to  select  the 
persons  to  whom  such  powers  are  to  be  intrusted,  but  individ- 
ual stockholders  do  not  stand  in  the  relation  of  principals.6 

1  Hildreth  v.  Mclntire,  1 J.  J.  Marsh.  457 ;  Philips  v.  Wickham,  1  Paige  690 ; 

(Ky.)  206,  s.  c.  19  Am.  Dec.  61 ;  Con-  Knowlton  v.  Ackley,  8  Gush.  93. 

way  v.  City  of  St.  Louis,  9  Mo.  App.  *  Lawrence  v.  Greenwich,  etc.,  Co., 

488.  1  Paige  587 ;  Ward  v.  Sea,  etc.,  Co.,  7 

2Cassellr.  Lexington,  etc.,Co.,(Ky.)  Paige  294. 

9  S.  W.  R.  701 ;  Thorington  v.  Gould,  5  It  is  not  necessary  that  all  powers 

59  Ala.  461 ;  Currie  v.  Mutual,  etc.,  Co.,  be  expressly  conferred  upon  the  cor- 

4  Hen.  &  M.  (Va.)  315;  Huguenot,  poration    by   the    charter    for  many 

etc.,  Bank  v.  Stud  well,  6  Daly  (N.  Y.)  powers  exist   by   necessary  implica- 

13;  Olcott  v.  Tioga,  etc.,  Co.,  27  N.  Y.  tion. 

546;  South  Bay,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gray,  30  6  Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  Rutland, 

Me.  547.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Vt.  159 ;  Dayton,  etc., 

•Cahill  v.  Kalamazoo,  etc.,  Co.,  2  R.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  1  Disney  (Cin.  Sup. 

Dougl.  (Mich.)  124,  s.  c.  43  Am.  Dec.  Ct.)  84;  Wood  Hydraulic,  etc.,  Co.  v. 


344  THE    CORPORATION.  §  250 

The  corporation,  however,  does  occupy  the  position  of  a  princi- 
pal for  the  directors  are  its  agents  or  representatives. 

§  250.  Powers  of  directors — Generally. — Except  so  far  as 
their  action  is  controlled  by  special  provisions  of  the  charter, 
or  of  by-laws  adopted  under  its  authority,  the  directors  may  do 
any  act  within  the  general  range  of  the  ordinary  business  of  the 
company  which  the  company  itself  may  do.1  As  elsewhere  said, 
the  board  of  directors  is  the  governing  department  of  the  corpo- 
ration and  it  is  through  the  board  or  those  acting  under  it,  that 
ordinary  corporate  affairs  are  managed  and  the  usual  corporate 
business  transacted.  The  implied  powers  of  the  directors  gen- 
erally have  nearly  as  wide  a  range  as  the  implied  powers  of 
the  corporation  itself.  Comparatively  few  powers  are  reserved 
to  the  stockholders  of  railroads  in  this  country.  The  right  to 
elect  the  directors,  and  to  pass  upon  questions  of  leasing  or 
selling  the  franchises  and  property,  of  increasing  or  decreasing 
the  capital  stock,  of  consolidating  with  other  corporations,2 
and  other  matters  of  a  fundamental  or  organic  nature  do  not, 
however,  properly  belong  to  the  directors,  for  those  powers 
properly  belong  to  the  stockholders.8  The  board  of  directors 

King,  45  Ga.   34;   Shaw  v.    Norfolk  34  L.  Ed.  363,  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1004,  42 

County  R.  Co.,  16  Gray  407 ;  Chetlain  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  688. 
«.  Republic,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  86  111.  220.        2  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §§8453, 

*Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  Rutland,  8732,  8721,8722,  8611 ;  Wood's  Ry.  Law 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Vt.  159 ;  Wright  v.  Oro-  400.   See  Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hatch, 

ville,   etc.,   Co.,  40  Cal.  20.     AVhere  1  Dis.    (Cin.    Super.    Ct.)    84.    The 

two  railroads  in  adjoining  states  are  stockholders  and  not  the  directors  are 

operated  together,  and  additional  land  the  proper  parties  to  increase  the  cap- 

and    depot    buildings    are  necessary  ital  stock  where  no  provision  is  made 

in  one  of  the  states  to  enable  them  to  as  to  how  it  is  to  be  done.     In  re 

retain  their  increased  business,  the  Wheeler,  2  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  N.  S.  361. 

directors  of  the  railroad  in  the  other  Or  to  agree  to  an  amendment  of  the 

state  have  power  to  contract  to  pay  a  charter.     Witter  v.   Mississippi,  etc., 

proper  portion  of  the  cost  of  these  ex-  R.  Co.,  20  Ark.  463. 
tended  business  facilities,  though,  as        s  Organic  or  fundamental   changes 

a  general  rule,  they  have  no  authority  in  the  corporate  body,  its  organiza- 

to  expend  money  upon  buildings  out-  tion  or  object  can  not  be  made  by  the 

side  the  states  in  which  their  road  is  directors  except  where  the  charter  au- 

located,  without  the  consent  of  the  thorizes  the  directors  to  make  such 

stockholders.     Nashua  &  L.  R.  Corp.  changes.    There  is  an  important  dis- 

v.  Boston  &  L.  R.  Corp.,  136  U.  S.  356,  tinction  between  conducting  and  man- 


$  250  DIRECTORS.  345 

is  the  proper  agency  to  make  ordinary  corporate  contracts.  Its 
power  in  this  respect  is  very  broad  and  comprehensive.  The 
board,  unless  so  required  by  statute,  is  not  bound  to  make  all 
contracts  itself,  but  may  in  most  instances  empower  officers  or 
agents  to  make  ordinary  business  contracts.  Contracts  entered 
into  by  the  board  of  directors  will  always  be  binding  upon  the 
company,  where  the  contracts  are  within  the  scope  of  the  cor- 
porate powers,  and  are  made  in  pursuance  of  some  object  em- 
braced by  the  charter.1  The  rule  stated  is  a  general  one  of 
wide  sweep,  but,  wide  as  the  rule  is,  it  is  always  to  be  under- 
stood that  the  power  to  contract,  its  extent  and  limitations, 
must  be  ascertained  from  the  act  of  incorporation.  The  action 
of  the  board  of  directors  in  making  contracts  can  not  be  con- 
trolled even  by  a  majority  of  the  stockholders,  where  the  power 
to  contract  is  conferred  upon  the  board  by  the  act  of  incorpora- 
tion2 and  where  they  act  in  good  faith,  that  is,  the  action  can 
not  be  controlled  directly.  It  may,  however,  often  be  con- 
trolled indirectly  by  voting  the  directors  out  of  office,  in  a  legal 
mode.  Where  the  rights  of  third  persons  have  intervened  the 
stockholders  can  not  annul  the  action  of  the  directors,  unless 
they  have  violated  the  provisions  of  the  charter  or  transcended 
their  authority;  and  not  always,  even  in  such  cases,  for  there 
may  be  conduct  or  acts  constituting  an  estoppel  which  will 
preclude  the  stockholders  from  successfully  assailing  the  ac- 
tion of  their  representatives.  The  authority  and  discretion  of 
the  directors,  being  intrusted  to  them  by  the  effective  agree- 

aging  general    corporate  affairs  and  2  Wardell  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  103 

making  changes  of  the  nature  of  those  U.   S.  651;    Flagg  v.   Manhattan  R. 

mentioned.  Co.,  20  Blatchf.  (U.S.)  142.  Directors 

*Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  Rutland,  do  not  exceed  their  powers  by  making 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Vt.  159;  Dayton,  etc.,  an  agreement,  with  apparently  good 

R.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  1  Dis.  (Cin.  Sup.  Ct.)  reason's  and  in  good  faith,  to  reduce 

84;    Record  v.  Central  Pac.  Co.,   15  the  amount  of  money  payable  under  a 

Nev.  167 ;  Fackiner  v.  Grand  Junction  lease  of  their  corporation,  especially  if 

R.  Co.,  4  Ont.  R.  Ch.  Div.  350;    Hod-  nearly  nine-tenths  of  the  stockholders 

der  v.  Kentucky,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Fed.  have  acquiesced.    Beveridge  v.  New 

R.  793 ;  Union  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Keyser,  York  El.  R.  Co.,  112  N.  Y.  1,  2  L.  R. 

32  N.  H.  313;  Cicotte  v.  Anciaux,  53  A.  648. 
Mich.  227;  Protection  L.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Foote,  79  111.  361. 


346  THE    CORPORATION.  §  251 

ment  of  all  the  stockholders  expressed  in  the  charter  or  articles 
of  association, can  be  controlled  by  the  majority  or  by  any  other 
agent  in  comparatively  very  few  cases.1 

§  251.  Powers  of  directors — Illustrative  cases. — Where  two 
railway  corporations  of  different  states  whose  lines  connected 
entered  into  an  agreement  to  operate  and  manage  their  road  as 
one  system,  it  was  held  that  the  directors  of  one  company  were 
authorized  without  the  previous  approval  of  the  stockholders 
to  pay  for  the  construction  of  a  passenger  station  in  the  state 
foreign  to  that  in  which  it  was  created,  and  into  which  its  line 
did  not  extend  where  it  appeared  that  the  construction  of  the 
passenger  station  was  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  joint 
management  to  retain  and  extend  its  increasing  business.* 
Directors  have  power  to  fix  and  provide  for  the  payment  of  the 
salaries  of  the  officers  of  the  company  ;8  and  to  pay  part 
of  the  corporate  indebtedness  in  stock  of  the  company.* 
They  have  authority  to  compensate  one  of  their  number  for 
services  rendered  the  company  not  within  the  line  of  his  duties 
as  director  ;5  and  to  issue  bonds  to  pay  debts  contracted  -for 
constructing  and  completing  the  road  and  to  mortgage  the 
corporate  property  to  secure  the  payment  of  the  same.6  The 

1MorawetzPriv.Corp.(2ded.),§511;  eridge  v.  New  York  Elevated  R.  Co., 

Karnes  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  112  N.  Y.  1,  2  L.  R.  A.  648,  19  N.  E. 

Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  107;  Belfast,  489. 

etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belfast,  77  Me.  445;  2  Nashua,   etc.,   Co.  v.  Boston,  etc., 

Sims  v.  Street  R.  Co.,  37  Ohio  St.  556;  Co.,  136  U.  S.  356,   s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct. 

Elkins  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  N.  R.  1004. 

J.  Eq.  241;   Bardstown,  etc.,  Turnp.  8  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Tiernan,  37 

Co.    v.    Rodman,    (Ky.)     13    S.    W.  Kan.  606,  s.  c.  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

917;  Banet  v.  Alton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  525;  Falkiner  v.  Grand  Junction,  etc., 

111.  504;  Oglesby  v.  Attrill,  105  U.  S.  Co.,  4Ont.  R.  Ch.  Div.350,  s.  c.  16  Am. 

605.    But  if  they  act  in  matters  where  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  591. 

their  private  interests  are  concerned  *  County  Court  v.   Baltimore,   etc., 

any  stockholder  may  have  their  action  Co.,  35  Fed.  Rep.  161. 

set  aside.    Hedges  v.  Paquett,  3  Oreg.  5  Ten  Eyck  v.  Pontiac,  etc.,  Co.,  74 

77.     A  tripartite  agreement  between  Mich.  226,  s.  c.  37  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

three  corporations  having  been   ad-  273. 

judged  void  as  to  one,  the  directors  of  6  McLane  v.  Placerville,  etc.,  Co.,  66 

the  other  companies  may,   in  their  Cal.  606,  s.  c.  26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

honest   discretion,   bring    action    to  404. 
sever  the  contractual  relations.     Bev- 


§  251  DIRECTORS.  347 

directors  of  a  railroad  company  have  no  authority,  implied  or 
general,  to  appropriate  its  bonds  to  aid  in  the  construction  of 
the  line  of  another  corporation.1  Nor  have  they  power  to  post- 
pone the  time  of  an  annual  election  of  officers,  so  as  to 
continue  themselves  in  office.2  Directors  have  power  to 
borrow  money  to  conduct  the  business  of  the  corporation, 
and,  ordinarily,  they  may  pledge  its  personal  property 
or  mortgage  its  real  estate  to  secure  money  borrowed  for  cor- 
porate purposes.3  They  have  power,  except  where  the  law 
otherwise  provides,  to  make  contracts  for  the  transportation  of 
property,4  and,  as  it  has  been  held,  to  make  a  contract  with  an- 
other company  to  divide  the  earnings  of  the  two  companies.5 
It  has  been  held  that  directors  have  no  authority  to  organize  a 
second  company  in  another  state  and  impose  the  expense  upon 
the  home  company.6  It  has  been  adjudged  that  where  the  di- 
rectors and  shareholders  are  not  identical,  the  directors  have, 
no  authority  to  bind  the  corporation  by  an  agreement  with  a 
designated  person  that  he  shall  be  a  director.7  Unless  au- 
thority is  granted  by  the  act  of  incorporation  to  the  board  of 
directors  to  invest  corporate  funds  in  the  stock  of  other  corpo- 
rations, the  board  has  no  power  to  make  such  an  investment.8 

1  Starbucks.  Mercantile  Trust  Co.,    v.  Moss,  5  Denio  567,675;  Sheffield, 

9  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  203.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Unwm,  L.  R.  2Q.  B.  Div. 
'Elkinsr.  C.  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.,  36  N.     214;     Chamberlain    v.    Bromberg, 

J.  Eq.  467.  83  Ala.  576;  Descombes  v.  Wood,  91 

8Ridgway  v.  Farmers'  Bank,  12  S.  Mo.  196;  Union   Bank  v.   Ellicott,  6 

&  R.  256;   Davis    v.   Flagstaff,    etc.,  G.   &  J.   363;   Sheldon,   etc.,   Co.  v. 

Co.,  2  Utah  74;  Wood  v.  Wheelan,  Eickemeyer,  etc.,  Co.,  90  N.  Y.  607; 

93111.  153;  Burrell  v.  Nahant  Bank,  Duncomb  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  88 

2  Mete.  (Mass.)  163;  Hendeec.  Pink-  N.  Y.  1. 

erton,14  Allen  381  ;Sultmarsh  v.  Spaul-  *  Railroad  Co.   v.  Furnace  Co.,  37 

ding,    147  Mass.   224;  Tupp  v.  Swan-  Ohio  St.  434. 

zey,  etc.,  Co.,  3  Pick.  291;  Hopson  v.  8Elkins    v.  Camden,   etc.,  Co..  36 

^Etna,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Conn.  597;  Taylor  N.  J.  Eq.  241. 

v.  Agricultural,  etc.,  Co.,  68  Ala.  229.  6Eakins  v.  American  White  Bronze 

See,  generally,  In  re  West  of  England  Co.,  75  Mich.  568. 

Bank,  L.  R.  14  Ch.  Div.  317;  Bank  of  7  Seymour  v.  Detroit  Rolling  Mills. 

South  Australia  v.  Abrahams,  L.  R.  6  56  Mich.  117. 

P.C.  265;  Flagga.  Manhattan.etc., Co.,  8  Joint  Stock,   etc.,  Co.  v.  Brown, 

10  Fed.  Rep.  413 ;  Hoyt  v.  Thompson's  Law  R.  8  Eq.  Cases  381 ;  Commercial, 
Ex'r,  19  N.  Y.  207,216;  McCullough  etc.,   Co.   v.   Board,  etc.,  90  Ala.   1, 


348  THE    CORPORATION.  §  252 

There  are  exceptions  to  this  general  rule,  but  they  are  very 
rare.  Stock  of  other  corporations  may  be  acquired  as  a  security 
for,  or  in  payment  of,  a  debt;  for  a  railway  company,  unless  its 
charter  otherwise  provides,  is  entitled  to  secure  payment  of 
claims  owing  to  it,  in  the  same  manner  as  may  be  done  by 
other  business  corporations,  or  by  natural  persons.1  The  di- 
rectors of  a  corporation  invested  with  authority  to  dispose  of 
corporate  funds  may,  as  it  has  been  held,  accept  stock  of  other 
corporations  in  payment,2  but  we  regard  the  doctrine  asserted 
by  the  cases  referred  to  as  one  to  be  very  cautiously  received 
and  very  carefully  applied.  Where  the  statute  authorizes  the 
consolidation  of  railway  corporations,  and  the  purchase  of  the 
stock  of  the  one  company  by  the  other,  and  a  consolidation  is 
rightfully  effected,  the  purchase  of  stock  may  be  made  by  the 
board.8 

§  252.  Directors — Powers  of — Organic  changes. —  Directors 
have  no  general  authority  to  make  any  fundamental  changes 
in  the  purposes  and  objects  of  the  corporation,*  nor  to  accept 

s.  c.  42  Am.  St.  R.  1 ;  Bank  v.  Hart,  37  Ala.  630,  s.  c.  16  Am.  St.  R.  81.    See, 

Neb.  197,  s.  c.  40  Ain.St.  R.479 ;  Denny,  generally,  National  Bank  v.  Case,  99 

etc.,  Co.  v.  Schram,  6  Wash.  134,  s.  c.  tfv  S.    628;     County    Court,   etc.,  v. 

36  Am.  St.  R.  130;  Valley,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  35  Fed.  R. 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  Co.,  46  Ohio  St.  44;  161;    Holmes,   etc.,  Co.    v.  Holmes, 

Central  R.  Co.  -0.PennsylvaniaR.Co.,  etc.,  Co.,  127  N.  Y.  252,  s.  c.  24  Am. 

31  N.  J.  Eq   475;  Franklin,  etc.,  Co.  St.  R.  448. 

v.   Lewiston,   etc.,   68  Me.  43,  s.  c.  28  2Treadwell  v.  Salisbury,  etc.,  Co.,  7 

Am.  R.  9;  Mechanics',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Me-  Gray    393,  s.   c.    66   Am.   Dec.   490; 

ridean,  etc.,  Co.,  24  Conn.  159;  Sum-  Hodges  v.  New  England,  etc.,  Co.,  1 

ner  v.  Marcy,   3  Woodb.  &  M.  105;  R.  I.  312,  s.  c.  53  Am.  Dec.  624. 

Central  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  40  Ga.  582;  3  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fletcher, 

Hazlehurst  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Kans.  236;  State  v.  Atchison,  etc., 

43  Ga.  13,  58;  People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.    Co.,    24    Neb.   143,   s.   c.  8  Am. 

Co.,  130  111.  268,  s.  c.  17  Am.  St.  R.  St.    R.    164;    Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

319;  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woods,  v.    Cochran,    43    Kan.  225,   s.    c.   19 

88  Ala.  630,  s.  c.  16  Am.   St.   R.  81;  Am.    St.    R.    129;    Ryan  v.  Leaven- 

Easun  v.  Buckeye,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Fed.  worth,  etc.,  Co.,  21  Kans.  365;  Hill  v. 

R.  156;  Mackintosh  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Nisbet,  100  Ind.  341. 

Co.,  34  Fed.  R.  582;  Pearson  v.  Con-  *  Witters.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

cord  R.  Co.,  62  N.  H.  537,  s.  c.  13  Am.  20  Ark.  463 ;  Railway  Co.  v.  Allerton, 

St.  R.  590.  18  Wall.  (U.  S.)  233 ;  Fry  v.  Lexing- 

1  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woods,  88  ton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  314; 


§252 


DIRECTORS. 


349 


an  amendment  to  the  charter  making  such  changes,1  unless, 
perhaps,  where  such  power  is  clearly  lodged  in  them  by  the 
charter.2  It  has,  however,  been  held  that  the  power  to  accept 
amendments  is  lodged  with  the  directors  when  it  is  given  in 
general  terms  to  the  corporation,  and  the  directors  are  intrusted 
with  all  of  the  corporate  powers.8  But  we  suppose  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  case  referred  to  can  only  apply  where  the  statute 
impliedly  or  expressly  vests  the  board  with  power  to  accept 
amendments,  for  that  power  properly  resides  in  the  stockhold- 
ers. When  the  amendment  is  immaterial  and  does  not  work  a 
fundamental  change  impairing  the  rights  of  the  stockholders,  or, 
possibly ,  where  the  legislature  has  reserved  the  right  to  amend, the 


Commonwealth  v.  Cullen,  13  Pa.  St. 
133;  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, 
66  Mo.  228 ;  Goodin  v.  Evans,  18  Ohio 
St.  150;  Joy  v.  Jackson,  etc.,  Plank 
Road  Co.,  11  Mich.  155;  Black  v. 
Delaware  and  R.  Canal  Co.,  22  N.  J. 
Eq.  130;  Durfee  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co., 
5  Allen  (Mass.)  230;  Baker's  Ap- 
peal, 109  Pa.  St.  461  ;Marlborough,etc., 
Co.  v.  Smith,  2  Conn.  579;  Hope,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Beckmann,  47  Mo.  93 ;  Missis- 
sippi, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gaster,  24  Ark. 
96;Vennert?.  Atchison,  etc.,  Co.,  28 
Fed.  R.  581 ;  In  re  Era,  etc.,  Co.,  30  L. 
J.  Eq.  137 ;  Blatchford  v.  Ross,  5  Abb. 
Pr.  R.  (N.  S.)  434 ;  Starbuck  v.  Mer- 
cantile Trust  Co.,  9  Corp.  &  Ry.  L.  J. 
203;  Elkens  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
36  N.  J.  Eq.  233. 

1  Mobile,   etc.,   Co.    v.    Steiner,  61 
Ala.  559;    Baker's   Appeal,    109  Pa. 
St.  461 ;  Commonwealth  v.  Cullen,  13 
Pa.  St.  133;  Brown  v.  Fairinount,  etc., 
Co.,  lOPhila.  32;  Marlborough,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Smith,  2  Conn.  579;  Hope,  etc., 
Co.  u.  Beckmann,  47  Mo.  93;  Missis- 
sippi, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gaster,  24  Ark. 
96. 

2  In  Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  «.  Hatch,  1 
Disney  (Cin.  Super.  Ct.)  84,  the  court 
said  "That  both  the  special  charter  of 


the  plaintiff  and  the  general  railroad 
law  contemplated  that  all  corporate 
acts,  including  an  assent  to  such  an 
amendment  as  the  one  authorized, 
should  be  done  by  the  board  of  di- 
rectors, appears  to  be  clear."  In  the 
note  which  follows  we  have  ventured 
to  question  the  soundness  of  the  de- 
cision in  the  case,  here  cited.  Our 
judgment  is  that  amendments,  which 
are  fundamental  in  their  nature,  must 
be  accepted  by  all  the  stockholders 
except  in  cases  where  the  statute  ex- 
pressly vests  the  whole  corporate 
power  in  the  directors  or  provides  that 
amendments  may  be  accepted  by 
them.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dud- 
ley, 14  N.  Y.  336;  Kenosha,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Marsh,  17  Wis.  13 ;  Sprigg  v. 
Western  Tel.  Co.,  46  Md.  67 ;  Venner 
v.  Atchison,  etc.,  Co.,  28  Fed.  R.  581. 
3  Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  1 
Disney  (Cin.  Super.  Ct.)  84.  We  think 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  case  cited  is 
broader  than  principle  or  authority 
will  justify ;  at  all  events,  some  of  the 
expressions  in  the  opinion  require 
qualification  and  limitation.  The  doc- 
trine laid  down  in  Railway  Co.  v.  Al- 
lerton,  18  Wall.  233,  is  the  true  one 
in  our  judgment. 


350  THE    CORPORATION.  §  252 

I 

directors  may  act  upon  the  amendment.1  If  the  legislature  has 
reserved  the  power  to  amend,  then  an  immaterial  amendment 
can  not  be  justly  said  to  impair  the  rights  of  stockholders,  but 
it  would  be  otherwise  if  the  amendment  were  a  material  one  and 
power  to  amend  were  not  reserved.2  Directors,  although  in- 
trusted with  extensive  powers  in  the  management  of  the  corpo- 
ration business,  have,  ordinarily,  no  authority  to  apply  to  the 
legislature  for  an  enlargement  of  the  corporate  powers  nor  to 
accept  a  grant  of  such  powers  made  upon  their  application.1 
Directors  can  not,  in  the  absence  of  any  provisions  of  the 
charter  giving  them  power,  increase  the  capital  stock,*  since 
this  is  a  change  of  a  fundamental  character,  which, by  introducing 
additional  votes  into  the  corporate  body,  would  change  the 
relative  influence,  control  and  profit  of  each  member,  and 
have  the  effect  of  making  the  stockholders  members  of  a  com- 
pany in  which  they  never  consented  to  become  members .  Nor  can 
they  dispose  of  the  company's  property  which  is  necessary  to 
the  transaction  of  its  business,  and  wind  up  its  affairs  without 
special  authority  from  the  stockholders.5  The  rule  just  stated 
as  to  the  disposition  of  property  is  a  general  one,  but  is  not 
without  exceptions.  There  may  be  cases,  as  for  instance, 
where  it  is  necessary  to  preserve  corporate  property  and  inter- 
ests by  an  assignment,  in  which  the  directors  may  dispose  of 
corporate  property.  The  general  rule  is  that  the  authority 
conferred  upon  the  directors  is  granted  them  in  order  that 
they  may  carry  forward  the  purposes  for  which  the  corporation 

JNew  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chap-  charter,  where  the  legislature  had  not 

man,  38  Conn.  56;  Pacific  R.  Co.   v.  reserved  the  power  to  amend.   Witter 

Hughes,  22  Mo.  291 ;  Bedford  R.  Co.  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Ark. 

v.  Bowser,  48  Pa.  St.  29 ;  Delaware,  463 ;  Commonwealth  v.  Cullen,  13  Pa. 

etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irick,  23  N.  J.  L.  321;  St.  133.    See  ante,  §45. 
Bailey  v.  Hollister,  26  N.  Y.  112.  *  Eidman  ».  Bowman,  58  111.  444. 

2  See  ante,  §  45.  In  re  Wheeler,  2  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  N. 

8  Marlborough  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Smith,  2  S.  361.     See  Durfee  v.  Old  Colony  R. 

Conn.  579.    Any  such  action  on  their  Co.,  5  Allen  (Mass.)   230;   Atlantic, 

part  would  not  bind  the  stockholders,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  66  Mo.  228. 
Snook  v.  Georgia  Imp.  Co.,  83  Ga.  61.        5  Rollins  v.  Clay,  33  Me.  132;  Abbot 

See  to  the  effect  that  the  directors  can  v.    American    Hard  Rubber  Co.,  33 

not  bind  the  stockholders  by  their  ac-  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  578. 
ceptance  of  an    amendment  to    the 


§  253  DIKECTORS.  351 

was  organized,  and  not  that  they  may  terminate  its  existence.1 
Where  no  special  authority8  to  do  so  is  contained  in  the 
charter,  the  directors  of  a  railroad  company  can  not  execute  a 
lease  of  the  company's  property  without  being  directed  by  a 
regularly  called  meeting  of  the  stockholders  to  do  so.* 

§  253.  Directors — Extent  of  authority — Generally. — The  au- 
thority of  the  board  of  directors  extends  to  contracting  debts 
and  pledging  or  conveying  real  or  personal  property  in  pay- 
ment or  as  security.*  It  is  held  that  the  board  may  make  an 
assignment  of  the  property  of  the  corporation  for  the  benefit 
of  its  creditors,  without  the  express  authority  or  consent  of 
the  stockholders,5  if  it  acts  in  good  faith.  The  directors  can, 
of  course,  only  bind  the  corporation  as  to  corporate  matters 
and  by  acts  within  the  scope  of  the  powers  conferred  upon  the 
•company.6 

§  254.   Powers  of  directors — General  conclusion. — It  may  be 

safely  affirmed  that  the  general  rule  is  that  all  the  ordinary  affairs 
and  business  of  a  railway  company  are  under  the  control  and 
management  of  the  board  of  directors  and  that  in  conducting 
that  business  and  managing  those  affairs  the  board  of  directors 

1  Bank  Commrs.  v.  Bank  of  Brest,  1  Vt.  452 ;  Despatch  Line  v. Bellamy  Mfg. 
Harr.  Ch.  (Mich.)  106.  Co.,  12  N.  H.  205.  Unless  specially  pro- 

2  Under  this  general  doctrine  it  is  hibited  the  directors  may  mortgage 
held    that  authority  to  manage  the  the   corporate   property  to    secure  a 
business  does  not  include  power  to  debt  which  they  may  create.    County 
lease  the  road.     Metropolitan  El.  R.  Court  of  Taylor  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Manhattan  El.  R.  Co.,  11  Daly  R.  Co.,  35  Fed.  R.  161;  Reichwald  v. 
(N.  Y.)  373,  where  it  is  held  that  the  Commercial  Hotel  Co.,  106  111.  439; 
directors  could   not  lease  the    road,  Ellis  v.    Boston,   etc.,     R.    Co.,   107 
although  the  corporation  was  specially  Mass.  1. 

empowered  to  do  so.  5DeCamp  v.   Alward,  52  Ind.  468; 

3  Martin  v.  Continental  Pass.  R.  Co.,  Dana  a.  Bank  of  U.  S.,  5  Watts  &  Serg. 
H  Phila.  (Pa.)  10,  holding  this  to  be  223.      Of  course  it  could  only  do  so 
true  where  the  directors  hold  a  ma-  where   the    corporation    itself  is  not 
jority  of  the  stock.     But  where  the  prohibited  from  making  such  an  as- 
directors  owned  all  the  stock,  it  was  signment.     Dana  v.  Bank  of  U.  S.,  5 
said  that  there  was  no  one  in  a  situa-  Watts  &  Serg.  223. 

tion  to  complain.  Barr  v.  New  York,  6  Ricord  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  15 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  N.  Y.  444.  Nev.  167. 

4  Miller  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 


352  THE    CORPORATION.  §  255 

is  in  effect  the  corporation,  but  is  not  the  corporation  so  far  as 
concerns  matters  beyond  the  ordinary  corporate  business  and 
affairs.  The  difficulty  is  in  determining  what  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  the  ordinary  affairs  and  business  of  the  corporation.1 
It  is  evident,  from  the  authorities  to  which  we  have  referred, 
that  a  change  of  the  scheme  of  the  corporate  organization,  or 
of  the  nature  of  the  corporate  business  or  objects,  is  not  within 
the  meaning  of  the  cases  which  hold  that  the  ordinary  affairs 
and  business  of  the  corporation  are  to  be  managed  and  con- 
trolled by  the  board  of  directors.  The  shareholders  can  not 
manage  or  control  the  ordinary  corporate  affairs,  for  the  power 
over  those  affairs  being  vested  in  the  board  of  directors  neces- 
sarily excludes  the  shareholders.  But  the  shareholders, 
although  excluded  from  the  management  and  control  of  ordi- 
nary corporate  matters,  do  control  all  matters  of  a  fundamental 
or  organic  nature. 

§  255.  Directors — Official  action  —  Preliminary. —  In  dis- 
charging the  duties  and  exercising  the  functions  imposed  by 
law  upon  the  directors  as  the  governing  officers  of  the  corpo- 
ration they  should  act  as  a  body,  duly  convened  in  session  as 
an  official  board.  What  may  be  called  governmental  powers 
can  not  be  delegated,  and  powers  that  can  not  be  delegated 
must  be  exercised  by  the  board  of  directors  acting  as  a  body.  In- 
dividual and  separate  action  is  not  official  action.  These  govern- 
mental powers  are  in  their  nature  legislative  or  judicial  and 
require  for  their  proper  and  rightful  exercise  deliberation  and 
discussion.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  such  powers  should 
be  exercised  by  the  board  of  directors  so  that  there  maybe  a  com- 
parison of  views  and  an  exercise  of  judgment  and  discretion 
by  all  the  members  of  the  board. 

§  256.  Directors — Official  action. — Directors  should  act  to- 
gether as  a  board,  and,  upon  principle,  action  by  them 
separately  is  not  valid  or  effective.  A  corporate  act  required 

1Hoyt  v.  Thompson,  etc.,  19  N.  Y.  207,  217;  Bathe  v.  Decatur,  etc.,  Co., 
73  Iowa  1 1 .    The  first  of  these  cases  goes  too  far. 


$  257  DIRECTORS.  353 

to  be  performed  by  the  directors  is  not  effectively  performed 
unless  the  directors  convene  as  a  body  in  obedience  to  the  re- 
quirements of  the  charter  or  in  accordance  with  the  provisions 
of  a  by-law  enacted  under  authority  conferred  by  the  charter 
or  act  of  incorporation.  Separate  action  of  a  majority  of  the 
directors  is  not  the  action  of  the  board  of  directors.  The 
members  of  the  board,  when  acting  together,  are  the  authorized 
governing  officers  of  the  company,  but  the  members  acting 
separately  are  not.1  The  rule  just  stated  applies  although  a 
majority  of  the  directors  may  separately  assent  to  a  given 
measure  or  contract.2 

§  257.  Directors  —  Delegation  of  authority.  —  The  directors 
can  not  rightfully  delegate  to  other  corporate  officers  or  agents 
powers  which  the  law  requires  them  to  exercise.3  The  directors 
may  appoint  agents  to  perform  duties  of  a  ministerial  and  execu- 
tive character,  but  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  they  can  en- 
trust to  others  the  duties  imposed  upon  them  by  law.  There 
is  an  essential  difference  between  appointing  agents  to  perform 
duties  not  required  of  the  board  of  directors,  and  assuming  to 
delegate  to  others,  authority  vested  in  the  directors  as  the  gov- 
erning board  of  the  corporation.  In  many  instances  duties 
may  be  delegated  to  other  agents  or  officers,  but  duties  of  a 
judicial  or  legislative  nature  which  the  law  requires  the  direct- 
ors to  perform  as  a  body,  can  not  be  delegated.  There  are,  no 


v.  Miller,  etc.,  Co.,  15  N.  Y.  Button,  14  Vt.  195;    Barcus  v.  Hanni- 

Supp.    57;  Bank    of    Healdsburg   v.  bal,  etc.,  Co.,  26  Mo.  102. 

Bailhacke,   65  Cal.    327;     Kupfer   v.  z  Butler  v.  Cornwall,   etc.,  Co.,  22 

South  Parish,  12  Mass.  185  ;  Browning  Conn.    335;    D'Arcy  v,  Tamar,   etc., 

v.  Hinkle,  48  Minn.  544,  s.  c.  31  Am.  Co.,  4  Hurls.  &  Colt.  463;  Bosanquet 

St.  R.  691,  51  N.  W.  R.  605;  Lockwood  v.  Shortridge,  4  Exch.  699;   Cannon 

v.  Thunder,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Mich.  536;  River,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rogers,  51  Minn. 

Deaderich  v.  Wilson,  8  Baxt.  (Tenn.)  388. 

108  ;  Allemong  v.  Simmons,  124  Ind.  s  There  is  conflict  in  the  adjudged 

199,  s.  c.  23  N.  W.  R.  768;  Harris  v.  cases  as  to  what  powers  are  incapable 

Muskingum,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Blackf.  267;  of  delegation  and  some  of  the  cases  go 

Gash  wiler  w.Willis,  33  Colo.  11  ;  Tiles-  very  far  in  restricting  the   right  to 

ton  v.  Newell,  13  Mass.  406;  Roberts  v.  delegate  while  others  go  to  the  ex- 

treme in  the  other  direction. 

CORP.  23 


354 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§257 


doubt,  duties  that  may  be  performed  through  the  medium  of 
committees.  The  board  may  appoint  a  committee  of  its  num- 
ber to  discharge  certain  duties,  such  as  auditing  the  accounts- 
of  the  financial  officers,  or  arranging  the  terms  of  a  lease  or 
mortgage,  but  the  acts  of  the  committee  must  be  passed  upon,  or 
in  some  method  adopted  or  ratified,  by  the  board  to  make  them 
binding  on  the  corporation.1  In  other  words,  the  action  of 
the  committee  must  in  some  appropriate  mode  be  made 
that  of  the  board  of  directors,  either  by  precedent  authority  or 
subsequent  ratification.2  Some  cases  hold  that  ministerial  or 
executive  acts,  the  performance  of  which  may  be  delegated, 
may  be  authorized  or  ratified  by  the  assent  of  a  majority  of  the 
board  given  separately,  especially,  if  that  has  been  the  usage.8 
And  it  is  also  held  that  the  concurrent  action  of  a  majority  of 
the  directors  is  sufficient  in  such  a  case,4  without  the  formality 


1  Waite  v.  Windham  Co.  Mining  Co., 
36  Vt.  18. 

*  Berks,  etc.,  Road  v.  Myers,  6  Sergt. 
&  R.  12,  s.  c.  9  Am.  Dec.  402 ;  Sheridan 
Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Chatham,  etc., 
Bank,  127  N.  Y.  517,  s.  c.  28  N.  E.  R. 
467;  Union,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
Co.,  51  Fed.  R.  309 ;  Tippets  v.  Walker, 
4  Mass.  595.  Power  to  appoint  a  com- 
mittee and  to  invest  them  with  author- 
ity to  contract  may  be  conferred  upon 
the  board  of  directors  by  the  act  of  in- 
corporation. In  Chicago  v.  Union, 
etc.,  Co.,  47  Fed.  R.  15, 17,  the  court 
said:  "Summing  up  this  question, 
the  instrument  was  signed  and  at- 
tested by  the  proper  officers.  It  was 
approved  by  the  executive  committee, 
which  executive  committee  was 
granted  ad  interim  by  the  board  of  di- 
rectors all  the  powers  of  that  board ; 
authority  to  make  such  delegation  of 
power  was  given  to  the  board  by  the 
by-laws.  Power  to  make  such  by-laws 
was  bestowed  by  the  act  of  incorpora- 
tion upon  the  stockholders.  At  the 
regular  meeting  the  contract  was  ap- 
proved by  all  the  stockholders  pres- 


ent. Under  these  circumstances  if 
the  contract  was  one  which  the  cor- 
poration could  make  it  was  fully  au- 
thorized and  duly  executed  and  bind- 
ing." 

8  Bee  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
46  Cal.  248;  Foot  w.  Rutland,  etc.,  R, 
Co.,  32  Vt.  633.  See  Rogers  v.  Hast- 
ings, 22  Minn.  25,  where  the  corpora- 
tion was  held  liable  to  compensate  an. 
agent  employed  by  the  directors  with- 
out formal  action  by  the  board.  See, 
also,  Tenney  v.  East  Warren  Lumber 
Co.,  43  N.  H.  343,  where  it  was  held 
sufficient  proof  of  the  concurrence  of 
the  board,  to  show  that  they  as- 
sented separately. 

4  Despatch  Line,  etc.,  v.  Bellamy 
Mfg.  Co.,  12  N.  H.  205;  Edgerly  v. 
Emerson,  23  N.  H.  555 ;  Dey  v.  Jersey 
City,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  412;  Stoystown, 
etc.,  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Graver,  45  Pa.  St. 
386;  Ross  v.  Crockett,  14  La.  Ann. 
811 ;  Yellow  Jacket  Min.  Co.  v.  Stev- 
enson, 5  Nev.  224.  See  Lyndeborough 
Glass  Co.  v.  Massachusetts  Glass  Co., 
Ill  Mass.  315,  where  the  superintend- 
ent acted  with  the  knowledge  of  all  of 


§  258  DIRECTORS.  355 

of  a  meeting,  but  it  is  held  that  the  action  should,  in  such  case, 
be  taken  by  them  as  directors,  and  not  in  some  other  capacity, 
and  that  it  should  clearly  appear  that  a  majority  of  the  board 
consented.1  It  is  to  be  said  that  some  of  the  cases  trench  upon 
the  rule  forbidding  the  delegation  of  authority  as  well  as  upon 
the  rule  requiring  the  directors  to  act  as  a  board,  and  so  far  as 
they  do  run  counter  to  these  rules  they  are  of  doubtful  sound- 
ness. " 

§  258.  Directors — Delegation  of  authority — Illustrative 
cases — It  is  generally  held  that  the  directors  can  not  delegate 
the  authority  to  make  assessments,  but  it  is  also  held  that  they 
may  ratify  an  assessment  made  without  adequate  authority  by 
an  agent.8  Some  of  the  cases  hold  that  the  power  to  execute 
mortgages  and  leases  of  corporate  property  can  not  be  delegated, 
but  on  this  point  the  authorities  are  in  conflict.3  Our  opinion 
is  that  as  to  property  not  required  to  enable  the  corporation  to 
exercise  its  corporate  functions  and  discharge  its  duties  to  the 
public,  the  board  of  directors  has  power  to  delegate  the  au- 
thority to  sell  or  lease.'  The  board  of  directors  may  effectively 
authorize  corporate  officers  or  agents  to  sell  and  assign  notes, 
bonds  or  other  securities,  belonging  to  the  corporation.* 

the  directors  except  one  in  making  a  8  Female,  etc.,  Asylum  v.  Johnson, 
purchase,  and  that  one  learned  of  the  43  Me.  180;  Gillis  v.  Bailey,  21  N.  H. 
superintendent's  act  soon  afterward,  149 ;  Burrill  v.  Nahant  Bank,  2  Metcf . 
but  no  action  repudiating  the  pur-  (Mass.)  163,  s.  c.  35  Am.  Dec.  395;  Be 
chase  was  ever  taken.  In  a  suit  to  re-  Leeds,  etc.,  Co.,  1  L.  R.  Ch.  App.  561 ; 
cover  the  purchase  price,  the  court  Emerson  v.  Providence,  etc.,  Co.,  12 
held  that  the  purchase  was  authorized  Mass.  237,  s.  c.  7  Am.  Dec.  66;  Man- 
by  the  company.  Directors  holding  a  Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisk,  33  N.  H. 
majority  of  the  stock  have  power  to  297;  Lyon  v.  Jerome,  26  "Wend.  485, 
agree  that  an  individual  may  have  the  s.  c.  37  Am.  Dec.  271 ;  Dana  v.  Bank  of 
full  amount  that  he  can  collect  of  a  United  States,  5  "Watts  &  S.  233 ; 
claim  against  a  third  person.  Dela-  "Whitney  v.  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  65  N.  Y. 
ware  City,  S.  &  P.  S.  Nav.  Co.  v.  Rey-  576. 
bold,  8  Houst.  (Del.)  203,  14  Atl.  847.  *  Fleckner  v.  Bank  of  United  States, 

1  Junction  R.  Co.  v.  Reeve,  15  Ind.  8  Wheat.  338;  Ridgway  v.   Farmers' 

236.  Bank,  12  Sergt.  &  R.  256,  s.  c.  14  Am. 

*  Ante,   §  175;  Ex  parte  Winsor,  3  Dec.     681;    Northampton     Bank     v. 

Story  411 ;  Silver  Hook  Road  w.Greene,  Pepoon,  11  Mass.  288 ;  Stevens  v.  Hill, 

12  R.  I.  164.  29  Me.  133. 


358  THE    CORPORATION.  §  259 

§  259.   Directors — Action  where  the  mode  is  prescribed. — 

If  the  statute  prescribes  the  formalities  to  be  observed  by  the 
directors  in  doing  a  given  act,  they  must  comply  therewith,  or 
their  act  may  be  voidable.1  This  rule  applies  to  cases  where 
observance  of  the  formalities  is  expressly  declared  by  statute  to 
be  a  necessary  condition  precedent,2  and  to  all  cases  in  which 
the  effect  of  the  act  will  be  to  destroy  pre-existing  rights,8  or 
to  impose  burdens  upon  persons  whose  willingness  to  assume 
them  depends  on  their  assent  to  such  formalities.4  In  such  cases, 
all  persons  are  bound  at  their  peril  to  know  whether  the  for- 
malities have  been  observed  or  not.  But  with  regard  to  for- 
malities which  are  merely  directory,  a  different  rule  is  estab- 
lished. A  substantial  compliance  in  such  a  case  is  sufficient, 
and  where  the  material  formalities  have  been  observed,  a  fail- 
ure to  comply  with  those  which  are  not  material  will  not  in- 
validate the  acts,  at  least  as  to  innocent  parties.5  The  failure 
to  observe  a  formality  can  not  be  set  up  by  one  who  is  bound 
to  see  to  its  observance,  against  those  who  have  no  knowledge 
of  such  failure,6  unless  they  bore  such  a  relation  to  the  com- 
pany that  they  knew  or  were  bound  to  know  that  such  for- 
mality was  necessary  and  had  the  means  of  ascertaining 
whether  it  had  been  observed.7  If  the  directors  have  general 

1  Leominster  Canal  Co.  v.  Shrews-  nicipal  corporations  if  the  taxpayers 
bury,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  3  K.  &  J.   654;  so  vote.    Town  of  Eagle  v.  Kohn,  84 
Leavensworth  R.  Co.v.  County  Court,  111.  292;   Town  of  Concord  v.  Ports- 
42  Mo.  171;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.v.  mouth   Savings   Bank,  92  U.  S.  625; 
Clarke,  29  Pa.  St.  146.  Leavensworth  R.  Co.  v.  County  Court, 

2  Leominster  Canal  Co.  v.   Shrews-  42  Mo.  171. 

bury,   etc.,  R.  Co.,   3  K.   &  J.  654;  5  Mott  v.  United  States  Ins.  Co.,  19 

Hornershain  v.  Wolverhampton  Water  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  568;  Town  of  Venice  v. 

Works,  6  Exchq.  137.  Murdock,  92  U.  S.  494 ;  Lane  v.  Schomp, 

3  As  where  shares  are  forfeited  for  20  N.  J.  Eq.  82;  Bissell  v.  Michigan, 
non-payment.    Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  N.  Y.  258. 

v.  Graham,  52  Mass.    (11   Mete*)   1;  6  In  re  New  Castle,  etc.,  Marine  Ins. 

Lewey's  Island  R.  Co.   v.  Bolton,  48  Co.,  19  Beav.  97;  Galveston  R.  Co.  v. 

Me.  451;   Garden  Gully,   etc.,  Co.  v.  Cowdrey,  11  Wall.  (U.  S.)  459. 

McLister,  L.  R.  1  App.  Cases  39.  'Jackson  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cross,  9  Heisk. 

4  As  where  the  corporation  is  author-  (Tenn.)   283;  In  re  European  R.  Co. 
ized  to  incumber  or  transfer  its  prop-  L.  R.  8  Eq.  444 ;  Mott  v.  United  States 
erty,  if  the  stockholders  vote  to  do  so,  Trust  Co.,  19  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  568. 

or  where  aid  may  be  levied  by  mu- 


§  259  DIRECTORS.  357 

authority  to  do  an  act,  all  persons  dealing  with  them  in  refer- 
ence to  such  act  may  assume  that  it  was  regularly  done,  and 
that  all  necessary  formalities  were  observed,1  unless  something 
appears  on  the  face  of  the  transaction  to  suggest  inquiry.2 
Thus  a  railroad  corporation  can  not  dispute  the  validity  of  a 
mortgage  given  to  secure  its  bonds  that  are  owned  by  bona  fide 
holders  upon  the  ground  that  its  directors  authorized  its  exe- 
cution at  a  meeting  held  outside  of  the  state.3  Nor  can  a  cor- 
poration dispute  the  validity  of  acts  authorized  by  its  direc- 
tors at  a  special  meeting,  upon  the  ground  that  proper  notice 
of  such  special  meeting  was  not  given,  where  no  objection  to 
their  validity  was  made  by  any  director  or  stockholder  until 
after  the  rights  of  innocent  third  parties  had  intervened.4 
When  the  mode  of  action  and  formalities  to  be  observed  are 
prescribed  by  the  by-laws,  even  more  liberal  rules  obtain  in 
determining  the  rights  of  persons  claiming  by  virtue  of  the 
acts  of  the  directors.  Such  rule  may  be  varied  by  usage,6  at 
least  where  the  by-laws  are  made  by  the  directors.6  And  per- 
sons dealing  with  the  corporation  will  not  be  held  to  so  strict 
a  knowledge  of  limitations  and  restrictions  upon  the  general 
authority  of  the  directors  contained  in  the  by-laws  as  of  those 
contained  in  public  statutes.7  The  observance  of  required  for- 
malities may  be  waived,  and  the  corporation  may  become 
bound  by  acquiescence  in  informal  acts,8  except  where  the 
charter  or  public  statutes  make  the  observance  of  the  formali- 
ties a  condition  precedent  to  the  directors'  authority  to  act.9 

1  Conn.  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cleve-  6  Samuel  v.  Holladay,  1  Woolw.  (II. 

land,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  9.  S.)  400.  And  a  formality  declared  to  be 

See,  also,  Bissell  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  imperative  maybe  so  long  and  so  uni- 

Co.,  22  N.  Y.  258;  Zabriskie  v.  Cleve-  versally  disregarded  as  to  cease  to  be 

land,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  How.  (U.  S.)  381 ;  operative.     Ex  parte  Walton,  26  L.  J., 

Royal   British  Bank  v.  Turquand,  6  Ch.  545. 

E.  &  B.  327.  'Bissell  v.  Michigan  Southern   R. 

z  Ex  parte  Eagle  Ins.  Co.,  4  K.  &  J.  Co.,  22  N.  Y.  258. 

549.  8  Zabriskie    v.    Cleveland,  etc.,   R. 

8  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cowdrey,  Co.,  23  How.  (IT.  S.)  381 ;  Bargate  v. 

11  Wall.  (U.  S.)  459.  Shortridge,  5  H.  L.  Gas.  297;  Ex  parte 

*  Samuel  c.  Holladay,  1  Woolw.  (U.  Walton,  26  L.  J.  Ch.  545. 

S.)  400.  9  Ex  parte  Walton,  26  L.  J.  Ch.  545 ; 

8  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke,  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke,  29 

29  Pa.  146.  Pa.  St.  146. 


358 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§260 


§  260.  Directors — Meetings. — The  official  action  of  directors 
is  taken  in  regular  or  special  meetings  convened  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  charter  or  by-laws.  Strictly  speak- 
ing the  functions  of  directors  can  only  be  exercised  at  such 
meetings.  The  rule  is  that  the  directors  can  exercise  the 
powers  specially  intrusted  to  them  only  as  a  board  convened  in 
regular  session  as  a  board.1  Thus,  where  the  directors  took 
part  in  a  stockholders'  meeting,  at  which  the  body  of  the  stock- 
holders executed  a  lease,  the  action  was  held  void  as  beyond 
the  powers  of  the  stockholders,  and  the  court  said:  "It  is  no 
answer,  that  individual  stockholders  who  were  present  at  the 
meeting  when  the  lease  was  ordered,  were  also  directors.  They 
did  not  meet  or  act  as  directors,  but  as  stockholders."2  A  major- 
ity of  those  present  at  a  regularly  convened  meeting  may  act 
for  the  corporation,8  but  in  order  to  constitute  a  regular  meet- 
ing it  is  necessary  that  a  quorum  be  present.  In  the  absence 
of  any  special  regulations,*  a  majority  of  the  board  is  necessary 
to  constitute  a  quorum.5 


1  Johnston  v.  Jones,  23  N.  J.  Eq. 
216 ;  Schackelford  v.  New  Orleans,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  37  Miss.  202;  Junction  R.  Co. 
v.  Reeve,  15  Ind.  236;  Stoystown.etc., 
Turnp.  R.  Co.  v.  Graver,  45  Pa.  St.  386 ; 
Buttricktf.  Nashua,  etc.,  R.Co.,62N.H. 
413  ;King  v.  Great  Marlow,  2  East.  244 ; 
Yellow  Jacket  Min.  Co.  •».  Stevenson, 
5  Nev.  224 ;  Green  v.  Miller,  6  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  38.  In  re  Marsailles  Exten- 
sion R.  Co.,  L.  R.  7  Ch.  App.  161. 
But  see  Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  Rut- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Vt.  159,  holding 
that  the  directors  may  give  their  as- 
sent separately  if  that  is  their  usual 
practice. 

2Conro  v.  Port  Henry  Iron  Co.,  12 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  27. 

8Hax  t;.  R.  T.  Davis  Mill  Co.,  39 
Mo.  App.  453 ;  Despatch  Line  v.  Bel- 
lamy Mfg.  Co.,  12  N.  H.  205;  Smith  0. 
Los  Angeles  Im.,  etc.,  Assn.,  78  Cal. 
289;  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  Law  (1892), 
§  8063,  citing  laws  of  New  York,  Mary- 
land, Missouri,  Texas,  California,  Ne- 


vada, Washington,  Dakota,  Idaho, 
Utah,  Florida,  New  Mexico,  Okla- 
homa. Provided,  of  course,  that  they 
are  a  majority  of  those  present  and 
voting.  And  even  though  an  equal 
number  be  present  who  refrain  from 
voting,  still  the  votes  of  a  majority  of 
the  number  necessary  to  form  a  quo- 
rum will  carry  a  measure  where  there 
are  no  dissenting  votes.  Rushville 
Gas  Co.  v.  City  of  Rushville,  121  Ind. 
206.  Contra,  Lawrence  v.  Ingersoll, 
88  Tenn.  52. 

4  This  rule  is  prescribed  by  statute 
in  most  of  the  states.     Stimson's  Am. 
Stat.  (1892),  §  8063,  subject,  however, 
to  alteration  by  the  by-laws  in  some 
of  the  states.     Stimson's   Am.   Stat. 
(1892),  §  8071. 

5  Price  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
13  Ind.  58;   Edgerly  v.  Emerson,  23 
N.   H.  555;   Cram  v.  Bangor  House 
Proprietary,   12    Me.   354;   Foster  v. 
Mullanphy  Planing  Mill  Co.,  92  Mo. 
79. 


§  261  DIRECTORS.  359 

§  261 .   Directors  —  Meetings  —  Stated   and  special.  —  The 

charter  sometimes  provides  for  stated  or  general  meetings  of 
the  board  of  directors,  and  also  for  the  calling  and  holding  of 
special  meetings.  It  is  barely  necessary  to  suggest  that  where 
provisions  are  made  by  the  charter  for  the  time  and  place  of  hold- 
ing stated  meetings  and  for  the  mode  of  holding  special  meetings, 
those  provisions  must  be  substantially  complied  with  in  all 
material  respects.  Notice  of  special  meetings  must  be  given 
in  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  charter  or  corporate  by-laws  ; l 
but  of  stated  or  regular  meetings  provided  for  by  the  charter 
or  by-laws  notice  need  not  be  given,  as  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
directors  to  take  notice  of  the  provisions  of  the  charter  and 
by-laws  of  the  company. 

§  262.  Directors  —  Meetings  —  Notice. — Where  stated  meet- 
ings are  held  by  the  board  at  prescribed  times  fixed  by  the  charter, 
or  by-laws,  or  by  resolution,  all  the  directors  are  bound  to 
take  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  holding  them.2  The 
presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  regularity  of  the  meetings  of 
corporate  directors  and  the  burden  is  on  the  party  who  as- 
sails their  regularity  to  show  that  there  were  irregularities  in 
calling,  holding  or  conducting  the  meeting,8  and  where  a 
quorum  is  present  the  presumption  is  that  all  were  notified.* 
In  order  that  special  meetings  held  at  other  times  or  places  may 
be  such  meetings  as  will  empower  the  directors  present  to 

1  Hunt  v.  School  District,  14  Vt.  300,  497;  Leavitt  v.  Oxford,   etc.,   Co.,  3 
s.  c.  39  Am.  Dec.  225;  Stow  v.  Wyse,  Utah  265;  Lane  v.  Brainerd,  30  Conn. 
7  Conn.  214,  s.  c.  18  Ain.  Dec.  99;  565 ;  Chouteau,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Holmes,  68 
Matter  of  Long  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Mo.  601. 

Wend.  37.      .  *  McCall    v.    Byram,    etc.,    Co.,    6 

2  Warner  v.  Mower,  11  Vt.  385 ;  Peo-  Conn.  428 ;  Leavitt  v.  Oxford,  etc.,  Co., 
pie  v.  Peck,   11   Wend.  604;  Rex  v.  3  Utah  265;   Wells  v.  Rahway,   etc., 
Hill,  4  Barn.  &  Cress.  436;  Sampson  v  Co.,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  402.     See  for  an  ex- 
Bowdoinham,   etc.,   Co.,  35  Me.  J8;  treme  case  Arms  v.  Conant,  36  Vt. 
Peoples.   Batchelor,   22   N.   Y.  128;  744.    See,  generally,  Wood,  etc.,  Co. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sanders,  36  N.  H.  v.  King,  45  Ga.  34;  Wood  v.  Boney, 
252.  (N.  J.)  21  Atl.  R.  574;  Chase  v.  Tut- 

8  Wells  v.   Rodgers,  60  Mich.  525 ;    tie,  55  Conn.  455,  s.  c.  12  Atl.  R.  874, 
Buddv.  WallaWalla,etc.,Co.,2Wash.    3  Am.  St.  R.  64. 
Ter.  347 ;  Sargent  v.  Webster,  13  Metcf. 


360  THE    CORPORATION.  §  262 

act  for  the  corporation,  all  the  directors  must  have  proper 
notice  of  the  time  of  meeting  ;  but,  if  all  the  directors  are 
present  and  participate  in  the  proceedings  the  fact  that  notice 
has  not  been  formally  given  is  unimportant.  If  notice  has  not 
been  given  and  the  directors  are  not  all  in  attendance  at  the  meet- 
ing a  very  different  question  is  presented.  If  some  of  the  directors 
are  not  notified  the  proceedings  will  not,  as  a  rule,  be  effective, 
although  a  quorum  be  present  at  the  meeting  and  concur  in 
the  proceedings.1  Notice  of  special  meetings  should  be  given 
to  all  the  members  of  the  board  as  the  charter  or  by-laws  pro- 
vide, or,  if  no  provision  is  made,  the  directors  should  be  noti- 
fied personally.2  As  we  have  already  indicated,  the  rule  is 
that  if  all  of  the  directors  attend  at  the  meeting  any  irregular- 
ities in  the  manner  of  giving  notice  will  be  held  to  have  been 
waived  ;s  and  this  will  be  true  if  those  who  were  not  present 
duly  acquiesce  in  the  action  of  those  who  attended  the  meet- 
ing, provided  there  was  a  quorum  present  at  the  meeting.* 
Ratification  of  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  previously  held 

1  Bank  of  Little  Rock  v.  McCarthy ,55  supra,  is  erroneous.   Taylor  on  Corp., 

Ark.  473,  s.  c.  29  Am.  St.  R.  60;  Simon  260,  n.    We  concur  in  his  view.    Stow 

v.  Sevier,  etc.,  Co.,  54  Ark.  58;  School  v.  Wyse,  7  Conn.  214,  s.  c.  18  Am.  Dec. 

Dist.  v.  Bennett,  52  Ark.  51J ;  Paola,  99. 

etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  16  Kan.        2  Morawetz  on  Priv.  Corp.  (2d  ed.), 

302 ;    Baldwin  v.  Canfield,  26  Minn.  §  532.     Those   present  can  not  bind 

43;    Harding  v.  Vandewater,  40  Cal.  the  property  of  the  corporation  against 

77;  Chouteau,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Holmes,  68  the    wishes    of   others  not    notified. 

Mo.  601,  s.  c.  30  Am.  R.  807;   Stevens  Doyle  v.  Mizner,  42  Mich.  332;  Ker- 

v.  Eden,  etc.,  12  Vt.  688;  Gordon  v.  sey  Oil  Co.  v.  Oil  Creek,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Preston,  1  Watts  385,  s.  c.  26  Am.  Dec.  5    W.    N.    C.    (Pa.)    144.      But    see 

75;  Jackson  v.  Hampden,  16  Me.  184;  Edgerly  v.   Emerson,  23  N.  H.  555; 

Farwell  v.  Houghton,  etc.,  Works,  8  Bank  v.  Flour  Co.,  41  Ohio  St.  552. 

Fed.  R.  66 ;  State  v.  Ferguson,  31  N.  J.  If  the  notice  be  sent  in  the  prescribed 

L.  107;  Pike  County  v.  Rowland,94  Pa.  manner,  but  directors  who  are  out  of 

St.  238 ;  Covert??.  Rogers,  38 Mich. 363,  the  state  fail  to  receive  it,  the  action 

s.  c.  31  Am.  R.  319.  Compare  Edgerly  of  the  other  directors  is  not  thereby 

v.  Emerson,  23  N.  H.  569,  s.c.  55  Am.  nullified.     Chase  v.  Tuttle,  55  Conn. 

Dec.  207;  Bank  v.  Flour  Co.,  41  Ohio  455. 

St.    552;     Halifax,    etc.,    R.   Co.,   v.        8Judah  v.   American,   etc.,   Co.,  4 

Francklyn,  8  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  91;  Ind.  333;   Jones  v.  Milton,  etc.,  Co., 

Chase  v.  Tuttle,  55  Conn.  455,  s.  c.  3  7  Ind.  547 ;  People  v.  Peck,  11  Wend. 

Am.  St.  R.  64.     Mr.  Taylor  says  that  604,  s.  c.  27  Am.  Dec.  104. 
the  decision  in  Edgerly  v.  Emerson,        *  Reed  v.  Hayt,  109  N.  Y.  659. 


§  263  DIRECTORS.  361 

will  give  them  validity,  although  notice  of  the  previous  meet- 
ing may  have  been  insufficient.1  It  has  been  held  that  if  no  ob- 
jection is  made  to  the  regularity  of  a  meeting  until  an  act 
ordered  thereat  has  been  fully  performed,  the  legality  of  such 
act  can  not  afterward  be  questioned  in  a  court  of  equity  on  the 
ground  of  failure  to  give  notice  ;*  but  this  doctrine  can  not 
prevail  except  in  cases  where  injustice  would  result  to  inno- 
cent parties  if  it  were  not  applied. 

§  263.  Directors — Meetings — Proxies — Quorum. — The  rule 
prohibiting  the  delegation  of  authority  requires  the  personal 
presence  of  directors  at  all  meetings  of  the  board  and  forbids 
voting  by  proxy.  Where  a  definite  number8  constitutes  a  body 
intrusted  with  corporate  duties  or  functions,  it  is  necessary  to 
effective  action  that  a  quorum  of  members  be  present,  and  a 
quorum  consists  of  a  majority  of  the  members,  unless  the  stat- 
ute provides  otherwise.*  Proceedings  at  a  meeting  where  there 
is  not  a  quorum  of  the  directors  present  are  voidable  but  not 
absolutely  void,  and  as  they  are  not  void  they  may  be  ratified.5 
Where  a  quorum  is  present  a  majority  may  effectively  act.6  It 

1  In  absence  of  fraud  or  conspiracy,  5  Samuel  v.  Holladay,  1  Woolw.  (U. 

defect  in  notice  to  directors,  of  a  spe-  S.)  400;  Hanson  v.  Dexter,  36  Me. 

cial  meeting,  is  cured  by  subsequent  516;  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sanders,  36- 

ratification  of  the  action  there  taken.  N.  H.  252.    A  different  doctrine  is  as- 

County  Court,  etc.,  v.  Baltimore  &  O.  serted  in  Price  v.  Grand  Rapids  R. 

R.  Co.,  35  Fed.  R.  161.  Co.,   13  Ind.    58,   but  that  case  was 

8  Samuel  v.  Holladay,  1  Woolw.  (U.  wrongly  decided.    If  the  act  was  be- 

S.)  400.  yond  the  power  of  the   directors  it 

8  Where  the  body  is  composed  of  an  would  be  void,  and  if  void,  not  capa- 

indefinite  number  the  rule  is  differ-  ble  of  ratification, 

ent.    Ante,  §  161.  8  Cotton  v.  Davies,  1  Stra.  53;  Buell 

4  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Association  v.  Hen-  v.  Buckingham,  16  Iowa  284,  s.  c.  85 

nessy,  11  Mo.  App.  555;  Cram  v.  Ban-  Am.  Dec.  516,  citing  2  Kent's  Com. 

gor  House.  12  Me.  354 ;  Wickersham  v.  293,  5  Dane's  Abr.  150 ;  Cahill  v.  Kal- 

Crittenden,  93  Cal.  17,  s.  c.  28Pac.  R.  amazoo,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Dougl.  (Mich.) 

788.    Ex  parte  Willcocks,  7  Cow.  402,  124,  s.  c.  43  Am.  Dec.  467 ;  Sargent  v. 

s.  c.  17  Am.  Dec.  525 ;  Hax  v.  Davis,  Webster,  13  Mete.  497,  B.  c.  46  Am. 

etc.,  Co.,  39  Mo.  App.  453;  Price  v.  Dec.  743.      In  the  opinion  of  Judge 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Ind.  58;  Dillon  in  Buell  v.  Buckingham  are 

Stringham  v.   Oshkosh,  etc.,  Co.,  33  cited     Rex  v.   Monday,    Cowp.  530; 

Wis.  471;  Tennessee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  In  re  Union,  etc.,  Co.,  22  Wend.  591; 

Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Ala.  426.  Ex  parte,  Rogers,  7  Cow.  526;  South- 


362  THE    CORPORATION.  § 

has  been  held  that  where  the  act  of  incorporation  does  not 
designate  the  number  that  shall  constitute  a  quorum  and  con- 
fers power  upon  the  board  to  enact  by-laws,  the  by-laws  may 
fix  the  number  at  less  than  a  majority.1  There  is  reason,  we 
venture  to  suggest,  for  doubting  the  soundness  of  the  doctrine 
declared  in  the  case  referred  to.  We  think  that  as  the  rule  re- 
quiring a  majority  in  order  to  constitute  a  quorum  is  well 
established,  the  conclusion  must  be  that  the  statute  is  to  be 
considered  in  connection  with  that  rule  and  not  as  a  detached 
or  fragmentary  part  of  the  law,  and  that  silence  upon  the  sub- 
ject means  that'  the  usual  and  established  rule  of  law  shall  pre- 
vail. A  director  whose  presence  is  necessary  to  make  a  quorum 
can  not  effectively  vote  upon  a  question  in  which  he  is  indi- 
vidually, materially  and  directly  interested,  as,  for  instance, 
upon  a  contract  with  himself  and  the  corporation,  so  that  as  to 
such  a  question  there  is  no  quorum  present  since  the  interested 
person  is  not  as  to  the  particular  matter  competent  to  act  as  a 
director.2  When  the  president  is  a  member  of  the  board  of 
directors  it  is  proper  to  count  him  in  ascertaining  whether  a 
quorum  is  present,  but  if  he  is  not  a  director  then  he  can  not 
be  counted  unless  the  act  of  incorporation  so  provides.8 

§264.   Directors  —  Meetings  outside  of  the  state. —  It  is 

generally  held  that  where  there  is  no  express  provision  to  the 
contrary  in  the  charter  or  in  some  general  statute,  the  directors 
may  meet  outside  of  the  state  by  which  the  corporation  is 
created,  and  there  transact  ordinary  corporate  business.*  It 

worth  v.  Palmyra  R.  Co.,  2  Mich.  287;  Hun  214;  Bank  of  Maryland  v.  Ruff, 

State  v.  McBride,  4  Mo.  303,  s.  c.  29  7  Gill  &  J.  448. 

Am.  Dec.   636;  Green  v.  Weller,  32  *  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McPherson, 

Miss.  650;  People  v.  Auditor,  33  111.  9.  35  Mo.  13,  s.  c.  86  Am.  Dec.  128;  Mc- 

1  Hoyt  v.  Thompson,  5  N.  Y.  320.  Call  v.  Byram,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Conn.  428 ; 

2  Van  Hook  v.  Somerville,  etc.,  Co.,  Arms  v.  Conant,  36  Vt.  744;  Wood, 
5  N.  J.  Eq.  137;  Miner  v.  Belle  Isle,  etc.,   Company  v.   King,  45  Ga.  34; 
etc.,  Co.,  93  Mich.  97 ;  Foster  v.  Mul-  Bellows  v.  Todd,  39  Iowa  209 ;  Thomp- 
lanphy,  etc.,  Mill,  92  Mo.  79;  Buell  son  p.  Natchez,  etc.,  Co..  68  Miss.  423; 
v.  Buckingham,  16  Iowa  284,  s.  c.  85  Smith  v.  Silver  Valley,  etc.,  Co.,  64 
Am.  Dec.  576 ;  City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Alex-  Md.  85 ;  Bassett  v.  Monte  Christo,  etc., 
ander,  23  Mo.  483.  Co.,  15  Nev.  293;  Reichwald  v.  Com- 

'Glen's  Falls,  etc.,  Co.  v.  White,  18    mercial,   etc.,  Co.,   106  111.  439,  450; 


$  265  DIRECTORS.  363 

seems,  indeed,  that  they  may  even  meet  in  a  foreign  country.1 
We  have  qualified  our  statement  that  meetings  may  be  held  out- 
side of  the  state  which  created  the  corporation  by  saying  that 
such  meetings  may  be  held  for  the  transaction  of  ordinary  cor- 
porate business.  This  we  have  done  because  it  is  intimated 
by  high  authority  that  there  are  acts  which  can  not  be  right- 
fully done  outside  of  the.  state.2  It  is,  however,  not  easy  to 
conceive  what  acts  within  the  power  of  the  board  of  directors 
may  not  be  as  well  performed  in  one  state  as  in  another.8  Some 
of  the  authorities  make  a  distinction  between  the  acts  of  the 
corporation  itself  and  the  acts  of  its  officers  and  agents,  hold- 
ing that  corporate  acts  which  the  corporation  itself  must  do 
should  be  performed  within  the  limits  of  the  state  by  which 
it  was  created. 

§265.  Directors  —  Proceedings  —  Record. — The  statutes  of 
many  of  the  states  require  the  directors  to  cause  a  record  of 
their  proceedings  to  be  kept,  and  where  such  statutes  exist  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  directors  to  cause  a  record  of  their  proceedings 
to  be  made.  Where  there  is  no  such  statute,  sound  business  policy 
requires  a  record  of  all  the  proceedings  to  be  kept.  But  the 
failure  or  neglect  of  corporate  officers  to  keep  a  record  of  their 
proceedings  can  not,  as  a  rule,  prejudice  the  rights  of  third 
persons.  Where  a  record  is  made  and  third  persons  have  in 

Smith  v.  Alvord,  63  Barb.  415;  Mis-  may  be  put  where  their  acts  toould  be  held 

souri,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Reinhard,  114  Mo.  void  without  a  prohibitory  statute,  and 

218.  it  is  generally  true  that  a  corporation 

1  Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  exists  only  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
(U.  S.)  519.  the  territory  that   created  it."    See 

2  In  Galveston  Railroad  v.  Cowdrey,  Hilles  v.  Parrish,  14  N.  J.  Eq.  380 ; 
11  Wall.  459, 476,  the  court  said:  "No  Warren,  etc.,  Co.  v.  JStna,  etc.,  Co.,  2- 
doubt  it  may  be  true,  in  many  cases,  Paine  501 ;   Bank  of  Virginia  v.  Ad- 
that  the  extra  territorial  acts  of  direc-  ams,  1  Parson  Eq.  Cas.  534;  Freeman 
tors  would  be  held  void,  as  in  the  case  v.  Machias,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Me.  343. 
cited  from  the  Fourteenth  New  Jersey  3  In  Wright  v.  Bundy,  11  Ind.  398, 
Chancery  Reports,  383,  where  a  set  of  404,  the  court  said:  "The  mere  place 
directors  of  a  New  Jersey  corporation  where  the  active  agents  of  a  corpora- 
met  in  Philadelphia,  against  a  positive  tion  enter  into  a  contract  must,  in 
prohibitory  statute    of  New    Jersey,  general,  be  immaterial.    The  material 
and  improperly  voted  themselves  cer-  question  must  be  one  of  power,  not  of 
tain  shares  of  stock.    And  other  cases  place." 


364 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  266 


good  faith  acquired  rights  upon  the  faith  thereof  the  company 
will  be  estopped,  provided  the  acts  evidenced  by  the  record 
were  not  ultra  vires.1  As  a  rule  entries  of  record  duly  made 
in  regular  course  are  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  facts  recited.2 
The  familiar  general  rule  is  that  stockholders  have  a  right  to 
inspect  the  corporate  records,8  and  it  is  held  that  it  is  no  excuse 
for  refusing  to  permit  an  inspection  that  the  shareholder 
proposes  to  be  assisted  in  the  examination  by  his  attorney.* 
Record  entries,  duly  made  and  signed,  may  be  sufficient 
evidence  of  a  contract  so  as  to  take  a  case  out  of  the  statute  of 
frauds.5 

§266.   Directors  —  Corporate  records  as  evidence.  —  The 

primary  evidence  of  the  proceedings  of  the  board  of  directors 
is  the  record ; 6  but,  as  elsewhere  shown,  the  rights  of  third 
persons  are  not  prejudiced  by  the  failure  to  keep  a  record,  nor 
will  the  failure  to  keep  a  record  preclude  resort  to  parol  testi- 
mony in  the  proper  case.7  Entries  duly  made  are  held  coni- 


1  Stratton  v.  Lyons,  53  Vt.  130.     A 
corporation  is  not  bound  where  fraud- 
ulent interpolations  have  been  made 
in  its  records  without  any  fault  on  its 
part  or  that  of  its  agents  or  officers. 
Holden  v.  Hoyt,  134  Mass.  181.      It 
would  be  otherwise  if  the  corporation 
were  in  fault. 

2  Heintzelman  v.  Druids',  etc.,  Assn. 
38  Minn.  138;  McDaniels  v.   Flower 
Brook,  etc.,  Co.,  22  Vt.  274;  Sanborn 
v.  School  District,  12  Minn.  17 ;  Isbell 
v.  N.  Y.,  etc.,  Railroad  Co.,  25  Conn. 
556;   Hawkshaw  v.   Supreme  Lodge, 
etc.,  29  Fed.  R.  770 ;  Beardsley  v.  John- 
son, 49  Hun  607,  1  N.  Y.  Supp.  608; 
Hathaway  v.  Addison,  48  Me.  440. 

8  Commonwealth  v.  Phenix,  etc., 
Co.,  105  Pa.  St.  Ill,  s.  c.  23  Am.  L. 
Reg.  (N.  S.)  388,  23  Cent.  L.  J.  584, 
and  notes ;  Redfield  on  Railways  227 ; 
Grant  on  Corp.  311,  Beach  on  Rail- 
ways, §406;  Angell  &  Ames  Corp., 
§681;  Wharton  on  Evidence,  §746; 
Morawetz  on  Corp.,  §  473. 


4  People  v.  Nassau,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Hun 
128,  33  N.  Y.  S.  244.    Ante,  §  172. 

5  Jones  v.  Victoria,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  2 
Q.  B.  D.  314;  Argus  Co.  v.  Mayor,  55 
N.  Y.  495. 

6Dialfl.  Valley,  etc.,  Assn.,  29  So. 
Car.,  560,  s.  c.  8  S.  E.  R.  27 ;  Bowick  v. 
Miller,  21  Ore.  25,  s.  c.  26  Pac.  R.  861 ; 
Buncombe,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McCarson,  1 
Dev.  &  B.  306;  Owings  v.  Speed,  5 
Wheat,  420,  424 ;  Thayer  v.  Middesex, 
etc.,  Co.,  10  Pick.  326;  Clarkr.  Farm- 
ers', etc.,  Co.,  15  Wend.  256;  Wells  v. 
Rahway,  etc.,  Co.,  19 N.  J.  Eq.  402; 
Haven  v.  New  Hampshire  Asylum, 
13  N.  H.  532. 

7  Post,  §  267;  Allis  v.  Jones,  45  Fed. 
R.  148;  Melledge  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co., 
5  Cush.  (Mass.)  158;  Pickett  v.  Ab- 
ney,  84  Tex.  645,  s.  c.  19  S.W.  R.  859 ; 
Morrill  v.  C.  T.,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Hun  543; 
Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  27  Fed.  R.  821 ;  Whiting  r.  Wel- 
lington, 10  Fed.  R.  810 ;  Bay  View, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Williams,  50  Cal.  353. 


$267 


DIRECTORS. 


365 


petent  evidence  to  prove  payments  to  an  employe  of  the  com- 
pany,1 but  it  is  held  that  corporate  records  are  not  competent 
to  prove  a  claim  against  strangers  to  the  company.2  We  sup- 
pose, however,  that  for  some  purposes  corporate  records  are 
admissible  even  as  against  third  persons,  as,  for  instance,  to 
show  that  a  meeting  of  the  directors  was  held  on  a  certain  day, 
or  the  like.  Record  entries  are  generally  competent  evidence 
against  officers  of  the  company,8  but  are  not,  of  course,  always 
conclusive  upon  them.  A  fraudulent  entry  may  be  attacked,* 
or  the  good  faith  of  the  directors'  acts  may  be  inquired  into 
by  giving  parol  proof  as  to  what  they  really  did.5 

§  267.   Proof  of  the  proceedings  of  the  board  of  directors. — 

Where  the  act  of  incorporation  prescribes  the  mode  in  which 
the  proceedings  of  the  board  of  directors  shall  be  proved,  the 
mode  prescribed  is  exclusive.  Where  there  is  a  record,  of 
course  that  is  the  best  evidence,  and  must  be  produced  or 
some  excuse  shown  justifying  a  resort  to  secondary  evidence. 
But  where  it  is  not  in  conflict  with  some  provision  of  the 
charter,  the  acts  of  the  directors  of  a  corporation,  if  not  re- 
corded, may  be  proved  by  parol.6  Where  records  are  lost,  parol 


1  Ganther  v.  Jenks  &  Co.,  76  Mich. 
510,  s.  c.  43N.W.  E.  600.  See  Humph- 
rey v.  People,  18  Hun  393 ;  Hunting- 
ton  v.  Attrill,  118  N.  Y.  365. 

2Graville  ».  New  York,  etc.,  Co., 
34  Hun  224;  Blair  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  25  Fed.  R.  684. 

3 First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Tisdale,  84  N. 
Y.  655;  Allison  v.  Coal  Co.,  87  Tenn. 
60,  s.  c.  9  S.W.  R.  226.  See  Wallace  v. 
Lincoln,  etc.,  Bank,  89 Tenn.  630,  s.  c. 
15  S.  W.  R.  448;  Spellier,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Geiger,  147  Pa.  St.  399,  s.  c.  23  Atl.  R. 
547;  Rudd  v.  Robinson,  126  N.  Y.  113; 
Rudd  v.  Robinson,  54  Hun  339 ;  Olney 
v.  Chadsey,  7  R.  I.  224. 

*Thorne  v.  Travellers  Ins.  Co.,  80 
Pa.  St.  15. 

5Waite  v.  Windham  Co.  Mining 
Co.,  36  Vt.  18. 

6  Langsdale  v.  Bonton,  12  Ind.  467 ; 


Junction  R.  Co.  v.  Reeve,  15  Ind.  236. 
In  the  case  of  Ten  Eyck  v.  Pontiac, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Mich.  226,  s.  c.  37  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cases,  273,  the  court  said: 
"What  is  resolved  upon  at  a  meeting 
of  a  board  of  directors  of  a  private 
corporation  may  be  proven  by  the 
record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  board, 
if  one  is  kept,  and  the  proceedings 
entered,  but  if  a  record  is  not  kept  or 
the  proceedings  not  recorded,  parol 
evidence  is  admissible  to  show  what 
was  resolved  upon,  and  by  what  vote 
it  was  carried."  See  Cram  v.  Bangor, 
etc.,  12  Me.  354 ;  Edgerly  v.  Emerson, 
23  N.  H.  555;  McCall  v.  Byram,  etc., 
Co.,  6  Conn.  428;  Zihlman  v.  Cumber- 
land, etc.,  Co.,  74  Md.  303,  s.  c.  22  Atl. 
R.  271;  In  re  Great  Northern,  etc., 
Co.,  62  L.  T.  R.  231 ;  Bank  of  Yolo  ». 
Weaver  (Cal.),  31  Pac.  R.  160. 


366 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  268 


evidence  of  their  contents  is  competent.1     It  is  held  that  omis- 
sions in  the  records  may  be  supplied  by  parol  proof.2 

§  268.  Notice  to  directors. — Notice  to  the  directors,  when 
acting  in  their  official  capacity,  is  notice  to  the  company.3 
Notice  to  individual  directors  when  not  acting  for  the  corpora- 
tion is  not  effective  as  notice  to  the  corporation.4  If  the  notice 
is  effective  upon  directors  in  office  it  is  effective  upon  their 
successors  in  office.6 


1  Dix  v.  Akers,  30  Ind.  431. 

2  Taymouth  v.  Koehler,  35  Mich.  22 ; 
Ratcliff  v.  Teters,  27  Ohio  St.  66. 

3Fulton  Bank  v.  New  York,  etc., 
Canal  Co.,  4  Paige  127;  Cragie  v. 
Hadley,  99  N.  Y.  131,  s.  c.  1  N.  E.  R. 
537. 

4  Gridley  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  Co.,  71 
111.  200;   In  re  German  Mining  Co., 
4  De  G.  M.  &  G.  19. 

5  United,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Shriver,  3  Md. 
Ch.  381 ;  Washington  Bank  v.  Lewis, 
22  Pick.  24;    Farmers'  etc.,  Bank  v. 
Payne,  25  Conn.  444;  Fulton  Bank  v. 
New  York,   etc.,   Co.,  4  Paige,  127; 
Louisiana,  etc.,  Bank  v.  Senecal,  13 
La.  525;  Edwards  v.  Grand  Junction 
R.   Co.,  1  Myl.  &  Cr.   (13  Eng.  Ch. 
R.    559)   650;    Lancey  v.   Bryant,  30 
Me.  466 ;  Pemigewassett  Bank  v.  Rog- 
ers, 18  N.  H.  255.     The  settled  rule 
is  that  directors  acting  as  individuals 
merely  can   not  bind   the  company 
in  any  way,  and  the  fact  that  one 
or  two  directors,  constituting  a  mi- 
nority of  the  board,  have  knowledge 
as  individuals  of  certain  facts  is  insuf- 
ficient to  prove  notice  to  the  corpora- 
tion. Winchesters.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  4  Md.  231 ;  Mercier  v.  Canonge, 
8  La.  Ann.,  37;  Fulton  Bank  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  4  Paige  (N.  Y.) 
127;  Peruvian  R.  Co.  v.  Thames,  etc., 
Ins.Co.,  L.  R.  2Ch.  App.  Cas.  617.  No- 
tice given  to  a  director  as  an  official  to 
be  communicated  to  the  board  has  been 


held  to  bind  the  corporation.  Boyd 
v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  17  Md. 
195;  National  Bank  v.  Norton,  1  Hill 
(N.  Y.)  572.  It  would  seem  that  any 
knowledge  of  facts  which  comes  to  a 
director  or  directors  privately,  or  by 
public  rumor,  but  which  is  not  com- 
municated by  them  to  the  board  will 
not  bind  the  corporation.  IT.  S.  Ins. 
Co.  0.  Shriver,  3  Md.  Ch.  381 ;  Com- 
mercial Bank  v.  Cunningham,  24  Pick. 
(Mass.)  270.  Though  if  such  knowl- 
edge is  actually  imparted  by  such 
director  to  the  board  at  a  regular 
meeting,  the  corporation  is  bound. 
Bank  of  Pittsburgh  v.  Whitehead,  10 
Watts.  397.  It  is  held  in  a  few  cases 
that  the  knowledge  of  a  director  who 
acts  upon  the  matter  as  to  which  he 
has  such  knowledge,  is  the  knowledge 
of  the  board,  without  regard  to  the 
manner  in  which  he  acquired  it,  and 
even  though  he  did  not  communicate 
it  to  his  fellows.  Bank  of  U.  S.  v. 
Davis,  2  Hill  (N.  Y.)  451 ;  North  River 
Bank  v.  Aymar,  3  Hill  (N.  Y.)  262. 
But  this  principle  is  opposed  by  the 
weight  of  authority,  and'it  has  been 
held  repeatedly,  that  where  the  in- 
terests of  a  director  are  opposed  to 
those  of  the  corporation  no  knowledge 
possessed  by  him  will  be  imputed  to 
it.  Hatch  it.  Ferguson,  66  Fed.  R. 
668,  676;  Winchester  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Md.  231;  Frenkel  v. 
Hudson,  82  Ala.  158,  s.  c.  2  So.  R.  758; 


§  269  DIRECTORS.  367 

§269.  Directors — Admissions  and  declarations. — Substan- 
tially the  same  rules  which  prevail  in  regard  to  officers  and 
agents  generally  govern  the  subject  of  admissions  and  declara- 
tions by  directors,  but  there  is  this  important  exception,  namely, 
the  directors,  in  order  to  bind  the  company,  should  act  as  a 
board  duly  convened.  Admissions  and  representations  must, 
as  a  rule,  be  made  by  at  least  a  quorum  of  the  directors  acting 
as  a  body,  in  order  to  bind  the  corporation,  unless  special 
authority  is  shown.1  When  made  at  a  time  the  board  is  not  in 
session,  they  are  the  statements  of  individuals,  and  not  of  cor- 
porate representatives,  except  in  cases  where  they  are  author- 
ized to  act  as  agents.  It  follows  from  the  general  rule  we  have 
stated  that  neither  one  director,  nor  any  number  of  directors, 
except  in  cases  where  there  is  special  authority  from  the  com- 
pany, can  bind  it  by  admissions  or  declarations.2  Where,  how- 
ever, a  director  has  special  authority  to  act  as  an  agent  for  the 
company,  he  can,  of  course,  bind  it  by  his  acts  and  admissions 
like  any  other  agent,8  but  his  acts  bind  the  company  because  of 
the  special  authority,  and  not  simply  because  of  his  position 

Wickersham  v.  Chicago  Zinc  Co.,  18  Cairo,  etc.,  Bank,  37  N.  J.  Law  98^ 

Kan.  481 ;  First  Nat.  Bank  a.Gifford,  47  Meux's  Case,  2  De  Gex,  M.  &  G.  522 ; 

Iowa  575 ;  Barnes  ^.Trenton  Gas  L.Co.,  Tottendell  v.  Fareham,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R. 

27  N.  J.  Eq.  33;  Innerarity  v.  Bank,  1  C.  P.  674;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

139  Mass.  322,  s.  c.  1  N.  E.  R.  282;  Drennan,  26  111.  App.  263. 
Commercial  Bank  v.  Cunningham,  24        2  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Gougar, 

Pick.  (Mass.)  270.     And  knowledge  55  111.  503;  Low  v.  Connecticut,  etc.. 

by  the  directors  of  their  own  mis-  R.  Co.,  45  N.  H.  370;  Fairfield  County 

management  will  not  be  imputed  to  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Thorp,  13  Conn.  173 ; 

the  corporation  to  raise  the  bar  of  the  Smith  v.  North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  68  N. 

statute  of  limitations  in  a  suit  against  C.  107 ;   Charleston,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

them  by  the  corporation  or  its  stock-  Blake,  12  Rich.L.(S.  C.)  634 ;  Matteson 

holders.     Ryan  v.  Leavenworth,  etc.,  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  62  Barb. 

R.  Co.,  21  Kan.  365,  404.  (N.  Y.)  364;   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.'s 

1  Huntingdon,  etc.,  R.  Co., v.  Decker,  Appeal,  80  Pa.  St.   265.    Although  a 

82  Pa.  St.  119;  Soper  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  director  of  a  railroad  company  owns 

R.  Co.,  19  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  310;  Thewa.  a  majority  of  the  stock  he  can  not 

Porcelain  Mfg.  Co.,  5  S.  C.  415 ;  Mich-  bind  the  company  by  a  contract.  Alle- 

igan,  etc.,  R.Co.r.  Gougar,  55111.  503;  mong  v.  Simmons,  124  Ind.  199,  7  R. 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ragsdale,  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  416. 
54  Miss.  200;  Lowv.  Connecticut,  etc.,        3  Burnes  v.   Pennell,  2  H.  L.  Cases 

R.   Co.,  45  N.  H.  370.     See  Titus  v.  497;  Meux's  Case,  2  DeG.,M.&G.  522. 


368  THE    CORPORATION.  §  270 

as  a  director.  In  a  case  where  a  director  is  invested  with 
special  authority,  then  as  to  such  matters  as  his  authority 
covers  notice  to  or  knowledge  acquired  by  him,  is  notice  to  the 
board  of  directors  and  the  corporation.1 

§  270.  Ratification  of  the  acts  of  directors. — The  ordinary 
rules  respecting  the  ratification  of  the  acts  of  agents  apply  to 
the  acts  of  directors.  Some  of  the  authorities  indicate  that  as 
directors  are  officers  of  superior  rank,  ratification  will  be  pre- 
sumed upon  less  evidence  than  is  required  in  cases  where  the 
acts  are  those  of  subordinate  agents.  Any  acts  which  the  cor- 
poration can  authorize  the  directors  to  perform  may  be  made 
valid  by  subsequent  ratification,  although  they  were  outside  of 
the  directors'  powers  when  performed.2  The  state  may,  by  a 
subsequent  legislative  enactment,  give  validity  to  their  un- 
authorized acts.8  But  we  suppose  that  where  the  acts  of  the 
directors  are  entirely  outside  of  the  scope  of  their  authority  the 
state  could  not  impose  new  and  additional  burdens  upon  the 
stockholders,  thereby  essentially  changing  the  charter,  without 
the  consent,  express  or  implied,  of  the  stockholders  of  the  com- 
pany. 

§  271.  Directors — Removal  from  office. — The  general  rule 
is  that  a  board  of  directors  has  no  implied  power  to  remove 
one  of  the  directors  and  declare  his  office  vacant.  The  power 
of  removal  may,  of  course,  be  given  by  the  act  of  incorpora- 
tion or  by  corporate  by-laws  enacted  in  accordance  therewith, 
but  the  power  is  not  inherent  or  implied.  A  director  can  not, 
as  a  rule,  be  deprived  of  his  office  nor  excluded  by  the  board 
from  taking  part  in  its  proceedings  ;*  but  we  are  inclined  to 

1  Hoover  fl.Wise,  91  U.  S.  308 ;  Fair-  See  Higgins  v.  Lansingh,  154  111.  301, 
field  Savings  Bank  v.  Chase,  72  Me.  s.  c.  40  N.  E.  R.   362. '  We  do  not 
226;    Fulton  Bank  v.   Canal    Co.,   4  mean,    of  course,  to    say    that    acts 
Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  127;  Gen.  Ins.  Co.  which  as  to  the  corporation  itself  are 
of  Md.  v.  U.  S.  Ins.  Co.  of  Baltimore,  ultra  vires  can  be  ratified. 

lOMd.  517.  3Coe  v.  New  Jersey   Midland    R. 

2  McLaughlin  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,    Co.,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  105. 

8  Mich.  99;  Farmers',  etc.,  Co.  v.  *  If  they  were  to  attempt  to  wrong- 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Fed.  R.  49.  fully  exclude  a  director,  he  is  entitled 


§  271  DIRECTORS.  369 

believe  that  there  may  be  extraordinary  cases  where  there  is  a 
clear  and  undoubted  betrayal  of  trust  in  which  the  board  would 
be  justified  in  excluding  one  of  its  members  from  taking  part 
in  its  proceedings.1  A  director  can  not,  according  to  many  of 
the  decided  cases,  be  removed  by  a  majority  of  the  stockhold- 
ers themselves,2  unless  the  power  to  remove  is  given  by  the 
charter  or  by-laws.3  It  is  said  that  to  allow  a  majority  of  the 
stockholders  to  remove  the  directors  at  will  would,  to  a  very 
considerable  extent,  nullify  the  well  settled  rule  that  the  discre- 
tion of  the  directors  can  not  be  controlled  by  the  stockholders; 
but  this  line  of  reasoning  is  not  very  satisfactory.  We  can 
see  no  sufficient  reason  why  the  power  of  removal  may  not  be 
vested  in  those  who  actually  own  the  corporation  and  are  pri- 
marily and  principally  interested,  nor  can  we  avoid  the  con- 
clusion that  some  of  the  courts  have  been  misled  by  the  early 
decisions  regarding  charitable  corporations.  The  rules  which 
apply  to  charitable  corporations  can  not  apply  in  all  their  vigor 
to  business  corporations  such  as  railway  companies.  It  is 
reasoned  in  other  cases  that  the  interests  of  shareholders 
may  be  protected  without  the  exercise  of  this  power,  since  the 
directors,  being  trustees  for  the  stockholders,  may  be  removed 
by  the  court  for  an  abuse  of  their  powers,  upon  application  to 

to  an  order  restraining  them  from  so  L.  R.  23  Ch.  Div.  1, 1',  State  v.  Bryce, 

doing.    Pulbrook  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  7  Ohio(2d  pt.)  82.    But  see  Bay  less  v. 

Co.,  L.  R.  9Ch.  Div.  610.  Orne,  Freem.  Ch.  (Miss.)  161,  176; 

1  Some  of  the  courts  hold  that  a  di-  Adamantine  Brick  Co.  v.  Woodruff,  4 
rector  can  not  be  prevented  from  McArthur  (D.  C.)  318;  Burr  v.  Mc- 
examining  corporate  records  and  Donald,  3  Gratt.  (Va.)  215,  224,  hold- 
books,  but  may  secure  an  examina-  ing  that  the  director's  right  to  his  of- 
tion  by  mandamus,  although  the  op-  fice  being  forfeited  by  his  miscon- 
posing  directors  regard  him  as  acting  duct,  he  may  be  removed  by  the 
in  opposition  to  the  corporate  rights  stockholders. 

and  interests.  People  v.  Mott,  1  How.  3Mr.    Taylor  says:   "The    by-laws 

Pr.247;  People  ».Throop,l 2  Wend.  183.  may,  and  to  avoid   controversy,   cer- 

But  we  believe  that  there  may  be  ex-  tainly  should   provide  for    removals 

treme   cases  where  a  director  can  be  from  office,"   citing    Hunter  v.   Sun 

denied  the  right  of  inspection.     State,  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  26  La.  Ann.  13.  Taylor 

txrel.  Rosenfieldr.  Einstein,  46  N.  J.  lor  on    Priv.    Corp.   (2d  ed.),    §6-1!). 

L.  479.  The  general  laws  of  a  number  of  the 

•Imperial,  etc.,  Co.  v.    Hampson,  states  provide  for  the  removal  of  di- 
CORP.    24 


370  .  THE    CORPORATION.  §  272 

it  by  the  parties  in  interest,  and  hence  the  stockholders  should 
not  be  invested  with  power  of  removal.1  Where  power  is  given 
to  the  stockholders  by  the  charter  or  by-laws  to  remove  direc- 
tors for  a  reasonable  cause,  the  court  will  not  inquire  into  the 
sufficiency  of  a  cause  upon  which  they  have  acted,2  nor  will  it 
interfere  to  control  the  actions  of  the  directors  under  such  con- 
ditions, but  will  leave  the  stockholders  to  depose  them  in  case 
they  do  not  perform  their  duties  properly.8 

§  272.  Compensation  of  directors. — We  have  elsewhere 
treated  in  a  general  way  of  the  compensation  of  corporate 
officers,*  and  we  shall  not  again  discuss  the  general  subject.  It 
may  be  said  by  way  of  preface  that,  ordinarily,  directors  are 
not  entitled  to  compensation  for  services  rendered  in  the 
capacity  of  directors  unless  provision  is  made  for  the  payment 
of  compensation  by  the  charter  or  by-laws,  nor  will  a  contract 
to  pay  for  such  services  be  implied.  Where,  however,  a  direc- 
tor performs  services  under  a  contract  that  are  clearly  beyond 
the  range  of  his  official  duties  he  is  entitled  to  such  compensa- 
tion as  a  stranger  performing  similar  services  would  be  entitled 
to  receive.5  Unless  the  compensation  is  fixed  by  resolution  or 

rectors  from    office.     Stimson's  Am.  8  Inderwick  v.  Snell,  2  Macn.  &  G. 

Stat.  (1892),  §  8048.    By-laws  of  a  cor-  216. 

poration  providing  that  when  any  di-  8  Moses  v.  Tompkins,  84  Ala.  622; 

rector  shall  die,    resign,   neglect  to  Hattersley  v.  Earl  of  Shelburne,    10 

serve,   or  remove  out  of  the  county,  Week.  R.  881,  s.  c.  31  L.  J.  Ch.  873. 

the  board  may  proceed  to  supply  the  4  Ante,  §  230. 

vacancy,  do  not  authorize  a  director  5  Jackson  v.  New  York  Central  R. 
to  be  ousted  by  a  vote  of  the  board  of  Co.,  2  Thompson  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  653; 
directors  on  the  ground  of  ineligi-  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ketchum^ 
bility.  Commonwealth  v.  Detwiller,  27  Conn.  170;  Shackelford  v.  New  Or- 
131  Pa.  St.  614,  s.  c.  7  L.  R.  A.  357,  18  leans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Miss.  202;  La- 
Atl.  R.  990,  28  Am.&  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  fayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cheeney,  87 
669.  111.  446;  Hodges  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R. 
1  Ward  v.  Davidson,  89  Mo.  445.  Co.,  29  Vt.  220.  A  director  who  per- 
Making  use  of  his  position  to  further  forms  services  for  the  corporation  at 
his  private  gains,  or  ceasing  to  hold  the  request  of  the  board  of  directors, 
the  requisite  number  of  shares,  will  is  entitled  to  recover,  on  an  implied 
cause  a  director  to  cease  to  hold  his  contract,  what  the  services  are  reason- 
office  in  England.  Companies  Clauses,  ably  worth,  so  far  as  the  amount  has 
Act  of  1845,  8  Viet.  Ch.  16,  §  86.  not  been  fixed  by  resolution  of  the 


§272 


DIRECTORS. 


371 


by-law  before  the  services  are  rendered,  a  director  is,  as  a 
rule,  not  entitled  to  pay  for  his  services.1  The  fact  that  a 
director  expected  to  be  paid  for  his  services  will  not  alter  the 
rule,*  and  a  subsequent  promise  to  pay  for  them  is  ineffective  for 
lack  of  consideration.8  The  compensation  which  has  been 


board.  Ten  Eyck  v.  Pontiac,  O.  &  P. 
A.  R.  Co.,  74  Mich.  226.  A  director 
who,  independently  of  his-  duties  as 
director,  performs  services  for,  and 
furnishes  materials  to,  the  corpora- 
tion, which  are  necessary  and  proper, 
has  the  same  right  as  other  persons  to 
recover  upon  an  implied  contract  for 
such  services  and  materials.  Greens- 
boro, etc.,  Turnp.  Co.  v.  Stratton,  120 
Ind.  294.  To  entitle  him  to  pay  there 
must  have  been  an  expectation  at  the 
time,  on  the  part  of  the  corporation, 
to  pay  therefor.  Gill  v.  New  York 
Cab  Co.,  48  Hun  524,  16  N.  Y.  S.  R. 
236.  In  Shackelford  v.  New  Orleans, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra,  it  was  held  that 
attendance  on  the  board  meetings  is 
the  only  service  which  a  director  will 
be  presumed  to  render  gratuitously. 
In  Rogers  v.  Hastings,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 
Minn.  25,  it  was  held  that  a  director 
who  rendered  special  services  as  attor- 
ney and  land  commissioner  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  other  directors  might  re- 
cover therefor.  The  question  whether 
or  not  the  services  rendered  were  spe- 
cial, so  that  he  is  entitled  to  pay 
therefor,  depends  upon  whether  they 
were  such  as  could  be  rendered  by  a 
person  other  than  a  director.  Henry 
v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  435. 
And  a  director  may  recover  for  serv- 
ices rendered  by  him  as  agent  of  the 
company  at  its  request,  but  not  in  his 
character  as  director.  Chandler  v. 
Monmouth  Bank,  13  N.  J.  Law,  255. 
But  it  has  been  held  that  a  director 
can  not,  in  the  absence  of  contract, 
claim  a  commission  for  the  sale  of  the 
corporation  bonds.  Hodges  v.  Rut- 


land, etc.,  R.  Co.,  29JVt.  220.  And 
that  he  can  not  claim  pay  for  services 
as  managing  director.  Ee  Bolt&  Iron 
Co.,  14  Onta.  R.  211,  19  Am.  &  Eng. 
Corp.  Cas.  165.  And  that  even  a  di- 
rector who  serves  without  compensa- 
tion can  not  recover  a  reward  offered 
by  the  corporation  for  the  recovery  of 
stolen  property  and  the  detection  of 
the  thief,  since  he  only  did  his  duty  if 
he  accomplished  both.  Stacy  v.  State 
Bank,  5  111.  (4  Scam.)  91;  Collins  v. 
Godefroy,  1  Barn.  &  Adol.  950. 

1  Kilpatrick  v.  Penrose  Ferry  Bridge 
Co.,  49  Pa.  St.  118;  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Ketchum,  27  Conn.  170;  Hod- 
ges v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Vt. 
220;  Coleman  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co., 
38  N.  Y.  201.  It  is  presumed  that  a 
stockholder,  not  a  director  of  the  cor- 
poration, who  assumes  the  duties  of 
the  office  and  performs  them  without 
any  agreement  or  provision  for  com- 
pensation, performs  the  official  serv- 
ices gratuitously.  Mather  v.  Eureka 
Mower  Co.,  118  N.  Y.  629,  s.  c.  23  N. 
E.  R.  993.  An  officer  of  a  corporation, 
in  order  to  recover  compensation  for 
his  services,  must  show  that  he  is  an 
officer  de  jure.  34  111.  App.  268,  af- 
firmed in  Waterman  v.  Chicago  &  I. 
R.  Co.,  139  111.  658. 

z  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ketcham, 
27  Conn.  170. 

8  Maux  Ferry  G.  R.  Co.  v.  Brane- 
gan, 40  Ind.  361 ;  Loan  Assn.  v.  Stone- 
metz,  29  Pa.  St.  534 ;  Dunston  v.  Imp. 
Gas.  Co.,  3  B.  &  Ad.  125.  He  may  re- 
ceive pay  for  services  rendered  before 
he  became  a  director,  under  a  resolu- 
tion passed  by  the  other  members  of 


372  THE    CORPORATION.  §  273 

fixed  by  the  board  may  be  increased  by  a  vote  of  the 
board  during  his  term,  and  will  entitle  him  to  such  increased 
compensation  for  all  services  thereafter  rendered.1  But  while 
it  is  competent  for  the  board  to  fix  the  compensation  to  be 
given  to  directors  as  well  as  that  of  other  officers  and  agents,2 
unless  the  by-laws  or  statute  expressly  provide  otherwise,  a 
director  may  also  fill  another  office  of  the  corporation  ; 8  but 
where  a  director  fills  such  other  office,  he  will  be  entitled  only 
to  such  compensation  therefor  as  is  fixed  or  agreed  upon  before 
the  services  are  rendered.4 

§  273.  Directors  —  Relation  of  to  stockholders — Prelimi- 
nary.— The  directors  of  a  railroad  company  occupy  a  fiduciary 
relation  to  the  stockholders.  The  relation  is,  it  is  true,  essen- 
tially one  of  trust  and  confidence ;  but  directors  are  not  trustees 
in  the  strict  or  technical  sense,  since  they  do  not  hold  the 
legal  title  to  the  corporate  property  and  may  in  some  cases 
deal  with  the  corporation  where  their  own  individual  interests 
are  concerned.  They  are,  however,  trustees  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  term  "trustees"  is  often  used.  The  courts  and  text 
writers  generally  speak  of  them  as  trustees,  and  correctly  so  ; 

the  board.     Branch  Bank  v.  Collins,  7  a  corporation  in  providing  that  the 

Ala.   95;    New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  salary  of   the    president    should    be 

Ketchum,  27  Conn.  170.  fixed  by  him  and  another  director, 

1  It  having  been  understood  by  the  who  together  owned  nearly  all  the 
board  of  directors  of   a  corporation  stock,  and  that  the  contract  was  rati- 
that  its  officers  were  to  be  paid  for  fied  by  the  board  of  directors,  is  such 
their  services,  the  board   may  after-  an  exercise  of  the  board's  authority 
wards  fix  and  pay  a  reasonable  sum.  to  fix  his  salary  as  to  constitute  a  con- 
Stewart  v.  St.   Louis,  Ft.  S.   &  W.  R.  tract  on  which  he  can  recover.     Bag- 
Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  736.  aley  v.  Pittsburgh  &  L.  S.  Iron  Co., 

2  Hodges  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  146  Pa.  St.  478,  s.  c.  23  Atl.  R.  837. 
Vt.  220.  We  think  that  the  case  referred  to  is 

3  A  director  may  also  be  treasurer,  well  decided,  for  the  reason  that  there 
Sargent  v.  Webster,  13  Met.  (Mass.)  was  an  effective    ratification  of  the 
497.  acts  of  the  president  and  the  director 

*  Holder  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  authorized  to  act  in  conjunction  with 

71  111.  106,  where  the  director  served  him,  but  if  it  were  not  for  the  ele- 

as  treasurer.   Rogers  v.  Hastings,  etc.,  ment  of  ratification  we  should  think 

R.  Co.,  22  Minn.  25,  where  he  served  there  could  be  no  recovery  in  such  a 

as  secretary.    It  has  been  held  that  case, 
the  action  of  the  board  of  directors  of 


§  274  DIRECTORS.  373 

but  the  use  of  the  term  trustees  seems  to  have  misled  some 
judges  and  writers,  for  they  have  applied  stricter  rules  to  direc- 
tors than  authority  sanctions  or  principle  warrants.  In  the 
sense  in  which  the  term  "trustees"  is  used  in  reference  to  the 
functions  and  duties  of  persons  occupying  fiduciary  relations 
directors  are  trustees  in  all  that  term  implies  and  are  subject 
to  the  rules  which  govern  that  class  of  persons,  but  they  are 
not  trustees  in  the  same  sense  as  persons  are  who  hold  the 
legal  title  to  property  for  the  benefit  of  other  persons,  nor  are 
they  trustees  for  third  persons  who  deal  with  the  company.1 

§  274.  Directors  considered  trustees. — It  is  held  in  a  very 
great  number  of  cases  that  a  director  occupies  the  position  of 
a  trustee  for  the  stockholders,2  and  as  such  'is  prohibited  from 
making  use  of  his  position  or  of  the  knowledge  acquired  by 
reason  of  holding  the  same  to  promote,  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, his  private  advantage  at  the  expense  of  the  corporation. 
The  rule  governing  trustees  generally,  which  prohibits  them 
from  using  trust  property  for  their  own  profit,  applies  to  direc- 
tors. Directors  are  bound  to  exercise  the  utmost  good  faith,8 

1  In  Briggs  v.  Spaulding,  141  U.  S.  Lake  Erie  B.  Co.,  31  Ind.  283;  Great 
132,  s.  c.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  924,  the  court  Luxembourg  R.   Co.   v.  Magnay,   25 
said:  "Bank  directors  are  of  ten  styled  Beav.    586;    Aberdeen      R.    Co.     v. 
'trustees,'  but  not  in  any  technical  Blakie,    1    Macq.    461;     Koehler    v. 
sense.    The  relation  between  the  cor-  Black  River  Falls  Co.,  2  Black  (U.S.) 
poration  and  them  is  rather  that  of  715 ;   Michigan   Air    Line  R.   Co.   v. 
principal  and  agent;  certainly  so  far  Mellen,  44  Mich.   321;  Verplanck  v. 
as  creditors  are  concerned  the  relation  Mercantile,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Edw.  Ch.  84; 
is  that  of  contract  and  not  of  trust.  Simons  v.  Vulcan,  etc.,  Co.,  61  Pa.  St. 
But,undoubtedly,under  circumstances  202,  s.   c.  100  Am.  Dec.  628;   Brad- 
they  may  be  treated  as  occupying  the  bury  v.  Barnes,  19  Cal.  120;  Hale  v. 
position  of  trustees  to  cestv.i  que  trust."  Republican,   etc.,  Co.,   8  Kan.    466; 
Spering's  Appeal,  71  Pa.  St.  11.  Koehler  v.   Black  River,   etc.,  Co.,  2 

2  Robinson  v.  Smith,  3  Paige  222,  s.  c.  Black.  (U.  S.)  715 ;  York,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
24  Am.Dec.212;Stewarttf.  LehighVal-  Hudson,  16  Beav.  485;  Imperial,  etc., 
leyR.  Co.,  38  N.  J.  L.  505;  European,  Assn.    v.    Coleman,    L.  R.  6  H.   L. 
etc.,R.  Co.  v.  Poor,  59  Me.  277;  Blake  v.  189;  Albion,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Martin,  1  Ch. 
Buffalo  Creek   R.  Co.,  56  N.  Y.  485;  Div.  580;  Bennett's  Case,  5  De  Gex., 
Ward  v.  Salem  St.R.Co.,  108  Mass.  332;  M.  &  G.  284;   Williams  v.  Page,   24 
Covington,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Bowler,  9  Beav.  654. 

Bush.  (Ky.)  468;  San  Francisco,  etc.,  3  See  cases  in  preceding  note.  The 
R.  Co.  v.  Bee  48  Cal.  398;  Paine  v.  fact  that  a  person  has  relatives  on  the 


874  THE    CORPORATION.  §  275 

but  are  not  absolutely  prohibited  from  dealing  with  the  corpo- 
ration. Directors  are  bound  to  exercise  their  powers  to  pro- 
mote the  corporate  interests  and  it  is  a  breach  of  duty  for 
them  to  make  use  of  their  powers  to  injure  the  corporate 
interests  or  impair  corporate  rights.  They  are  guilty  of  a 
breach  of  trust  if  they  make  use  of  corporate  property  or 
funds  for  their  individual  gain.1  A  director  can  not,  without 
an  inexcusable  breach  of  trust,  place  himself  in  a  position 
which  will  render  him  unable  to  exercise  his  powers  for  the 
promotion  of  the  corporate  welfare.8  Directors  are  under  a 
strict  obligation  to  exercise  care  and  diligence  to  preserve  the 
property  and  money  of  the  company.  They  have  no  right  to 
make  gifts  of  corporate  property,8  nor  to  allow  unjust  or  illegal 
claims  to  be  enforced  against  the  company.4 

§  275.  Directors  as  trustees — Illustrative  cases. — As  we  have 
said  in  another  place,  directors  are  considered  as  trustees  of 
the  corporation  and  its  shareholders,  but  not  of  third  persons.5 
The  scope  and  application  of  the  general  doctrine  is  better  shown 
by  reference  to  the  adjudged  cases  than  by  general  statements, 
and  we  shall  refer  to  some  of  the  many  decisions  of  the  court 
upon  the  subject.  Directors  may,  in  good  faith,  and  for  a  fair, 
valuable  consideration,  sell  corporate  property  to  one  of  their 
number,  but  such  a  transaction  will  be  closely  scrutinized  and 

board  of  directors  of  a  corporation  persons;  thus  where  a  director  sells 
will  not  defeat  his  valid  claim  against  his  influence  in  such  a  way  as  to  give 
the  corporation.  Rollins  v.  Shaver  one  creditor  of  the  corporation  an  ad- 
Wagon  &C.  Co.,  80  Iowa  380,  45  N.W.  vantage  over  its  other  creditors,  his 
1037.  action  is  unlawful.  Berryman  v.  Cin- 

1  Ward  v.    Davidson,   89  Mo.   445;  cinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Bush.  (Ky.) 
Wardell  v.   Railroad   Co.,   103  U.  S.  755 ;  Bliss  v.  Matteson,  45  N.  Y.  22. 
651;  Cook  v.  Sherman,  20  Fed.  R.  167,  8St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Partridge,  8 
and  note;     Smith  v.   Smith,   3  Des.  Mo.  App.  580.     See  Williams  v.  Page, 
Eq.  S.  Car.  557;    Goodin  v.  Cincin-  24  Beav.  654;   Minor    v.   Mechanics' 
nati,  etc.,  Co.,  18  Ohio  St.  169;  Mora-  Bank,  1  Pet.  46. 

wetz  Corp.  182,  183;  Peirce  on  Rail-  *  Lowndes  v.  Garnett,    etc.,  Co.,  33 

roads,  36.  L.  J.  Ch.  418. 

2  Attaway  v.  Third  Nat.  Bank,  93  6  Briggs  v.  Spaulding,  141  U.  S.  132, 
Mo.  485.     Primarily  the  breach    of  s.  c.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  924;  Landia  v.  Sea 
duty  by  a  director  is  a  wrong  inflicted  Isle,  etc.,  Co.,  (N.  J.  Eq.)  31  Atl.  R. 
upon  the  corporation,  but  a  breach  of  755. 

duty  may  also  be  injurious  to  third 


§  275  DIRECTORS.  375 

if  not  entirely  fair  and  free  from  fraud  will  be  set  aside.1  A 
director  can  not  purchase  property  for  the  corporation,  treat  it 
as  a  purchase  by  himself  and  charge  the  corporation  a  profit.2 
The  decisions  authorize  the  conclusion  that  directors  may  en- 
gage in  a  competing  business  on  their  individual  account,8 
and  this  doctrine,  if  kept  .within  reasonable  limits,  we  regard 
as  sound,  but,  as  we  believe,  a  director  can  not  engage  in  a 
competing  business  if  the  necessary  and  natural  effect  of  his 
engaging  in  that  business  is  to  impair  his  power  to  discharge  his 
duty  to  the  company  of  which  he  is  a  director,  or  to  detract 
from  his  fidelity  to  that  company.  The  doctrine  of  the  case 
referred  to  is  one  to  be  limited,  not  extended,  and  if  it  appears 
in  such  a  case  that  the  director  is  in  any  way  using  his  official 
position  to  the  injury  of  the  company  or  its  business,  for  the 
advancement  of  his  own  business  or  that  of  a  rival  of  his  com- 
pany of  which  he  is  a  director,  a  stockholder  should  be  award- 
ed relief,  for  it  is  certainly  the  duty  of  the  director  to  do  all 
that  he  reasonably  can  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  com- 
pany of  which  he  is  such  officer.*  It  has  been  adjudged  that 
an  order  of  a  board  of  directors  awarding  compensation  to  one 
of  their  number  is  voidable  where  it  required  the  vote  of  the 
director  to  make  the  order,5  but  we  suppose  it  is  competent  to 

1Mish  r.  Main,  81  Md.  36,  s.  c.  31  R.  33.  See,  also,  Barr  v.  Pittsburg, 

Atl.  R.  799.  etc.,  Co.,  40  Fed.  412. 

2  Blair,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Walker,  50  *  Keokuk,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davidson,  95 

Iowa  376  ;McElhenny's  Appeal,  61  Pa.  Mo.  467;  Perry  v.  Tuscaloosa,  etc., 

St.  188;  Averill  v.  Barber,  6  N.  Y.  Co.,93  Ala.364,  s.c.9So.R.  217;  Blake 

Supp.  255;  Simons  v.  Vulcan  Oil  Co.,  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.,  56  N.  Y.  485; 

61  Pa.  St.  202;  Getty  v.  Devlin,  54  N.  Huffman,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cumberland, 

Y.  403;  Benson  v.  Heathorn,  1  Y.  &  etc.,  Co.,  16  Md.  456;  Cumberland, 

C.  326;  Rice's  Appeal,  79  Pa.  St.  168;  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sherman,  30  Barb.  553; 

Great  Luxembourg  R.  Co.  v.  Mag-  Cumberland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Parish, 

nay,  25  Beav.  586.  See,  generally,  42  Md.  598;  Union  Bank  v.  Jones,  4 

European,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Poor,  59  Me.  La.  Ann.  236;  Paine  v.  Lake  Erie, 

277;  Gifford  v.  New  Jersey  R.  Co.,  10  etc.,  Co.,  31  Ind.  283;  Gallery  v.  Na- 

N.  J.  Eq.  171 ;  Stevens  v.  Rutland,  tional,  etc.,  Bank,  41  Mich.  169,  s.  c. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Vt.  545;  Ware  v.  Grand  32  Am.  R.  149;  Fitzgerald  v.  Fitz- 

Junction,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Russ.  &  M.  470;  gerald,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Neb.  463,  s.  c.  62 

Dodge  fl.Woolsey,  18  How.  (U.  S.)  331.  N.  W.  R.  899. 

8  Barr  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Fed.  5  Wickersham  v.  Crittenden,  106  Cal. 

327,  s.  c.  39  Pac.  R.  602. 


376  THE    CORPORATION.  §  275 

provide  compensation  where  the  services  are  rendered  outside 
of  the  duties  of  the  director  and  the  order  is  adopted  by  a  suf- 
ficient vote,  exclusive  of  that  of  the  interested  director.  Con- 
tracts between  directors  that  they  should  have  a  percentage  upon 
all  money  secured  by  means  of  a  bond  of  indemnity  executed  by 
them,  providing  against  the  future  indebtedness  of  the  company 
are  voidable.1  A  director  can  not  rightfully  enter  into  any  en- 
gagement or  contract  which  is  prejudicial  to  the  corporation  or 
its  shareholders,  since  his  duty  requires  of  him  that  he  shall 
exercise  his  powers  for  the  promotion  of  the  corporate  inter- 
ests,8 but  this  general  rule  does  not  go  to  the  extent  of  inter- 
dicting him  from  making  an  open,  fair  and  honest  contract 
with  the  corporation,  although  such  a  contract  may  yield  him 
a  personal  benefit.  A  well  considered  case  holds  that  the  pur- 
chase of  a  railroad  by  one  of  the  directors  without  the  consent 
of  the  company  will  be  set  aside  upon  re-payment  to  the  di- 
rector of  the  money  expended  by  him  in  making  the  purchase.5 
Directors  can  not  rightfully  make  unjust  or  unfair  discrimina- 
tion in  favor  of  particular  stockholders.*  The  cases  generally 
assert  that  directors  can  not  buy  claims  against  the  corpora- 
tion at  less  than  their  face,  and  recover  the  full  value  of  the 
corporation,5  but  we  think  this  rule  is  subject  to  exceptions, 

1  Butler   v.    Cornwall  Iron  Co.,  22  lie  policy  is  violated,  but  the  position 
Conn.  335.  of    director     sometimes   creates    the 

2  Woodstock  Iron  Co.  v.  Richmond,  publfc  policy,  for  it  is  public  policy 
etc., Co.,  129  U.  8.643,  s.  c.  9  Sup.Ct.  R.  not  to    permit    corporate  officers   to 
402;  citing  Lindera.  Carpenter,  62  111.  make  contracts  which  may  tempt  or 
309;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Railroad  Co.  v.  influence  them  to  betray  their  trusts. 
Mathers,  71  111.  592 ;  Holladay  v.  Pat-        8  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bowler,  9 
terson,  5  Or.  177 ;  Pacific  Railroad  Co.  Bush.  (Ky.)  468.     See  Bill  v.  Western 
v.   Seely,   45  Mo.  212;    Racine,   etc.,  Union  Tel.  Co.,  16  Fed.  R.  14;  Jones 
Bank  v.  Ayres,   12  Wis.  570;     Fort  v.   Arkansas,   etc.,   Co.,  38  Ark.  17; 
Edward,    etc.,    Plank    Road    Co.    v.  Bent  ^.Priest,  10  Mo.  App.  543;  Dorris 
Payne,   15  N.  Y.  583.      It  may  not  v.  French,  4  Hun  292. 

be  improper  to  observe  that  a  con-  4  Chase  v.  Vanderbilt,  62  N.  Y.  307. 
tract  by  which  any  person  under-  5  McDonald  v.  Haughton,  70  N.  C. 
takes  to  do  an  act  forbidden  by  pub-  393 ;  Brewster  v.  Stratman,  4  Mo. 
lie  policy  is  voidable,  and  that  the  App.  41;  Holladay  v.  Patterson,  5  Ore- 
fact  that  persons  who  enter  into  such  gon  177 ;  Holladay  v.  Davis,  5  Oregon, 
contracts  are  directors  of  a  railroad  40. 
company  is  not  important  where  pub- 


§  275  DIRECTORS.  377 

for  if  the  purchase  is  openly,  honestly  and  fairly  made  with 
the  full-  knowledge  of  the  corporation,  we  can  see  no  reason 
why  it  may  not  be  enforced,  but  if  there  be  any  conceal- 
ment, fraud  or  deception,  the  director  should  not  at  the  ut- 
most be  allowed  to  recover  anything  more  than  the  amount 
actually  paid  for  the  claims.1  Directors  have  no  general  right 
to  loan  the  credit  of  the  company,  or  to  issue  mere  accommo- 
dation paper  in  the  name  of  the  company,  where  no  con- 
sideration is  yielded  the  company,8  except  in  cases  where 
the  act  of  incorporation  empowers  them  to  do  so,  or,  per- 
haps, where  from  long  usage  the  power  may  be  inferred.  Con- 
tracts entered  into  by  directors  prejudicial  to  corporate  inter- 
ests, or  for  the  sole  purpose  of  enabling  them  to  retain  control  of 
the  corporate  affairs,  are  voidable.3  Directors  can  not,  of  course, 
enter  into  combinations  with  other  persons  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  to  such  persons  or  themselves  a  gain,  profit  or  ad- 
vantage at  the  expense  of  the  corporation.4  It  is  a  familiar 
rule,  illustrated  by  cases  much  too  numerous  for  citation,  that 
all  dealings  between  directors  and  the  corporations  are  scruti- 
nized with  great  care  and  avoided,  if  there  be  any  undue  ad- 
vantage taken  by  the  directors,  or  any  concealment  or  decep- 
tion, and  this  general  rule  applies  to  dealings  between  two 

1  Analagous  cases  sustain  the  state-  Nelson  v.  Luling,  62  N.  Y.  645.  See, 
merit  of  the  text.  Smith  r.  Lansing,  generally,  Druryt?.  Cross,  7  Wall  299; 
22  N.Y.  520;  Ashurst's  Appeal,  60  Pa.  Cook  r.  Berlin,  etc.,  Mill  Co.,  43  Wis. 
St.  290;  Chester  r.  Dickerson,  54  N.  433;  Fuller  c.  Dame,  18  Pick.  472; 
Y.  1 ;  Getty  v.  Devlin,  54  N.  Y.  403.  Stark  Bank  v.  United  States,  etc., 
Seymour  v.  Spring  Forest,  etc.,  Assn.,  Co.,  34  Vt.  144;  Andrews  v.  Pratt,  44 
144  N.  Y.  333,  s.  c.  39  N.  E.  R.  365,  Cal.  309;  City  of  San  Diego  c.  San  Die- 
holds,  and,  as  we  think,  correctly,  go,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Cal.  106;  Richard- 
that  there  are  cases  in  which  evi-  son  v.  Green,  133  U.  S.  30;  McMurtry 
dences  of  corporate  indebtedness  may  v.  Montgomery,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Ky.  206; 
be  bought  by  directors.  Duncomb  r.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  88 

*  Hutchinson  v.  Sutton,  etc.,  Co.,  57  N.  Y.  1 ;  Twin  Lick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mar- 
Fed.  R.  998.  bury,  91  U.  S.  587;  Harts  v.  Brown, 

3  Northern,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Concord  R.  77  111.  226;  Boerum  v.  Schenck,  41  N. 

Co.,  50  N.  H.  166;  Bliss  v.  Matteson,  Y.  182;  Hoyle  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Co., 

45  N.  Y.  22.  54  N.  Y.  314. 

*  Jackson  v.  Ludeling,  21  Wall.  616 ; 


378 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§276 


corporations    in    cases  where  the   directors  of  one    are   also 
directors  of  the  Bother.1 

§  276.  Directors — Dealings  with  corporation. — Directors  are 
not,  under  all  circumstances,  prohibited  from  dealing  with  the 
company  of  which  they  are  the  representatives.  If  there  is 
entire  good  faith  and  no  taint  of  fraud,  a  transaction  with  the 
company  will  generally  be  sustained.2  Contracts  made  by  a 
director  with  the  company,  which  upon  close  scrutiny  appear 
to  be  entirely  fair,  open  and  honest,  will  be  upheld  by  the 
courts.8  The  weight  of  authority  is  that  such  contracts  are  not 
void,  nor  even  voidable,*  although  there  is  conflict  of  authority. 
It  is  held  by  some  of  the  courts  that,  while  executory,  such 
contracts  are  voidable  at  the  instance  of  the  corporation,6  or  of 
a  dissenting  stockholder.6  Contracts  with  directors  may,  as  a 


1  Paine  v.  Lake  Erie,   etc.,  Co.,  31 
Ind.  283;  Polar  Star  Lodge  v.   Polar 
Star  Lodge,  13  La.  Ann.  76;  Abbot  v. 
American,  etc.,  Co.,  33  Barb.  578. 

2  Wardell  v.  Railroad  Co.,  103  U.  S. 
651;    Ryan  v.  Railroad  Co.,  21  Kan. 
365;    Koehler  v.  Iron  Co.,  2  Black. 
715;   Michoud  ».  Girod,  4  How..(TJ. 
S.)  502;  Hotel  Co.  v.  Wade,  97  U.  S. 
13;  Van  Cott  v.  Van  Brunt,  82  N.  Y. 
535 ;  Densmore  Oil  Co.  v.  Densmore,  64 
Pa.  St.  43.   See  Bristol,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pro- 
basco,  64  Ind.  406;  Greensboro,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Stratton,  120  Ind.  294;  Ward  v. 
Polk,  70  Ind.  309 ;  Rogers  v.  Hastings 
R.  Co.,  22  Minn. 25;  Santa  Clara,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Meredith,  49  Md.  389 ;  Chandler 
v.  Monmouth  Bank, lGreen(N.  J.) 255; 
Shackelford  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  37  Miss.  202;    New  Orleans,  etc., 
€o.    v.    Brown,    36    La.    Ann.    138; 
Cheeney  v.  Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68 
111.570;  Henry  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  27  Vt.  435.     But  contracts  with  a 
director  must  be  entirely  free  from 
fraud.  Parker  v.  Nickerson,  137  Mass. 
487 ;  Hotel  Co.  v.  Wade,  97  U.  S.  13. 

•European,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Poor,  59 
Me.  277;  Stark  Bank  v.  U.  S.  Pottery 


Co.,  34  Vt.  144;  Ashurst's  Appeal,  60 
Pa.  St.  290. 

4  Claflin  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co., 
8  Fed.  R.  118;  Sims  v.  Street  R.  Co., 
37  Ohio  St.  556;  Central,  etc.,   Rail- 
road Co.  v.  Claghorn,  1  Speers'  Eq.  (S. 
C.)  546;  Strattonr.  Allen,  16  N.  J.  Eq. 
229;  Hallam  v.  Indianola  Hotel  Co., 
56  Iowa  178;  Stewart  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  736. 

5  Munson  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
103  N.  Y.  58;    Aberdeen  R.   Co.  v. 
Blakie,  1  Macq.  461. 

6Ward  v.  Salem  St.  Railway,  108 
Mass.  332;  Flint,etc.,  R.  Co.v.  Dewey, 
14  Mich.  477;  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hudson,  16  Beav.  485;  Wardell  v. 
Railroad  Co.,  103  U.S.  651 ;  Little  Rock, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Page,  35  Ark.  304; 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Alstyne, 
56  Tex.  439;  Duncomb  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  N.  Y.  190.  Where 
there  was  no  fraud  a  sale  by  a  director 
of  property  to  a  corporation,  which  is 
approved  by  the  board  of  directors 
and  ratified  by  the  stockholders,  will 
not  be  held  invalid  simply  because 
the  sale  was  made  for  a  sum  greatly 
in  excess  of  the  cost  of  the  property 


276 


DIRECTORS. 


379 


rule,  be  set  aside  upon  very  slight  grounds,  at  the  suit  of  any 
one  injured  thereby.1  Some  of  the  cases  hold  that  voidable 
contracts  with  a  director  may  be  ratified  by  acquiescence.2  It 
is  also  held  that  if  the  director  has  done  anything  toward  ex- 
ecuting the  contract,  it  can  not  be  avoided  by  the  corporation 
without  restoration  to  him  of  what  the  corporation  received  un- 
der it.3  Where  they  act  in  entire  good  faith,  and  the  transaction 
is  open  and  fair,  directors  may  purchase  the  corporate  property.4 
It  has  been  adjudged  that  they  may  even  purchase  the  corpo- 
rate indebtedness,  and  enforce  a  judicial  sale  of  the  property 


to  the  director.  Stewart  v.  St.  Louis, 
Ft.  S.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  R.  736. 
In  the  case  cited  the  court  said,  speak- 
ing of  the  directors,  that  "When  the 
sale  to  the  company  was  made  they 
did  hold  a  position  of  trust,  and  were 
bound  in  their  official  action  to  faith- 
fully and  honestly  execute  their 
duties,  and  not  to  make  a  deal  where 
their  personal  interest  should  be 
served  at  the  expense  of  the  company 
they  represented." 

1  Twin  Lick  Oil  Co.  v.  Marbury,  91 
TJ.  S.  587,  and  numerous  cases  cited. 
It  is  held  that  a  purchase  by  a  cor- 
poration will  not  be  set  aside  because 
of  the  interest  of  one  of  the  directors, 
where  the  complaining  stockholder 
has  suffered  no  damage.  Hill  v.  Nis- 
bet,  100  Ind.  341.  A  contract  made 
by  the  directors  with  two  of  their 
number,  when  only  four  were  present, 
is  invalid.  Ailing  v.  Wenzell,  27  111. 
App.  511. 

*  Kelley  v.  Newburyport,etc.,  R.  Co., 
141  Mass.  496;  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Credit  Mobilier,  135  Mass.  367; 
Ashurst's  Appeal,  60  Pa.  St.  290. 
Generally  a  party  who  seeks  to  avoid 
a  voidable  contract  must  act  with 
promptness.  Seymour  v.  Spring  Forest 
Cemetery  Ass'n,  144  N.  Y.  333,  s.  c.  39 
N.  E.  R.  365. 

'Duncomb  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  84  N.  Y.  190,  88  N.  Y.  1.  If  the 


officers,  directors  and  stockholders 
consent  to  a  contract  between  the 
corporation  and  a  director  and  keep 
the  property  thus  acquired,  the  con- 
tract will  not  be  voidable  merely  be- 
cause made  with  a  director.  Battelle 
v.  Northwestern  Cement  &  Concrete 
Pavement  Co.,  37  Minn.  89,  33  N.  W. 
Rep.  327. 

4  Ellis  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107 
Mass.  1;  Kitchen  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  69  Mo.  224;  Buell  v.  Bucking- 
ham, 16  Iowa  284.  See  Hoyle  v. 
Plattsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y. 
314.  A  purchase  by  a  director  of  a 
corporation,  without  an  order  of  the 
board  of  directors,  of  property  of  the 
corporation  in  satisfaction  of  his  own 
debt,  is  ratified  if  the  corporation 
takes  up,  cancels  and  retains  the 
notes  held  by  him.  Beach  v.  Miller, 
130  111.  162,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Gas. 
468,  22  N.  E.  464.  But  in  order  that 
such  a  transaction  may  repel  an  as- 
sault by  a  stockholder  or  creditor  prej- 
udiced thereby  it  must  be  entirely 
free  from  fraud.  Courts  are  reluctant 
to  permit  the  purchase  of  corporate 
property  by  any  of  the  corporate 
officers  and  scrutinize  such  trans- 
actions very  carefully.  Slade  v.  Van 
Vechten,  11  Paige  21 ;  Munson  v.  Syra- 
cuse, etc.,  Co.,  103  N.  Y.  50,  s.  c.  8  N. 
E.  R.  355. 


380 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§27$ 


to  themselves,  if  they  have  acted  in  good  faith  and  given  the 
stockholders  a  full  opportunity  to  make  advances  to  relieve 
the  corporation  from  embarrassment,  and  they  have  refused  to 
do  so.1  Where  a  director  has  necessarily  expended  money  in 
good  faith  for  the  corporation,  he  is  entitled  to  be  reimbursed.5 
So  a  director  may  loan  money  to  the  corporation,  where  it  is 
needed  for  its  benefit,  if  he  act  fairly  and  openly,  and  may 
purchase  the  corporate  property  at  a  public  sale,  under  a  trust 
deed  given  to  secure  it.8  Directors  acting  in  good  faith  are  in 
many  cases  entitled  to  the  same  rights  as  other  creditors.4  But 
in  making  purchases  or  sales  for  the  corporation,  they  can  not 
directly  or  indirectly  speculate,  to  the  injury  of  the  company, 
for  their  own  advantage.'  It  is  held  that  contracts  with  rail- 
road directors,  whereby  they  undertake,  for  a  compensation 
given  to  themselves,  to  alter  or  establish  their  road,  depots  or 
works  so  as  to  promote  private  interests,  are  void,  as  contraven- 


1  Harts  v.  Brown,  77  111.  226.     But 
he  can  neither  buy  nor  sell  against 
the  wish  of  the  corporation  or  the 
stockholders,   excepting    by   judicial 
process  in  pursuance  of  a  fair  con- 
tract made  with    their  approbation, 
since  he  is  a  trustee,  and  no  trustee 
can  purchase  of  himself  nor  sell  to 
himself  over   the    objections   of    his 
cestui  que  trust.    Pearson  v.  Concord 
R.  Co.,  62  N.  H.  537,  and  numerous 
cases  cited. 

2  Rogers  v.  Hastings,  22  Minn.  25 ; 
Missouri  R.  Co.  v.  Richards,  8  Kan. 
101.    Delivery  of  corporate  stock  and 
execution  of  a  mortgage  on  corporate 
property  by  a  board   of  directors,  in 
payment  of  corporate  indebtedness,  is 
not  rendered  void  by  the  fact  that 
several  directors  became  guarantors 
for  further  advances  to  the  corpora- 
tion   after    its  credit  had    been  ex- 
hausted, and  which  were  to  be  paid 
by  the  delivery  of  the  stock.     County 
Court  of  Taylor  County  v.  Baltimore 
&  O.  R.  Co.,  35  Fed.  R*  161. 

8  Saltmash  v.  Spaulding,  147  Mass. 


224;  Twin  Lick  Oil  Co.  v.  Marbury,  91 
TJ.  S.  587.  But  if  he  attempts  to  take 
an  undue  advantage,  his  mortgage  can 
not  be  enforced.  Sutter  St.  R.  Co.  r. 
Baum,  66  Cal.  44.  A  director  of  a 
railroad  may  properly  own  its  bonds 
and  may  enforce  payment  in  case  of 
default  by  foreclosure.  Duncomb  r. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  N.  Y.  190, 
88  N.  Y.  1 ;  Harpending  v.  Munson,  91 
N.  Y.  650.  An  officer  or  agent  of  the 
corporation,  capable  of  becoming  its 
creditor,  may  enforce  the  liability  of 
creditors  notwithstanding  his  relation 
to  the  corporation.  Hall  v.  Klinck, 
25  S.  C.  348,  60  Am.  R.  505. 

4Claflin  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  8 
Fed.  R.  (4  Hughes  12)  118.  A  stock- 
holder, and  even  a  director,  may  be- 
come a  creditor  of  a  corporation  in 
absence  of  fraud.  Borland  v.  Haven, 
(C.  C.  N.  D.  Cal.),  37  Fed.  Rep.  394. 

5  Manufacturers'  Sav.  Bank  v.  Big 
Muddy  Iron  Co.,  97  Mo.  38;  Port  r. 
Russell,  36  Ind.  60;  Wayne  Pike  Co. 
v.  Hammons,  129  Ind.  368. 


§  277  DIRECTORS.  381 

ing  public  policy.1  Such  cases  belong  to  the  class  which  equity 
writers  characterize  as  cases  of  constructive  fraud. 

§  277.   Directors — Termination  of  fiduciary  relations. — The 

fiduciary  relation  may,  of  course,  be  terminated  by  resignation, 
removal  from  office,  or  the  like.  It  may  also  be  terminated  by 
operation  of  law.  So,  too,  conditions  may  so  change  as  to 
sever  the  relation  and  leave  the  director  as  free  to  act  as  if  the 
relation  had  never  existed.2 

§  278.  Directors — Liability  of — Generally. — In  considering 
the  personal  liability  of  directors,  it  is  important  to  keep  in 
mind  the  distinction,  heretofore  mentioned,  between  the  duties 
of  the  directors  to  the  corporation  and  its  share  holders,  and 
their  duties  to  third  persons.8  As  to  the  corporation  they  are, 
as  we  have  said,  trustees,  but  as  to  third  persons  they  are  not 
trustees,  simply  because  of  their  official  relation  to  the  corpo- 
ration and  its  stockholders,  although  they  may  doubtless  be- 
come such  in  particular  instances.4  Where  there  is  a  breach 
of  duty  in  the  discharge  of  duties  owing  to  the  corporation 
there  is  a  breach  of  trust,  but  as  to  third  persons  a  breach  of 
duty  is  not  always  a  breach  of  trust.  From  the  doctrine  that 
there  is  an  essential  difference  between  the  duty  to  the  corpora- 
tion and  the  duty  to  third  persons,  consequences  of  import- 
ance result.  It  is  obvious  that  there  may  be  a  liability  to  the 

HJnion  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Durant,  1  Cent,  a  stockholder,  who  was  a  director  and 
L.  J.  581 ;  Pacific  R.  Co.  v.  Seely,  45  the  treasurer  of  the  corporation,  is  no 
Mo.  212 ;  Bestor  v.  Wathen,  60  111.  138.  longer  a  trustee  or  in  any  fiduciary  re- 
It  is  the  duty  of  a  director  to  manage  lation  to  the  corporation,  which  will 
the  corporate  business  for  the  profit  prevent  him  from  taking  an  assign- 
of  the  stockholders,  and  he  can  not  so  ment  to  himself  of  corporate  debts, 
deal  with  its  property  as  to  make  which  he  has  paid  personally,  and 
profit  for  himself.  Schetter  v.  South-  participating  with  the  other  creditors 
ern  Oregon  Co.,  19  Ore.  192, 24  Pac.  25 ;  in  the  distribution  of  the  fund.  Ham- 
Pearson  v.  Concord  R.  Corp.,  62  N.  H.  mond's  Appeal,  123  Pa.  St.  503. 
537,  13  Am.  St.  R.  590;  Hart  v.  Brock-  *  Ante,  §273;  Briggs  v.  Spaulding, 
way,  57  Mich.  189,  23  N.  W.  725.  141  U.  S.  132,  s.  c.  11  Sup.  Ct.  R.  924. 

2  The  entire  plant  and  assets  of  a  cor-  4  Wilkinson  v.    Bauerle,   41    N.  J. 

poration,  having  been  sold  under  an  Eq.  635 ;  See  Loverin  v.  McLaughlin, 

assignment  for  the  benefit  of  creditors,  (111.)  44  N.  E.  99. 


382  THE    CORPORATION.  §  278 

corporation  or  stockholders,  where  tl^ere  would  be  none  to  third 
persons,  and  that  the  evidence  required  in  the  one  class  of 
cases  is  very  different  from  that  required  in  the  other  class. 
So,  too,  the  duty  in  the  one  class  of  cases  is  stricter  than  in  the 
other,  and  the  obligation  to  exercise  good  faith  much  higher. 
Some  of  the  cases  discriminate  between  officers  to  whom  com- 
pensation is  paid,  and  those  who  receive  no  pay  for  their  serv- 
ices,1 but  where  persons  undertake  to  serve  a  business  corpo- 
ration, such  as  a  railway  company,  it  seems  to  us  they  are 
under  an  obligation  to  the  corporation  and  stockholders,  to 
exercise  at  least  ordinary  care  and  diligence,  whether  their 
services  are  or  are  not  paid  for  by  the  corporation.  It  is  no 
doubt  true  that  in  determining  whether  ordinary  care  and  dili- 
gence has  been  exercised,  it  is  proper  to  consider  the  time  and 
attention  that  directors  are,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  par- 
ticular case,  bound  to  give  the  corporate  affairs,  but  this  does 
not  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  directors  may  be  guilty  of 
negligence,  and,  nevertheless,  be  exonerated  from  liability,  for 
the  failure  to  exercise  ordinary  care  and  diligence  is  negli- 
gence. Whether  ordinary  care  and  diligence  has  been  exer- 
cised must  usually,  but  not  always,  be  a  question  of  fact  to  be 
determined  by  the  jury,  under  the  instructions  of  the  court.8 

1  Austin  v.  Daniels,  4  Denio  299 ;  an  essential  difference  between  cases 
Commercial  Bank  v.  Ten  Eyck,  48  N.  where  persons  serve  as  directors  of 
Y.  305;  East  New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  a  charitable  corporation  and  cases 
Elmore,  5  Hun  214 ;  Pangborn  v.  Citi-  where  they  assume  the  duties  of  di- 
^ens',  etc.,  Assn.,  35  N.  J.  Eq.  341 ;  rectors  of  a  business  corporation.  In 
First  National  Bank  v.  Reed,  36  Mich,  accepting  the  position  of  director  of  a 
263 ;  Beach  on  Railways,  §  486 ;  Taylor  -business  corporation  men  do  so  know- 
on  Corporations  (3d  ed.),  §  6?8.  ing  that  corporate  affairs  require  time 

8Spering's  Appeal,  71  Pa.  St.  11,  s.  and-  attention  as  well  as  the  exercise 

c.  10  Am.  R.  684;  Hun  ».  Gary,  82  N.  of  reasonable  business  care  and  dili- 

Y.  65,  s.  c.  37  Am.  R.  546,  citing  Scott  gence,  and  they,  therefore,  impliedly, 

v.  De  Peyster,  1  Edw.  Ch.  513,  543;  at  least,  undertake  to  exercise  that 

Hodges  v.  New  England,  etc.,  Co.,  1  diligence  and  care.  In  regard  to  cor- 

R.  I.  312;  Liquidators,  etc.,  v.  Doug-  porate  affairs  as  well  as  in  all  other 

las,  22  Sess.  Cases  (2d  series)  (Scotch),  matters  the  question'of  negligence  or 

447,  s.  c.  32  Scotch  Jur.  212 ;  Charit-  no  negligence  must,  in  a  very  great 

able  Corporation  v.  Sutton,  2  Atk.  measure,  depend  upon  the  facts  of  the 

405;  Litchfield  v.  White,  7  N.  Y.  particular  case.  First  National  Bank 

438.  It  seems  to  us  that  there  is  v.  Ocean  NationaLBank,  60  N.  Y.  278, 


§  279  DIRECTORS.  383 

It  may  be  said,  by  the  way,  that  it  is  only  just  and  natural 
that  officers  who  are  paid  for  devoting  their  time  and  attention 
to  the  corporate  affairs,  should  be  held  to  a  higher  degree  of 
care  and  diligence,  than  those  who  serve  without  compensa- 
tion, or  those  who  undertake  to  give  only  a  part  of  their  time 
and  services  to  the  corporation,  but  this  does  not  authorize  the 
conclusion  that  any  corporate  officer,  whether  paid  or  not  paid 
for  his  services,  may  neglect  the  duties  he  has  assumed,  and 
yet  not  be  held  liable  for  the  consequences  of  his  negligence. 
The  effect  to  be  ascribed  to  the  fact  that  no  compensation  is 
paid  is  that  it  is  in  all  cases  an  important  factor  in  determin- 
ing whether  ordinary  diligence  was  exercised,  and  in  many 
cases  a  controlling  one. 

§  279.  Directors — Liability  in  matter  of  contract. —  Sub- 
stantially the  same  rules  that  apply  to  corporate  officers  and 
agents  generally,  respecting  personal  liability  in  matters  of  con- 
tract, govern  cases  where  a  personal  liability  is  sought  to  be 
imposed  upon  the  directors  of  a  railroad  company.  The 
familiar  general  rule  is  that  where  an  officer  or  agent  enters 
into  a  contract  for  the  corporation,  in  its  name  and  by  its 
authority,  his  principal  alone  is  bound  and  he  incurs  no  per- 
sonal liability.  If  the  agent  exceeds  his  authority  he  may 
incur  a  personal  liability.  So,  if  an  agent  executes  the  con- 
tract in  his  own  name  he  may  be  bound  to  the  person  with 
whom  he  contracts.1  The  general  doctrine  is  that  directors, 
so  long  as  they  act  within  the  scope  of  their  powers,  bind  the 
corporation  and  it  alone ;  yet  their  acts  done  in  excess  of  such 
powers  may  in  some  cases  bind  them  personally.8  As  we  have 
elsewhere  said,  directors  are  not  liable  for  the  consequences  of 
mistakes  which 'they  may  make,  however  gross,  so  long  as  they  act 
in  good  faith  and  with  reasonable  care,8  and  keep  within 

s.  c.  19  Am.  R.  181,  and  authorities  Land  Credit  Co.  v.  Lord  Fermoy,  L. 

cited.  R.  8  Eq.  7.     See,  also,  In  re  Interna- 

1  Vincent  v.  Chapman,  10  Gill  &  J.  tional  Contract  Co.,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  App. 
(Md.)   279;  Mott  v.  Hicks,  1  Cowen  525;  In  re  County  Palatine  Loan  and 
(N.  Y.)  513;  Johnson  v.  Gibson,  78  Discount  Co.,  L.  R.  9  Ch.  App.  691. 
Ind.  282.  3  As  where  they  are  misled  by  coun- 

2  Smith  v.  Poor,  3  Ware  (U.  S.)  148 ;  sel  whom  they  have  employed.     Sper- 


384 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  280 


the  scope  of  their  powers.1  It  is  often  said  that  the  directors  are 
liable  for  any  loss  resulting  from  their  acts  if  they  exceed  or 
abuse  their  powers ;  but  this  is,  perhaps,  rather  a  broad  state- 
ment of  the  rule  and  is  not  to  be  taken  without  some  qualifica- 
tion.2 

§280.  Directors  —  Errors  of  judgment. — Where  directors 
act  in  good  faith  and  with  reasonable  care  and  diligence,  not 
going  beyond  the  scope  of  their  authority,  they  are  not  per- 
sonally liable  for  losses  that  may  occur  although  they  may  not 
have  wisely  exercised  their  discretion  or  may  have  erred  in 
judgment.  They  are  required  to  act  in  good  faith  and  to  exer- 
cise reasonable  care  and  diligence,  but  their  duty  imposes 
upon  them  no  higher  or  greater  obligations.  Mistake  of  judg- 
ment or  bad  business  management  is  not  of  itself  sufficient 
to  create  a  personal  liability.3 

i  §  281 .   Directors  —  Liability  for  negligence. — We  have  else- 


ing's  Appeal,  71  Pa.  St.  11 ;  Van 
Dyck  v.  McQuade,  86  N.  Y.  38.  The 
measure  of  care  and  diligence  required 
of  the  directors  of  a  corporation  is 
generally  such  as  a  prudent  man  ex- 
ercises in  his  own  affairs,  but  must  be 
determined  in  each  case  in  view  of  all 
the  circumstances.  Horn  Silver  Min. 
Co.  v.  Ryan,  42  Minn.  196,  s.  c.  28  A.  & 
E.  Corp!  Gas.  657,  44  N.  W.  R.  56. 

1  Percy  v.  Millaudon,  8  Martin  N.  S. 
(La.)  68 ;  Hodges  r.  New  England  Co., 

3  R.  I.  9;  Dunn   v.   Kyle,  14  Bush. 
(Ky.)  134;  Vance  v.  Phcenix  Ins.  Co., 

4  Lea  (Tenn.)  385. 

2  National  Exchange  Bank  v.  Sibley, 
71  Ga.  726;  Cole  v.  Cassidy,  138  Mass. 
437 ;  Paddock  v.  Fletcher,"  42  Vt.  389 ; 
Morgan  v.  Skiddy,  62  N.  Y.  319.     Di- 
rectors who  vote  for  a  resolution  to 
illegally  issue  and  negotiate  notes  of 
the  corporation,  incur  a  personal  lia- 
bility to  the  corporation  where  such 
notes  come  into  the  hands  of  bonafide 
purchasers.      Metropolitan   Elev.   R. 


Co.  v.  Kneeland,  120  N.  Y.  134,  s.  c.  8 
L.  R.  A.  253.  Directors  of  a  company 
which  has  received  the  assets  of  an- 
other company  and  has  assumed  its 
debts,  who  misapply  the  assets  of  the 
old  company,  thereby  render  them- 
selves individually  liable  to  its  credi- 
tors. Nat.  Bank  of  Jefferson  v.  Texas 
Invest.  Co.,  74  Tex.  421,  s.  c.  12  S.  W. 
R.  101. 

3  Hun  v.  Cary,  82  N.  Y.  65,  s.  c.  37 
Am.  R.  546;  Excelsior,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Lacey,  63  N.  Y.  422;  Spering's  Ap- 
peal, 71  Pa.  St.  11,  s.  c.  10  Am.  R.  684 ; 
Overend  v.  Gurney,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  701 ; 
Overend  v.  Gibb,  L.  R.  5  H.  L.  480; 
Turquand  v.  Marshall,  L.  R.  4  Ch. 
376;  Vance  v.  Phoenix,  etc.,  Co.,  4 
Lea  (Tenn.)  385;  Godbold  v.  Branch 
Bank,  etc.,  11  Ala.  191,  s.  c.  46  Am. 
Dec.  211 ;  Citizens',  etc.,  Assn.  v. 
Coriell,  34  N.  J.  Eq.  383;  Charitable 
Corporation  r.  button,  2  Atk.  400; 
Percy  r.  Millaudon,  8  Mart.  N.  S. 
(La.)  68. 


§282 


DIRECTORS. 


385 


where  said  that  directors  are  bound  to  exercise  ordinary  or  rea- 
sonable care  and  diligence  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties;  that 
the  failure  to  do  so  is  negligence,  but  that  what  shall  be 
deemed  negligence  depends,  as  a  rule,  upon  the  facts  of  the 
particular  case.  At  this  place  our  purpose  is  to  direct  attention 
to  some  of  the  cases  enforcing  and  applying  the  doctrines  stated. 
A  director  is  personally  liable  for  any  acts  of  the  board  of 
which  he  is  a  member  constituting  culpable  negligence,1  or 
amounting  to  a  fraudulent  breach  of  trust,2  unless  he  can  show 
that  he  sought  to  prevent  such  action,  if  present  when  the  ac- 
tion was  taken,8  or  that  he  labored  to  avert  its  injurious  conse- 
quences after  it  came  to  his  knowledge.4 

§  282.  Directors — Fraud  on  third  persons. — Directors  who 
make  false  and  fraudulent  representations  of  fact,  thereby  caus- 
ing loss  to  innocent  third  persons  who  act  upon  the  faith  of  the 
truth  of  the  representations,  are  personally  liable  to  such  per- 
sons.8 It  is  essential  to  a  recovery  in  such  cases  that  it  be 


1  Beal  77.  Osborne,  72  Cal.  305 ;  Myer 
v.  Caperton,  87  Ky.  306;  Cady  v. 
Sanford,  53  Vt.  632;  Spering's  Ap- 
peal, 71  Pa.  St.  11.  Directors  of  a  cor- 
poration are  personally  liable  for  per- 
mitting the  corporate  funds  or  prop- 
erty to  be  wasted  or  lost  by  inexcus- 
able negligence  or  inattention  to  the 
duties  they  assume  in  accepting  the 
office  of  director.  Horn  Silver  Min. 
Co.  v.  Ryan,  42  Minn.  196,  28  Am.  & 
Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  657,  44  N.  W.  56. 

2Sims«.  Street  R.  Co.,  37  Ohio  St. 
556 ;  Colquitt  v.  Howard,  11  Ga.  556 ; 
Smith  v.  Poor,  40  Me.  415;  Hazard  v. 
Durant,  11  R.  I.  195. 

3  Unless,    being    present     through 
only  part  of  the  session,  he  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  facts.     Land  Credit 
Co.  v.  Fermoy,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  763. 

4  Metropolitan  R.  Co.  v.  Kneeland, 
120  N.  Y.  134;    Black  v.  Delaware, 
etc.,   Canal    Co.,  22  N.  J.  Eq.     130, 

CORP.  25 


420;   Percy  v.  Millaudon,  3  La.  568; 
Shea  v.  Mabry,  1  Lea  (Tenn.)  319. 

5  Prescott  v.  Haughey,  65  Fed.  R. 
653.  In  the  case  cited,  Baker,  J.,  de- 
livered a  strong  and  well  reasoned 
opinion,  in  the  course  of  which  it  waa 
said:  "The  fraudulent  representa- 
tions charged  in  the  complaint,  if 
made  under  color  of  their  office,  were 
entirely  outside  of  the  official  duties 
of  the  directors.  Neither  the  law,  nor 
the  obligations  of  their  office  made  it 
any  part  of  their  duty  to  utter  and 
publish  false  and  fraudulent  state- 
ments and  reports  in  regard  to  the 
condition  of  the  bank.  The  tort  for 
which  they  are  sued  was  committed  in 
their  private  and  personal  capacity, 
because  the  law  does  not  confer  upon 
such  officers  any  authority  to  commit 
frauds  of  the  character  complained  of. 
These  directors  have  used  their  official 
position  to  enable  them  to  perpetrate 


386  THE    CORPORATION.  §  282 

proved  by  the  plaintiff  that  the  representations  were  false. 
But  it  is  held,  with  good  reason  and  upon  authority,  that 
it  is  not  necessary  that  the  plaintiff  should  show  that  the 
representations  were  made  with  intent  to  defraud.1  The  rep- 
resentations may  be  made  in  various  forms.  The  form  in 
which  they  are  made  is  not  regarded  as  material,  for  if  they 
were  made  and  did  result  in  defrauding  a  right-doing  third 
person  he  is  entitled  to  recover.  The  question  has  arisen  in 
many  forms;  thus,  where  the  directors  knowingly  issued  fraud- 
ulent stock  or  bonds,  they  were  held  to  be  individually  liable 
to  any  purchaser  or  subsequent  transferee  in  good  faith  and 
without  notice  of  the  fraudulent  character  of  the  stock  or 
bonds.8  So,  the  making  of  false  and  fraudulent  statements 
as  to  the  value  of  the  stock  or  condition  of  the  business 
of  the  corporation,  or  other  matters  peculiarly  within  their 
knowledge,8  will  render  the  directors  liable  to  the  parties 
to  whom  they  were  made  and  who  acted  upon  them  for  all 
damages  which  they  sustain  thereby.  Actionable  false  and 
fraudulent  representations  may  be  made  in  a  prospectus* 
or  report5  officially  issued,  and,  as  a  general  rule,  all  persons 

a  fraud  on  the  plaintiff  entirely  out-  is    rendered    less    valuable  thereby, 

side  of  the  legitimate  scope  of  their  Under  this  statute  it  was  held  that 

duties."    The  court  discriminated  be-  persons    receiving   shares    for  taxes 

tween  the  case  before  it  for  judgment  voted  and  paid  after  a  mortgage  for 

and  that  of  Bailey  v.  Mosher,  11  C.  C.  more  than  $16,000  per  mile  had  been 

A.  304,  s.  c.  63  Fed.  R.  488.  executed  and  recorded  could  not  re- 

1  Scale  v.  Baker,  70  Texas  283,  s.  c.  cover  against  the  directors  who  voted 

7  S.  W.  R.  742.  the  same.  Walker  v.  Birchard,  82  Iowa 

2Hornblower  v.   Crandall,   78  Mo.  388,  48  N.  W.  71. 

581 ;  Bruff  v.  Mali,  36  N.  Y.  200;  Na-  s  If  the  statements  be  as  to  matters 

tional  Exch.  Bank  v.  Sibley,  71  Ga.  of  law  and  mere  opinion,  the  directors 

726.     Acts  16th  Gen.  Assem.  Iowa,  c.  are  not  bound.   New  Brunswick,  etc., 

123,  §  6,  provides  that  if  'the  directors  R.  Co.  v.  Conybear,  9  H.  L.  Cas.  711 ; 

of  any  railroad  of  three-feet  gauge  re-  Rashdall  v.   Ford,  L.  R.  2  Eq.  750; 

ceiving  taxes  voted  in  aid  thereof  un-  Morgan  v.  Skiddy,  62  N.  Y.  319. 

der  the  act  shall  vote  to  mortgage  or  *  Morgan  v.   Skiddy,  62  N.  Y.  319; 

incumber    the    road  for   more    than  United  Society  v.  Underwood,  9  Bush. 

$16,000  per  mile,  they,  or  those  voting  (Ky.)  609. 

in  the  affirmative,  shall  be  liable  to  5  Salmon  v.  Richardson,  30  Conn, 

each  stockholder  in  an  amount  double  360 ;  Warren  v.  Para,  etc.,  Co.,  (Mass.) 

the  par  value  of  his  stock,  if  the  stock  44  N.  E.  R.  112. 


§282 


DIRECTORS. 


387 


into  whose  hands  such  prospectus  or  statement  may  come,  have 
a  right  to  rely  upon  them  and  to  hold  the  directors  personally 
responsible  for  losses  sustained  by  reason  of  acting  upon  a  be- 
lief in  their  truth.1  As  a  general  rule  only  those  directors  who 
participated  in  the  fraud  are  personally  liable,2  and  to  entitle 
a  plaintiff  to  recover,  such  participation  or  at  least  knowledge 
and  acquiescence  therein  must  be  proved,8  since  the  court  will 
not,  in  the  absence  of  evidence,  indulge  the  presumption  that 
a  director  knows  of  the  frauds  of  his  associates.  The  authori- 
ties are  numerous  upon  the  general  question  and  support  the 
general  statement  of  the  opening  sentence  of  this  section.*  In 
many  of  the  states  the  directors  are  by  statute  made  personally 
liable  for  corporate  debts  created  beyond  their  subscribed  capi- 
tal stock,5  and  are  also  made  liable  for  debts  in  case  they 
declare  and  pay  dividends  unlawfully.6  The  making  of  a 


1  Peek  v.  Gurney,  L.  R.  6.  H.  L.  377 ; 
Vreeland  v.  N.  J.  Stone  Co.,  29  N.  J. 
Eq.  188.  The  rule  stated  would  not 
apply  if  the  persons  into  whose  hands 
such  instruments  came  knew  that  the 
statements  were  not  true,  or  if  they 
were  guilty  of  such  negligence  as 
would,  under  the  ordinary  rules  of 
law,  prevent  a  recovery  for  a  loss 
caused  by  fraudulent  representations. 

8  Cargill  v.  Bower,  L.  K.  10  Ch.  Div. 
502. 

8  Arthur  v.  Griswold,  55  N.  Y.  400. 

*  United  Society  v.  Underwood,  9 
Bush.  609 ;  Graves  v.  Bank,  10  Bush. 
23;  Bartholomew  v.  Bentley,  15  Ohio 
659 ;  Cross  v.  Sackett,  6  Abb.  Pr.  R.  247 ; 
Cazeaux  v.  Mali,  25  Barb.  578;  Mor- 
gan v.  Skiddy,62  N.  Y:  319;  John- 
son v.  Gorlett,  3  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  569; 
Clarke  v.  Dickson,  6  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  452; 
Peek  t?.Derry,L.R.37  Ch.  Div.  541,585 ; 
Delano  v.  Case,  121  111.  247,  s.  c.  12  N. 
E.  R.  676;  Neall  v.  Hill,  16  Cal.  145; 
Marshall  v.  Bank,  85  Va.  676.  s.  c.  8 
S.  E.  R.  586;  Wallace  v.  Bank,  89 
Tenn.  630,  s.  c.  15  S.  W.  R.  448;  Sal- 


mon  v.  Richardson,  30  Conn.  360,  s.  c. 
79  Am.  Dec.  255;  Morawetz  on  Corp., 
§573;  Taylor  on  Corp.,  §616;  Cooley 
on  Torts  (2d  ed.),  578,  579.  See,  gen- 
erally, Clark  v.  Edgar,  84  Mo.  106,  s. 
c.54  Am. Rep.  84 ;  Nat.  Exchange  Bank 
v.  Sibley,  71  Ga.  726 ;  Peck  v.  Cooper, 
112  111.  192,  s.  c.  54  Am.  R.  231 ;  City 
of  Wyandottev.  Corrigan,  35  Kan.  21; 
Peek  v.  Gurney,  Law  R.  6  H.  L.  377. 

5Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8232; 
Cal.  Civ.  Code,  §  309,  making  directors 
of  corporations  individually  liable  for 
debts  created  beyond  their  subscribed 
capital  stock,  was  held  applicable  to 
all  the  subscribed  capital  stocks,  irre- 
spective of  the  mode  of  disposition, 
and  whether  paid  in  or  not.  But  the 
debts  referred  to  did  not  include  cap- 
ital stock  paid  for  corporate  property. 
Moore  v.  Lent,  81  Cal.  502,  22  Pac. 
875. 

6  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §§8161, 
8634.  Other  states  make  the  directors 
liable  to  a  penalty.  Stimson's  Am. 
Stat.  (1892),  §§  8161,  8634. 


388 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§282 


report  as  to  the  business  and  financial  condition  of  a  railroad 
corporation  which  is  false  in  any  material  representation  renders 
the  officers  signing  it  liable  for  all  debts  of  the  corportion  con- 
tracted while  they  are  such  officers  thereof  in  Arkansas,  Texas 
and  Nevada ;  and  renders  them  liable  to  a  penalty  in  Michi- 
gan ;  and  making  such  a  report  is  a  misdemeanor  in  Nevada  and 
Minnesota.1 


1  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.  (1892),  §  8544. 
See  Mies  v.  Dodge,  70  Ind.  147 ;  State 
v.  Cox,  88  Ind.  254.  Fairbanks,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Macleod,  (Colo.)  45Pac.  R.  282; 
Lehman  v.  Knapp,  (La.)  20  So.  R.  674. 
See,  generally,  Stone  v.  Kellogg,  62  111. 
App.  444;  Rose  v.  Eclipse,  etc.,  Co., 
60  Mo.  App.  28;  Greenville,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Reis,  (Ohio)  44  N.  E.  R.  271 ;  Solo- 


mon v.  Bates,  (N.  C.)  24  S.  E.  R.  478. 
Rights  of  directors  under  statutes  pre- 
ferring claims  of  laborers.  Consoli- 
dated, etc.,  Co.  v.  Keystone,  etc.,  Co., 
(N.tf.)  35  Atl.  R.  157"  As  to  who  are 
proper  parties  where  the  right  to  the 
office  of  director  is  involved,  see,  Du- 
senbury  v.  Looker,  (Mich.)  67  N.  W. 
R.  986. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  MINISTERIAL  OFFICERS  AND  AGENTS. 


§283.   President— Generally.  §293. 

284.  President — Incidental  powers 

of.  294. 

285.  President— Implied  powers. 

286.  President— P  o  w  e  r  s    implied        295. 

from  grant  of  authority  by        296. 
the  board  of  directors.  297. 

287.  President — Influence  of  usage.        298. 

288.  President — Apparent  authori- 

ty. 299. 

289.  President— Ratification  of  un-        300. 

authorized  acts. 

290.  President — Dealings  with  cor- 

poration. 301. 

291.  President — Relation  to  share- 

holders. 302. 

292.  Treasurer— Generally.  303. 


Treasurer — D  u  t  i  e  s — Liabili- 
ties. 

Treasurer — Care  of  corporate 
funds. 

Secretary. 

Managing  agents. 

Superintendent. 

Superintendent — General  con- 
clusion. 

Intermediate  agents. 

Intermediate  agents  —  Agent 
for  one  purpose  not  for  an- 
other. 

Intermediate  agents  and  serv- 
ants distinguished. 

Conductors. 

Station  agents. 


§  283.  President — Generally. — Railroad  companies  are  gen- 
erally required  to  elect  a  president,1  who  is,  ordinarily,  the 
chief  executive  officer  of  the  company.8  It  can  hardly  be  said 
that  the  powers  and  duties  of  a  president  of  a  railway  com- 
pany are  prescribed  and  defined  by  the  general  principles  of 
law,  for,  as  a  rule,  recourse  must  be  had  to  the  act  of  incorpora- 


1  The  president  must  be  chosen  by  the 
body  to  which  the  act  of  incorporation 
grants  the  right  to  elect.     An  election 
by  the  stockholders,  where  the  char- 
ter requires  the  board  of  directors  to 
elect,  is  a  nullity.    Walsenburg,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Moore,  5  Colo.  App.  144, 38  Pac. 
R.  60. 

2  Provision  is  often  made  for  the 
election  of  a  vice-president,  but,  as  a 


rule,  he  only  acts  in  the  absence  of 
the  president,  although  active,  inde- 
pendent duties  may  be  required  of 
him,  if  the  company  so  desires,  and 
no  provision  of  the  charter  for- 
bids. Colman  v.  West  Virginia,  etc., 
Co.,  25  W.  Va.  148;  Chicago,  etc., 
Co.  u.  James,  22  Wis.  194;  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  Co.  v.  James,  24  Wis. 
388;  Richards  v.  Osceola,  79  Iowa  707. 


(389) 


390  THE    CORPORATION.  §  283 

tion  or  to  the  corporate  by-laws  to  ascertain  what  these  powers 
and  duties  are.  Some  of  the  cases  hold  that  he  has  no  greater 
powers  by  virtue  of  his  office  than  any  other  director  except 
that  he  is  the  presiding  officer  at  the  meetings  of  the  board  of 
directors.1  It  seems  to  us,  however,  that  the  powers  of  the 
president  are  greater  and  more  comprehensive  than  those  of  an 
individual  director  for  he  may  act  for  the  company  in  ordinary 
business  affairs  and  this  an  individual  director  can  not  do  ;  but 
the  president  can  not,  of  course,  effectively  exercise  powers 
which  belong  to  the  board  of  directors.  We  think  it  may  be 
safely  said  that  in  ordinary  routine  business  matters  the  presi- 
dent may  act  for  the  company  unless  his  powers  are  so  circum- 
scribed and  limited  by  the  act  of  incorporation  or  the  corpo- 
rate by-laws  as  to  exclude  the  operation  of  the  general  rules 
of  law.  We  know  that  the  authorities  are  in  conflict  upon 
this  question,  but  we  believe  that  the  trend  of  modern  author- 
ity is  strongly  in  favor  of  the  conclusion  we  have  stated. 
Some  of  the  decisions  contain  loose  general  statements  that  can 
not  justly  be  regarded  as  authoritative,  but  must  be  taken  to 
be  mere  dicta.  There  is,  however,  a  sharp  conflict  which  it  is 
not  possible  to  reconcile.2  While  the  president  may,  as  we 

1  Dabney  v.  Stevens,  10  Abb.  Pr.  Oakes  v .  Cattaragus,  etc.,  Co.,  143 

(N.  S.1  39;  Adriance  v.  Roome,  52  N.  Y.  430,  s.  c.  26  L.  R.  A.  544; 

Barb.  399 ;  Risley  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Thomas  ».City,  etc.,  Bank,  40  Neb.  501, 

1  Hun.  202.  See,  generally,  Chicago,  s.  c.  24  L.  R.  A.  263;  Los  Angeles,  etc., 

etc.,  Co.  v.  James,  22  Wis.  194 ;  Hodges  Co.  v.  City  of  Los  Angeles,  106  Cal.  156, 

v.  Rutland,  etc.,  29  Vt.  220;  Bacon  v.  s.  c.  39  Pac.  R.  535;  Hawley  v.  Gray 

Mississippi,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Miss.  116;  Bros.,  etc.,  Co.,  106  Cal.  337,  s.c.  39  Pac. 

Templen  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  73  Iowa  R.  609 ;  Gray  a.Waldron,  101  Mich.  612 

548,  s.  c.  34  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  107.  s.  c.  60  N.  W.  R.  288.  Contra,  Lyn- 

z  Sustaining  the  doctrine  of  the  text,  don,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lyndon,  etc.,  Inst., 

Sherman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Swigart,  43  Kan.  63  Vt.  581,  s.  c.  25  Am.  St.  R.  783 ;  Wait 

292,  s.  c.  19  Am.  St.  R.  137;  Mitchell  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  Association,  (N.  H.) 

v.  Deeds,  49  111.  416,  s.  c.  95  Am.  23  Atl.  R.  77,  34  Cent.  L.  J.  119, 

Dec.  621;  Washburn  v.  Nashville,  14  L.  R.  A.  356;  Mount  Sterling,  etc., 

etc.,  Co.,  3  Head.  638,  s.  c.  75  Am.  Co.  v.  Looney,  1  Mete.  (Ky.)  550,  s.c. 

Dec.  784;  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Cole-  71  Am.  Dec.  491;  Brooklyn,  etc.,  Co. 

man,  18  111.  297,  s.c.  68  Am.  Dec. 544;  v.  Slaughter,  33  Ind.  185.  A  valuable 

Blen  v.  Bear  River,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Cal.  article,  rich  in  authonty,  by  Judge 

602;  Ceeder  v.  Loud,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Seymour  D.  Thompson,  in  39  Cent.  L. 

Mich.  541,  s.  c.  24  Am.  St.  R.  134;  J.  200,  presents  both  sides  of  the 


§  284    EXECUTIVE    AND   MINISTERIAL   OFFICERS  AND  AGENTS.    391 

believe,  act  for  the  corporation  in  ordinary  matters  of  routine 
business  he  is  not  the  corporation.1  He  can  not  perform  the 
duties  of  the  board  of  directors,  nor  can  he  perform  those  con- 
ferred upon  other  corporate  officers  by  the  act  of  incorporation 
or  the  by-laws,  neither  can  he  effectively  perform  acts  outside 
of  the  ordinary  business  affairs  or  transactions  of  the  com- 
pany.8 

§  284.  President  —  Incidental  powers  of. — As  indicated  in 
the  preceding  section  our  opinion  is  that  the  president  of  a 
railroad  company  possesses  incidental  powers  of  considerable 
scope  in  all  cases,  except,  perhaps,  in  those  where  the  act  of  in- 
corporation or  the  by-laws  so  clearly  and  fully  prescribe  and 
define  his  powers  as  to  exclude  all  implied  power.  The  rule 
applied  to  charitable  corporations  can  not,  it  seems  to  us,  be 
applied  to  railway  companies,  so  that  the  cases  laying  down 
the  law  as  to  the  powers  of  the  president  of  educational, 
literary,  benevolent  corporations,  or  the  like,  ought  not  to  be 
unqualifiedly  accepted  as  authoritatively  declaring  the  law 
applicable  to  the  presidents  of  railroad  companies.  Judges 
know  ex  officio  that  in  the  conduct  and  management  of  railway 
companies  there  are  matters  requiring  daily  attention  and  that 
of  those  matters  disposition  must  be  made  promptly  and 
effectively  without  calling  together  the  board  of  directors  for 
formal  action.  So,  too,  it  is  a  matter  of  judicial  knowledge 
that  railroad  companies  are  often  consolidated,  that  interests 
of  great  magnitude  are  combined,  that  many  miles  of  railroad  are 
placed  under  one  management,  and  that  directors  often 
reside  far  apart  and  far  distant  from  the  principal  office.  In 

question  very  fully.  Copious  notes  72  Me.  167;  Risley  v.  Indianapolis, 

will  be  found  in  Wait  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  etc., Co.,  1  Hun  202 ;  Walworth  County 

Assn.,  14  L.  R.  A.  256,  and  in  Temp-  Bankt?.Farmers',etc.,Co.,14Wis.325; 

len  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  73  Iowa  548,  34  Crump  v.  United  States,  etc.,  Co.,  7 

Am.  &  Eng.  II.  Cas.  107.  Gratt.  352,  s.  c.  56  Am.  Dec.  116 ;  Bliss 

1Bi-Spool,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Acme,  etc.,  v.  Kaweah,  etc., 'Co.,  65  Cal.  502;  Leg- 
Co.,  153  Mass.  404.  gett  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  1  N.  J. 

zBlen/p.  Bear  River,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Eq.  541.  The  doctrine  is  carried  very 

Cal.  602;  Siebev.  Joshua,  etc.,  Co.,  86  far  in  the  case  of  Asher  v.  Sutton,  31 

Cal.  390;  Castle  v.  Belfast,  etc.,  Co.,  Kan.  286. 


392  THE    CORPORATION.  §  285 

view  of  these  considerations,  and  others  which  might  be  sug- 
gested, it  is  but  reasonable  and  natural  to  hold  that  in  many 
respects  the  powers  of  the  chief  executive  or  ministerial  officers 
of  a  railroad  company  are  more  comprehensive  than  those  of 
a  corporation  of  a  different  nature,  such  as  a  manufacturing, 
mining  or  banking  company,  although  in  other  repects,  as 
borrowing  the  money,  or  the  like,  they  are  not  so  comprehen- 
sive as  those  of  a  president  of  a  corporation  of  that  class.  It  is 
safe,  at  all  events,  to  affirm  that  the  president  of  a  railroad 
company  does  possess  implied  or  incidental  powers  and  that 
his  powers  extend  beyond  those  expressly  conferred  upon  him 
by  the  board  of  directors.  He  may  do  many  acts  without 
direct  or  express  authority  from  the  board  of  directors  of  the 
company. 

§  285.  President  —  Implied  powers. —  It  is  difficult  in  some 
cases  to  determine  what  powers  the  president  possesses  as  inci- 
dent to  the  office  bestowed  upon  him,  or  as  implied  from  the 
general  nature  of  the  authority  conferred  upon  him  by  the 
company.  A  contract  of  an  unusual  character,  as,  for  instance, 
a  contract  for  the  construction  of  the  road,  he  has  no  implied 
power  to  make,  since  that  is  a  contract  of  an  extraordinary  char- 
acter, at  least  it  is  one  beyond  the  range  of  ordinary  corporate 
business.1  He  can  not  rightfully  sell  all  the  personal  property 
of  the  corporation,  nor,  perhaps,  any  very  considerable  part  of 
it  unless  authorized  by  the  board  of  directors  ;8  but  we  venture 
to  affirm,  notwithstanding  some  decisions  to  the  contrary,  that 
he  may  sell  particular  articles  of  personal  property  without 
express  authority  from  the  board,  as,  for  example,  a  car  or  a 
locomotive.  The  president  does  not  merely  by  virtue  of  his 

1  Griffith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  etc.,  Co.,  14  Wis.  325 ;  Bliss  v.  Kaweah, 

Iowa  85;  Templin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  etc.,  Co.,  65  Cal.'  502;  Fulton  Bank  v. 

Co.,  73  Iowa  548;  Risley  v.  Indianap-  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Paige  127.  As 

olis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Hun  202;  Central,  suggested  in  the  preceding  section,  we 

etc.,  Co.  v.  Condon,  67  Fed.  R.  84.  are  inclined  to  think  that  cases  such 

See  Fitzgerald  v.  Fitzgerald,  etc.,  Co.,  as  those  cited  in  this  note  can  not  ap- 

41  Neb.  374,  s.  c.  62  N.  W.  R.  899.  ply  with  full  force  to  railroad  com- 

*  WalworthCounty  Bank  v.  Farmers',  panies. 


§  285    EXECUTIVE    AND  MINISTERIAL  OFFICERS    AND   AGENTS.    393 

office  possess  authority  to  dispose  of  all  of  the  assets  of  the 
company  for  such  an  act  is  one  beyond  the  scope  of  his 
authority.1  Some  of  the  cases  assert  that  the  president  can 
not  purchase  property  for  the  corporation,2  but  we  think  that 
he  may  within  reasonable  limits  purchase  property  required 
for  use  in  the  ordinary  course  of  the  corporate  business,  but 
that  the  authority  to  purchase  is  a  limited  one.  The  presi- 
dent, under  ordinary  circumstances,  has  no  implied  power  to 
release  parties  from  liability  to  the  corporation.8  Authority  to 
mortgage  the  corporate  property  can  not  be  implied,  but  must 
be  conferred  by  the  board  of  directors  or  by  that  branch  of 
the  corporate  government  in  which  power  to  authorize  the 
execution  of  mortgages  is  lodged.*  Unless  otherwise  provided, 
in  the  act  of  incorporation  or  by-laws,  the  president  of  a 
railroad  company  has  a  general  supervision  and  authority 
over  the  subject  of  employing  and  discharging  corporate 
agents  and  servants.5  There  is  a  conflict  of  authority  upon  the 
question  as  to  whether  he  has  the  power  to  commence  an  action 
on  behalf  of  the  company;6  but,  for  our  part,  we  can  see  no 
sufficient  reason  why  he  may  not  do  so  in  ordinary  cases.  He 
may  employ  counsel  to  defend  an  action  or  suit  against  the 
company.  He  has  no  implied  power  to  bind  the  company  by 

1  Titus  v.  Cairo,  etc.,  Co.,  37  N.  J.        6Eecamier,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Seymour,  5 

Law    98,   102.      See    McCullough  v.  N.  Y.   Supp.  648;   Colman  v.    West 

Moss,  5  Denio  567.  Virginia,  etc.,  Co.,   25  W.  Va.  148; 

s  Bliss  v.  Kaweah,  etc.,  Co.,  65  Cal.  Bright  v.  Metairie,  etc.,  Assn.,  33  La. 

502.  Ann.  58;  Eeno,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Leete,  17 

8Eisley  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Nev.  203;  Davis  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  E. 

Hun  202;  Soper  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  Co.,  Co.,  22  Fed.   E.  883;  American,  etc., 

19  Barb.  310;  Miller  v.  Eutland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Oakley,  9  Paige  496,  s.  c.  38 

Co.,  36  Vt.  452.  Am.  Den.  561 ;  Wetherbee  v.  Fitch, 

4  Luse  v.  Isthmus,  etc.,E.  Co.,  6  Ore.  117  111.  67 ;  Oakley  v.  Workingmen's, 

125;  England  v.  Dearborn,  141  Mass,  etc.,  Soc.,  2  Hilt.  (N.  Y.)  487;  Potter 

590.    See,  generally,   Davis  v.   Eock  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Hun  367. 

Creek,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Cal.  359,  s.  c.  36  Ashuelot,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marsh,  1  Cush. 

Am.  E.  40 ;  Alta,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Alia,  Min-  507 ;  Globe  Works  v.  Wright,  106  Mass, 

ing  Co.,  78  Cal.  629;  Jesup  v.  City  207;   White  v.  Westport,  etc.,  Co.,  1 

Bank,  14  Wis.  331.  Pick.  215,  s.  c.  11  Am.  Dec.  168 ;  Bailey 

6  Arrapahoe,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stevens,  13  t>.  Snyder,  61  111.  App.  472. 
Col.  534. 


394 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  286 


consenting  to  the  appointment  of  a  receiver,1  nor  has  he  power 
to  make  an  assignment  of  the  corporate  assets  for  the  benefit 
of  creditors.2 

§  286.  President  —  Powers  implied  from  grant  of  authority 
toy  the  board  of  directors. — It  seems  proper,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent a  possible  misunderstanding,  that  we  should  say,  by  way 
of  explanation,  that  in  discussing  the  incidental  and  implied 
powers  of  the  president  we  have  had  reference  only  to  the 
powers  incident  to  the  office  bestowed  upon  him,  and  to  those 
implied  from  the  nature  of  the  office  itself.  The  board  of 
directors  may  materially  extend  the  powers  of  the  president 
and  invest  him  with  authority  much  beyond  that  inherent  in 
the  office  of  president.8  Where  the  directors  rightfully  invest 
the  president  with  a  principal  power  he  takes  it  with  all  the 
incidental  powers  essential  to  a  proper  exercise  of  the  princi- 
pal power  conferred  upon  him.* 


1  Walters  v.  Anglo-Saxon,  etc.,  Co., 
50  Fed.  R.  316. 

2Ashera.  Sutton,  31  Kan.  286;  Gib- 
son v.  Goldthwaite,  7  Ala.  281,  s.  c.  42 
Am.  Dec.  592;  Hallowell,  etc.,  Bank 
•»,  Hamlin,  14  Mass.  178;  Luse  v.  Isth- 
mus, etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Ore.l25,s.c.  25  Am. 
R.  506.  He  may  be  authorized  by  the 
governing  board  to  make  an  assign- 
ment. Vanderpoel  v.  Gorman,  140  N. 
Y.  563,  s.  c.  24  L.  R.  A.  548.  For 
cases  declaring  and  enforcing  the  gen- 
eral doctrine  as  to  the  implied  powers 
of  a  president  of  a  corporation,'  see, 
Smith  v.  Smith,  62  111.  493;  Bank  of 
Healdsburg  v.  Bailhache,  65  Cal.  327 ; 
Rhodes  v.  Webb,  24  Minn.  292; 
Northern  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bas- 
tian,  15  Md.  494;  Indianapolis,  etc., 
Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Fed.  R. 
140;  Duncomb  v.  New  York,  etc., 
Co.,  88  N.  Y.  1,  s.  c.  13  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Gas.  84;  Stow  v.  Wyse,  7  Conn. 
214,  s.  c.  18  Am.  Dec.  99 ;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  James,  24  Wis.  388;  Greig  v. 
Riordan,  99  Cal.  316,  s.  c.  33  Pac.  R. 


913;  Nichols  v.  Scranton,  etc.,  Co., 
137  N.  Y.  471,  s.  c.  33  N.  E.  R.  561 ; 
Oakes  v.  Cattaraugus,  etc.,  Co.,  143 
N.  Y.  430,  s.  c.  38  N.  E.  R.  461; 
Crowly  v.  Genesee,  etc.,  Co.  55  Cal. 
273;  Jourdan  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co., 
115  N.  Y.  380,  s.  c.  22  N.  E.  R.  153 ; 
Sherman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Swigart,  43  Kan. 
292,  s.  c.  2  Lewis  Am.  R.  R.  &  Corp. 
Rep.  158. 

8  Smith  v.  Smith,  62  111.  493,  496; 
Seeley  v.  San  Jose,  etc.,  Co.,  59  Cal. 
22;  Lee  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  56 
How.  Pr.  373 ;  Castle  ».  Belfast,  etc., 
Co.,  72  Me.  167;  Mitchell  v.  Deeds,  49 
111.  416,  s.  c.  95  Am.  Dec.  621 ;  Lucky, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Abraham,  26  Ore.  282,  s. 
c.  38  Pac.  R.  65 ;  Hawly  v.  Gray  Bros., 
etc.,  Co.,  103  Cal.  337,  39  Pac.  R.  609; 
State  v.  Heckart,  62  Mo.  App.  427. 

4  Baker  v.  Cotter,  45  Me.  236;  How- 
land  v.  Myer,  3  N.  Y.  290;  Hatch  v. 
Coddington,  95  U.  S.  48;  Irwin  v. 
Bailey,  8  Biss.  523.  But  the  implied 
power  is  only  such  as  is  necessary  to 
effectuate  the  principal  power.  Sec- 


§  287    EXECUTIVE    AND   MINISTERIAL  OFFICERS    AND  AGENTS.    395 

§  287.  President — Influence  of  usage. — The  usage  of  a  rail- 
way company  is  an  important  factor  in  determining  the 
power  of  its  president.  The  president  may  often  be  invested 
with  authority  by  corporate  usage.  It  is  not  possible  to  lay 
down  any  definite  rules  upon  this  subject,  but  it  may  be  safely 
said  that  long  continued  usage  may  confer  authority  upon  the 
president  much  greater  than  that  inherent  in  his  office  and 
essentially  greater  than  that  expressly  conferred  upon  him  by 
the  board  of  directors  or  the  stockholders  of  the  corporation.1 

§  288.  President — Apparent  authority. — The  authority  with 
which  the  corporation  ostensibly  invests  its  president  is  as  to 
persons  dealing  in  good  faith  and  without  notice  of  his  actual 
authority,  the  authority  which  he  possesses;  but  it  is  not  his 
authority  in  cases  where  the  person  dealing  with  him  has 
notice  of  his  acutal  authority.2  The  question  in  such  cases  is  as 
to  the  ostensible  authority  with  which  the  president  has  been 
invested,  not  as  to  the  authority  actually  conferred  upon  him.  In 
most  cases  the  question  as  to  whether  the  president  has  been 
clothed  with  authority  to  perform  the  act  upon  which  the  claims 
of  corporate  liability  is  based  is  one  of  fact.  Where  the  person 
dealing  with  the  president  has  notice  that  the  president  is  act- 
ing for  himself,  or  knows  that  the  business  he  is  engaged  in 
is  not  corporate  business,  the  corporation  is  not  bound.3 

ond,   etc.,  R.  Co.   v.    Mehrbach,    17  Ct.    R.    428;    Western,   etc.,   Co.    v. 

Jones  &  S.  267.  Bayne,  11  Hun  166. 

1  Minor  v.  Mechanics'  Bank,  1  Pet.  2The  rule  upon  this  subject  is  sub- 

46;   Mount  Sterling,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  stantially  the  same  whether  the  agent 

Looney,  1  Metcf.  (Ky.)  550;  Northern  of  the  corporation  be  the  president  or 

Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Bastian,  15  Md.  494;  some  other  agent.     Manhattan,  etc., 

Walker  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Mich.  Co.     v.   Forty-second,    etc.,  R.    Co., 

338;  Merchants',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Citi-  139  N.  Y.  146,  s.  c.  34  N.  E.  R.  776; 

zens',  etc.,  Co.,  159  Mass.  505,  s.  c.  34  Bank  of  Batavia  v.  New  York,  etc., 

N.  E.  R.  1083.    See,  generally,  Moyer  R.  Co.,  106  N.  Y.  195 ;  Fifth  Av.  Bank 

v.  East  Shore,  etc.,  Co.,  41  S.  C.  300,  v.  Forty-second,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  N. 

s.  c.,  25  L.  R.  A.  48,  19  S.  E.  R.  651 ;  Y.  231. 

Bell  v.  Hanover,  etc.,  Bank,  57  Fed.  s  Stone    v.    Hayes,    3    Denio    575; 

R.  821 ;    Mining  Co.  v.  Anglo  Cali-  Bentley  ».  Columbia,  etc.,  Co.,  17  N. 

fornian  Bank,  104  U.  S.  194;  Mar-  Y.  421 ;  Claflin  v.  Farmers'.etc.,  Bank, 

tin  v.  Webb,  110  U.  S.  7,  s.  c.  3  Sup.  25  N.  Y.  293;  Wilson  v.  Metropolitan, 


396  THE    CORPORATION.  §  289 

§289.   President  —  Ratification  of    unauthorized   acts. — 

The  acts  of  the  president,  like  those  of  any  other  agent, 
although  beyond  the  scope  of  his  authority,  may,  of  course, 
be  ratified  by  the  corporation.1  There  is,  it  is  barely  necessary 
to  suggest,  no  doubt  as  to  the  general  rule  that  unauthorized 
acts  may  be  ratified,  but  it  is  not  always  easy  to  say  what  will 
be  deemed  a  ratification.2  Acts  clearly  and  entirely  beyond  the 
corporate  power  can  not  be  ratified. 

§  290.  President — Dealings  with  corporation. — Essentially 
the  same  rules  apply  to  transactions  by  the  president  with  the 
corporation  as  those  which  govern  transactions  between  the  cor- 
poration and  the  directors.  The  president  acts  in  a  fiduciary 
capacity,  and  is  bound  to  exercise  the  utmost  good  faith  in 
dealing  with  the  corporation.  He  may  deal  with  it,  but  his 
course  must  be  open,  honest  and  fair  or  else  the  courts  will  set 
the  transaction  aside  or  hold  him  responsible  in  damages  at  the 
suit  of  one  having  a  right  to  invoke  judicial  assistance.8 

§  291.  President — Relation  to  shareholders. — In  our  judg- 
ment the  president  is  a  trustee  for  the  shareholders,  although 
he  may  not  be  a  trustee  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term.4  He  un- 

etc.,  E.  Co.,  120  N.  Y.  145;  Moores  v.  2Jourdan  v.  Long  Island,  etc.,  R. 

Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,   111  U.   S.  156;  Co.,  115  N.  Y.380,  s.c.22N.  E.  R.  153; 

Farrington  v.  South   Boston  R.  Co.,  Gutta  Percha,  -etc.,  Co.    v.    Village 

150  Mass.  406;  Manhattan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  of  Ogalla,  40  .Neb.  775,  s.  c.  59  N.  W. 

Forty-second,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  N.  Y.  R.  513;  Alabama,  etc.,  Co.  v.  South, 

146,  151,  s.  c.  34  N.  E.  R.  776.  etc.,   R.    Co.,   84    Ala.  570,    s.    c.   5 

^Icott  v.  Tioga  R.  Co.,   27  N.  Y.  Am.    St.     R.    401;     Dorenbecker   v. 

546;  Pixley  v.  Western  Pac.  R.  Co.,  Columbia    C.  L.  Co.,   21  Oreg.   573; 

33  Cal.  183;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Currie  v.  Bowman,   25  Ore.  364,  35 

Woolley,  12  Bush.  (Ky.)  451;   South-  Pac.   R.   848;   Taylor  v.  Albermarle, 

gate  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61   Mo.  etc.,  Co.,  105  N.  C.  484,  s.  c.  10  S.  E. 

89.     When  the  president  of  a  corpora-  R.  897 ;  Chateau  v.  Allen,  70  Mo.  290. 

tion  executes,  in  its  behalf  and  within  8  Ante,  §  276 ;  Baker  v.  Harpster,  42 

the  scope  of   its  charter,  a  contract  Kans.  511 ;    Bensiek  v.  Thomas,   66 

which  requires  the  concurrence  of  the  Fed.  R.  104;  Krohnt?.  Williamson,  62 

board  of  directors,  and  the  board,  hav-  Fed.  R.  869;  Bristol  v.   Scran  ton,  63 

ing  full  knowledge  of  his  act,  does  not  Fed.  R.  218 ;  Bristol  v.  Scranton,  57 

dissent  within  a  reasonable  time, it  will  Fed.  R.  70,  and  cases  cited, 

be  presumed  to  have  ratified  the  con-  *  Board  v.  Reynolds,  44  Ind.  509. 
tract.    Pittsburgh,  C.  &  St.  L.  Co.  v. 
Keokuk  &  H.  B.  Co.,  131  U.  S.  371. 


§  292    EXECUTIVE   AND  MINISTERIAL  OFFICERS    AND   AGENTS.    397 

questionably  occupies  fiduciary  relations  to  the  stockholders  of 
the  corporation.  While  the  cases  generally  concede  that  a 
fiduciary  relation  exists  between  him  and  the  shareholders,  yet 
they  discriminate  between  the  relationship  and  that  of  one  who 
is  in  the  strict  sense  a  trustee.1  It  has  been  held  that  as  the 
powers  of  the  president  are  so  limited  the  same  person  may 
fill  the  office  of  president  of  two  distinct  corporations,  and  such 
identity  does  not  of  itself  invalidate  dealings  between  the  two 
corporations,2  but  we  suppose  that  this  doctrine  is  to  be  taken 
with  some  qualification,  for  no  officer  can  rightfully  accept  a 
position  that  requ  ires  of  him  acts  adverse  to  the  corporation  he 
represents. 

§292.  Treasurer — Generally. — The  treasurer  of  a  railway 
company  is,  as  a  rule,  the  officer  who  has  custody  of  its  funds, 
upon  whom  warrants  are  drawn,  and  by  whom  corporate  funds 
are  disbursed.  The  authority  of  the  treasurer  is  generally  pre- 
scribed by  the  charter  or  defined  by  the  corporate  by-laws.  He 
necessarily  possesses  some  incidental  authority,  but  it  is  narrow 
in  its  scope.  He  has  no  general  implied  power  to  purchase 
property  for  the  company,  nor  has  he  implied  power  to  sell 
corporate  property,  neither  has  he  implied  power  to  borrow 
money  on  the  credit  of  the  corporation.8  The  corporation  may 
enlarge  the  authority  of  the  treasurer  and  usage  may  so  extend 
the  scope  of  his  authority  as  to  carry  it  beyond  that  which  is 
inherent  in  the  office  itself.  By  continued  usage  the  powers 

1  Allen  v.  Curtis,  26  Conn.  456;  mislead  the  person  with  whom  he 
Smith  v.  Hurd,  12  Metcf .  (Mass.)  371 ;  deals  the  sale  will  be  valid.  If,  how- 
Carpenter  v.  Danforth,  52  Barb.  581.  ever,  there  is  a  positive  misrepresenta- 
See,  generally,Johnson  r.Laflin,5  Dill,  tion  the  transaction  will  be  voidable. 
65 ;  Deaderick  v.  Wilson,  8  Baxt.  108 ;  Fish  v.  Budlong,  10  R.  I.  525 ;  Prewett 
Gilbert's  Case,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  App.  559;  v.  Trimble,  92  Ky.  176,  s.  c.  17  S.  W. 
Heman  v.  Britton,  14  Mo.  App.  121 ;  R.  356. 

Crowell  v.  Jackson,  53  N.  J.  L.  656,  s.  2  Leathers  v.  Janney,  41  La.  Ann. 

c.23  Atl.  R.426;  Perry  v.  Pearson,  135  1120,  s.  c.  6  L.  R.  A.  661,  6  So.  R.884. 

111.  218,  s.  c.  25  N.  E.  R.636;  Scott  v.  'Craft  v.  South  Boston,   etc.,  Co., 

De  Pyster,  1  Edw.  Ch.  513.    Several  22  N.  E.  R.  920,  150  Mass.  207,  a.  c.  5 

of  the  cases  cited  hold  that  the  presi-  L.  R.  A.  641,  Chemical  National  Bank 

dent    may  buy  stock    of  the  share-  c.  Wagner,  93  Ky.  525,  s.  c.  20  S.  W. 

holder,  and  if  he  does   not  actually  R.  535. 


398  THE    CORPORATION.  §  292 

of  the  treasurer  may  be  enlarged,  and  he  may  bind  the  corpora- 
tion by  acts  performed  within  the  scope  of  the  agency  created 
or  sanctioned  by  usage.1  It  has  been  held  that  drafts  accepted 
by  the  treasurer  are  presumed  to  be  properly  accepted.2  The 
treasurer  unless  specially  authorized  or  unless  authorized  by 
usage  can  not  bind  a  railway  corporation  by  the  acceptance 
of  accommodation  drafts.  As  we  have  said,  the  treasurer  has 
no  general  authority  to  borrow  money  for  the  company,  and  it 
is  held  that  even  though  he  borrows  money,  which  is  used  for 
the  purposes  of  the  corporation,  the  lender  can  not  recover  it 
from  the  corporation,  where  it  appears  that  it  was  used  instead 
of  other  money  which  the  treasurer  had  embezzled,  and  that 
the  primary  object  in  borrowing  it  was  to  conceal  his  default.8 
There  is,  it  is  obvious,  an  essential  difference  between  the 
authority  of  the  .treasurer  of  a  trading  corporation  in  the  habit 
of  borrowing  money  for  corporate  use  and  the  treasurer  of  a 
railroad  company,  and  the  authority  of  the  treasurer  of  a  trad- 
ing corporation  in  this  respect  is  broader  and  less  limited  than 
that  of  a  railroad  company.4  The  treasurer  of  a  corporation 
has  no  power  as  such  to  confess  judgment  for  it,s  nor  as  a  rule 
can  he  conduct  litigation  for  the  corporation.  It  is  held,  however, 
that  he  has  authority  to  compromise  a  disputed  claim  which 
he  is  authorized  to  collect.6  While  the  general  rule  is  that 
the  treasurer,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  has  no  authority  to  conduct 
litigation  for  the  corporation,  yet  such  authority  may  be  im- 
plied in  particular  instances;  thus,  if  a  promissory  note  is 
placed  in  his  hands  for  collection  he  may  cause  suit  to  be 
brought  upon  it.7  Unless  the  authority  to  execute  accommoda- 

1  Lester  v.  Webb,  1  Allen  34 ;  Page  Mass.  207,  s  c.  5  L.  R.  A.  641,  22  N. 
v.  Fall  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Fed.  R.  E.  R.  920.   See  Merchants',  etc.,  Bank 
257;  Merchants'  Bank  v.  State  Bank,  v.  Citizens',  etc.,  Co.,  159  Mass.  505,  s. 
10  Wall.  604.  c.  34  N.  E.  R.  1083. 

2  Credit  Co.  v.  Howe,  etc.,  Co.,  54  5  Stevens  v.  Carp  River  Iron  Co.,  57 
Conn.  357,  s.  c.  1  Am.  St.  R.  123.  But  Mich.  427,  s.  c.  24  N.  W.  R.  160. 

we  suppose  that  this  presumption  is  at  6Gafford  v.  American,  etc.,  Co.,  77 

most  a  rebuttable  one.  Iowa  736,  42  N.  W.  R.  550. 

3  Craft  v.  South  Boston  R.  Co.,  150  'North    Brookfield,    etc.,    Bank  v. 
Mass.  207,  s.  c.  5  L.  R.  A.  641,  22  N.  Flanders,  161  Mass.  335,  s.  c.  37  N.  E. 
E.  R.  920.  R.  307. 

*  Grafts.  South  Boston  R.  Co.,  150 


§  293    EXECUTIVE    AND  MINISTERIAL  OFFICERS    AND  AGENTS.    399 

tion  paper  is  specially  conferred  upon  the  treasurer  or  is  vested 
in  him  by  usage  he  can  not  bind  the  corporation  by  the  execu- 
tion of  such  paper.1  General  authority  to  act  for  the  corpora- 
tion may,  if  not  forbidden  by  the  charter,  be  conferred  on  the 
treasurer,  and  where  such  authority  is  conferred  his  acts 
within  its  scope  will  bind  the  corporation.* 

§  293.  Treasurer — Duties — Liabilities. — The  treasurer,  it  is 
obvious,  occupies  a  fiduciary  relation  toward  the  corporation 
and  is  prohibited  from  making  use  of  his  position  to  further 
his  own  interests.  He  can  not  rightfully  do  any  act  adverse 
to  the  interests  of  the  company.  The  rule  stated  is 
applied  with  much  strictness  by  some  of  the  courts.  Thus,  it 
is  held  that  he  has  no  authority  to  pay  himself  a  claim  he 
holds  against  it,  unless  the  claim  has  been  approved  and  its  pay- 
ment authorized  by  the  corporation.8  The  authorities  recognize 
his  right  to  deal  with  the  corporation,  but  they  require  that  in 
all  his  dealings  with  the  corporation  he  shall  exercise  the 
utmost  good  faith. 

§  294.  Treasurer  —  Care  of  corporate  funds.  —  The  treas- 
urer is  bound  to  exercise  ordinary  care,  prudence  and  diligence 
in  protecting  and  preserving  the  corporate  funds  placed  in  his 
charge.  He  is  not  absolutely  responsible  for  the  loss  of  corpo- 
rate funds,  but  will  be  exonerated  if  it  appears  that  he  exercised 
reasonable  care,  prudence  and  diligence,*  and  if,  without  his 
fault  or  negligence  they  are  lost,  stolen  or  destroyed,  he  can 
not  be  held  accountable  ;5  but  the  loss  falls  upon  his  princi- 
pal. This  general  rule  applies  to  cases  where  the  money  is 
deposited  for  the  company  in  a  bank  which  the  treasurer  has 

1  Usher  v.  Raymond  Skate  Co.,  163  Ind.  368;  Aberdeen  R.  Co.  v.  Blakie, 

Mass.  1,  s.  c.  39  N.  E.  R.  416.  1  Macq.  461 ;  Peterborough  R.  Co.  v. 

8Parmelee  v.   Associated,    etc.,  11  Wood,  61  N.  H.  418. 

Misc.  363,  32  N.  Y.  S.  149.    In  Hotch-  'New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dixon, 

kiss,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Union,  etc.,  Bank,  68  114  N.  Y.  80;  Mowbray  v.  Antrim,  123 

Fed.  R.  76,  it  is  held  that  notice  to  the  Ind.  24. 

treasurer,    given    while    engaged    in  s  Mowbray  v.  Antrim,  123  Ind.  24, 

transacting  business  for  the  corpora-  28 ;  Wayne  Pike  Co.  v.  Haminons,  129 

tion,  is  notice  to  the  principal.  Ind.  368,  379. 

3  Wayne  Pike  Co.  v.  Haminons,  129 


400  THE    CORPORATION.  §  295 

reason  to  believe  is  sound,. but  which  subsequently  fails.  It 
has  been  held  that  where  a  railroad  company  was  notified  by 
its  treasurer  of  his  expected  absence,  with  a  request  that  remit- 
tances be  made  to  the  firm  of  which  he  was  a  member,  and  re- 
mittances were  made  accordingly  to  the  firm,  and  reports  to 
stockholders  made  that  funds  were  in  the  hands  of  such  firm 
as  "financial  agents, "the  act  of  the  treasurer  in  selecting  the 
place  of  deposit  was  ratified  and  he  was  absolved  from  liability 
in  that  regard  ;l  but  we  suppose  that  in  such  a  case  it  de- 
volves upon  the  treasurer  to  show  that  he  acted  with  reason- 
able prudence  and  in  good  faith. 

§  295.  Secretary. — The  secretary  of  a  railroad  company  has 
by  virtue  of  his  office  very  limited  powers  indeed,  so  far  as 
concerns  the  conduct  of  the  active  business  of  the  corporation. 
In  the  matter  of  making  contracts  he  has,  perhaps,  some  im- 
plied or  incidental  authority,  but  it  is  very  narrowly  circum- 
scribed. He  certainly  has  no  general  authority  to  make  con- 
tracts for  the  company,2  but  contracts  made  by  him  may  be  sc 
ratified  as  to  bind  the  company.*  He  has  no  authority  to  bind 
the  corporation  by  executing  evidences  of  indebtedness  ;*  nor, 
indeed,  by  any  ordinary  business  contracts.  He  may,  of 
course,  be  invested  by  the  board  of  directors  with  power  to 
contract,5  but  in  such  a  case  the  source  of  his  power  is  the 
action  of  the  board  and  not  the  office  of  secretary.  Where 
the  secretary  has  power  to  bind  the  company  and  he  acts  with- 
in the  scope  of  his  power,  the  same  general  rules  as  to  the 
effect  of  admissions  and  declarations  apply  that  prevail  in 
other  cases  of  agency.6 

1  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dixon,  s.  c.  37  Pac.  R.  638.     See,  generally, 

114  N.  Y.  80,  s.  c.  21  N.  E.  R.  110.  Merchants',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Hervey,  etc., 

2Blanding  v.  Davenport,  etc.,  Co.,  Co. ,45  La.  Ann.  1214,  s.  c.  14  So.  R. 

88  Iowa  225,  s.  c.  55  N.  W.  R.  81.  139;  Nebraska,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bell,  58 

8  Nebraska,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bell,  58  Fed.  Fed.  326,  s.  c.  7  C.  C.  A.  253 ;  Moore  v. 

R.  326.  H.  Gaus,  etc.,  Co.,  113  Mo.  98,  s.  c. 

*Holden  v.  Phelps,  141  Mass.  456.  20  S.  W.  R.  975;  Famous  Shoe,  etc., 

It  was  held  in  Moshannon,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Co.  v.  Eagle,  etc.,  Works,  51  Mo.  App. 

Sloan,  109  Pa.  St.  532,  s.  c.  7  Atl.  R.  66. 

102,  that  the  secretary  has  no  author-  6  Kraniger  v.  Peoples',   etc.,   Assn., 

ity  to  release  a  debtor.  60  Miim.  94,  s.  c.  61  N.  W.  R.  904. 

8  Jefferson  v.  Hewitt,  103  Cal.  624, 


§  296    EXECUTIVE    AND  MINISTERIAL  OFFICERS    AND  AGENTS.    401 

§  296.  Managing  agents. — There  is  a  class  of  agents  called 
"  general  managers,"  "superintendents,"  or  the  like,  whose 
powers  and  authority  are  very  broad  and  comprehensive. 
They  are  not  in  strictness  corporate  officers  except  where  made 
so  by  the  charter  or  by-laws ;  but  their  powers  are  really  more 
extensive  in  many  respects  than  those  of  some  of  the  chief 
officers  of  the  corporation.  A  general  manager  or  superin- 
tendent can  not,  of  course,  exercise  the  powers  or  functions 
devolved  upon  the  directors  or  other  officers  of  the  corpora- 
tion,1 but  in  conducting  the  actual  business  of  the  corporation 
he  exercises  very  broad  and  comprehensive  authority.  The 
name  or  designation  bestowed  upon  a  managing  agent  does  not 
necessarily  determine  the  scope  of  his  authority,  but,  within 
limits,  indicates  in  a  general  way  the  nature  of  his  authority. 
As  we  have  elsewhere  said  the  scope  of  his  authority  is  ordi- 
narily a  question  of  fact  to  be  determined  from  the  evidence 
in  the  particular  case.2  We  think,  however,  that  where  a 
railroad  company  holds  out  an  agent  as  general  manager 
or  superintendent,  the  courts  may  take  judicial  notice  of  the 
general  scope  of  his  authority,  but  that  the  precise  nature  of 
his  authority  must,  as  a  general  rule,  be  determined  from  the 
facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  in  which  the  question 
arises. 

§  297.  Superintendent. — The  actual  authority  of  a  superin- 
tendent or  general  manager  of  a  railroad  or  one  of  its  divis- 
ions depends  in  a  great  degree  upon  the  provisions  of  the 
charter  and  by-laws  and  the  resolutions  passed  by  the  board  of 
directors  relative  to  such  employment.  As  between  the  com- 
pany and  persons  having  knowledge  of  the  terms  of  his 
employment,  he  will,  as  a  general  rule,  be  held  to  have  only 

1  In  the  case  of  Evansville,  etc.,  Co.  tablished  rules  of  the  company  alone 
v.  Barnes,  137  Ind.  306,  the  court  held  could  make  the  appellant  a  common 
that  a  superintendent  of  construction  carrier  for  hire  and  the  appellee  a  pas- 
had  no  authority  to  open  the  road  for  senger." 

the  carriage  of    passengers,   saying,  *  Ante,  §211.    Gamacho  v.  Hamilton 

"The  board  of  directors  and  the  es-  Co.,  37  N.  Y.  S.  725. 
CORP.  26 


402  THE    CORPORATION.  §  297 

such  powers  as  have  been  thereby  expressly  or  impliedly  con- 
ferred upon  him.1  But  as  to  persons  having  no  notice  of  his 
actual  authority  the  rule  is  otherwise,  for  as  to  such  persons  he 
will  be  deemed  to  have  the  authority  evidenced  by  the 
indicia  of  authority  with  which  the  corporation  has  in- 
vested him.2  Where  the  duties  of  the  office  hav'e  not  been 
defined,  but  the  superintendent  is  simply  given  general 
authority  to  manage  the  business  of  the  corporation,  he  will 
ordinarily  be  held  to  have  such  powers  as  appertain  to  the  office 
by  usage  of  the  company  by  which  he  is  employed,8  and  other 
companies  of  a  similar  character.4  But  it  is  essential  in  order 
to  make  the  corporation  liable  for  the  acts  of  a  general  super- 
intendent or  general  manager  that  the  acts  be  performed  in 
transacting  the  business  of  the  corporation.5  The  superin- 
tendent of  a  railroad  company,  clothed  with  general  power  and 
authority  in  regard  to  the  management  of  trains,  is  held  to  be 
the  immediate  representative  and  executive  officer  of  the  cor- 
poration, and  his  negligent  and  improper  order,  which  causes 
an  injury,  renders  the  company  liable  as  much  as  if  it  had 
emanated  directly  from  the  directors  themselves  in  their 
official  capacity.6  In  his  dealings  with  third  persons  a  super- 
intendent, like  any  other  agent,  will  be  held  to  have  power  to 
bind  the  corporation  within  the  limits  of  his  apparent  author- 
ity. And  it  is  held  that  a  general  manager  should  be  presumed 

'A  director  of  a  corporation,  con-  Bank,  31  N.  Y.  Supp.  44;  Merrill  v. 

tracting  with  another  director  of  the  Hurley,  (S.  Dak.)  62  N.  W.  R.  958. 

corporation  concerning  the  corporate  958. 

property,  who  is  also  business  man-  8Olcottt>.  Tioga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  N. 

ager  with    enumerated  and    limited  Y.  546.    See,  generally,  Ecker  v.  Chi- 

powers,  is  chargeable  with  notice  of  cago,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Mo.  App.  223,  s.  c. 

any  defect  in  the  manager's  authority  1  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  357;   Madison, 

to  make   said  contract.     Schetter  v.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  Society  24 

Southern  Oregon  Co.,  19  Ore.  192,  s.  c.  Ind.  457 ;  Mayall  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Co., 

24  Pac.  25.     See,  generally,  Walrath  19  N.  H.  122. 

v.  Champion,  etc.,  Co. ,63  Fed.  R.  552.  *  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McVay, 

2  We  have    considered  in  another  98  Ind.  391,  398. 

connection  the  authority  of  managing  5  Cosh    Murray    Co.     v.    Adair,    9 

agents,  such  as  superintendents  and  Wash.  686,  s.  c.  38  Pac.  R.  749. 

the  like.    Ante,  §  222.    See,  generally,  6Washburn  v.   Nashville,    etc.,  R. 

Railway,   etc.,   Co.   v.  Lincoln,   etc.,  Co.,  3  Head  (Tenn.)  638. 


§  297    EXECUTIVE    AND    MINISTERIAL  OFFICERS    AND  AGENTS.    403 

to  have  the  general  control  and  direction  of  all  matters  con- 
nected with  the  operation  of  the  railroad  which  the  term  indi- 
cates until  the  contrary  is  shown.1  Accordingly,  a  railroad 
company  is,  it  has  been  held,  liable  for  the  services  of  an 
attorney  retained  by  its  general  manager  to  attend  to  its  legal 
business,  unless  the  attorney  knew  or  might  have  known  by 
using  ordinary  diligence  that  the  manager  had  no  authority 
to  employ  him.2  It  was  held  in  another  case  that  a  railroad 
superintendent  may  bind  the  company  by  issuing  a  circular 
offering  a  general,  standing  reward  for  the  arrest  of  train 
wreckers,  although  no  special  authority  to  do  so  has  been 
granted  him  by  the  directors.8  A  railroad  company  has 
power,  for  the  protection  of  its  property,4  to  offer  a  general, 
standing  reward  for  the  arrest  of  train  wreckers,  and  it  may 
well  be  held  that  a  superintendent  invested  with  the  general 
authority  pertaining  to  that  position  may  bind  the  company  by 
offering  a  reward  for  the  detection  of  persons  who  injure  or 
destroy  the  property  of  the  company.5  In  one  case  the  court 
presumed  that  the  general  superintendent  had  authority  to 
contract  for  fencing  the  company's  road  ;6  in  another,  that  he 
acted  by  the  company's  authority  in  denying  an  owner  the 
right  to  remove  his  property  from  the  company's  premises;7 
in  another  it  was  held  that  he  has  authority  to  withdraw  a 
notice  to  terminate  a  lease  of  the  company's  property  ;8  and  in 
another  case  it  was  held  that  he  may  bind  the  company  by  his 
declarations  relative  to  the  purchase  of  fuel  for  the  use  of  its 

1  Sacalaris  v.  Eureka,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18    85  Ala.  292,  7  Am.  St.  R.  48,  4  So.  R. 
Nev.   155;   Louisville,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.    828. 

McVay,  98  Ind.  391,  399.     A  promis-  *  Ricord  v.  Central  Pacific  R.  Co.,  15 

sory  note,  indorsed  by   a  manager,  Nev.  167;   American  Express  Co.  v. 

must  have  been  previously  authorized  Patterson,  73  Ind.  430. 

or  subsequently  ratified  as  evinced  by  6  Toledo,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rodrigues,  47 

general  course  of  business  or  resolu-  111.  188,  s.  c.  95  Am.  Dec.  484. 

tion  in  order  to  render  a  business  cor-  6  New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Has- 

poration  liable  upon  it.     Huntingdon  kell,  11  Ind.  301. 

v.  Attrill,  118  N.  Y.  365.  »  Giles  v.  Taff  Vale  R.  Co.,  2  E.  & 

2  St.  Louis,  Ft.  S.  &  W.  R.  Co.  v.  B.  822. 

Grove,  39  Kan.  731,  18  Pac.  R.  958.  •  Patrick  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

'  Central  R.  &  Bkg.  Co.  v.  Cheatham,    93  N.  C.  422. 


404  THE    CORPORATION.  §  298 

locomotives.1  We  think  the  ruling  in  the  case  last  cited  is  cor- 
rect, because  such  a  contract  is  one  made  in  the  course  of  the 
ordinary  business  of  the  company ;  but  the  authority  to  make 
such  contracts  may  be  specially  conferred  upon  some  other 
officer  or  agent,  and  in  that  event  it  could  not  be  rightfully  ex- 
ercised by  the  superintendent.  The  decisions  generally  go  up- 
on the  principle  that  the  corporation  can  not  deny  the  general 
authority  of  one  whom  it  holds  out  as  a  general  agent.  But  a 
superintendent's  or  manager's  authority  usually  extends  only 
to  the  management  of  the  ordinary  business  of  the  corporation, 
and  it  is  accordingly  held  that  a  sale  of  the  property  of  a  rail- 
road corporation  by  the  superintendent,  unauthorized  by  the 
directors,  passes  no  title.2  Necessarily  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  superintendent  is  held  out  as  possessing  the 
authority  asserted  must  be  a  question  of  fact  in  most  instances, 
so  that  no  general  rule  can  be  laid  down  as  to  the  extent  of 
his  authority;  but  it  may  be  safely  said  that  he  has  no  implied 
authority  to  make  unusual  or  extraordinary  contracts. 

§  298.  Superintendent  —  General  conclusion. — Decisions  as 
to  the  authority  of  such  officers,  as  managers  and  superin- 
tendents, depend  so  much  upon  the  circumstances  of  the  par- 
ticular cases  and ,  there  is  such  a  wide  range  in  the  duties 
which  the  superintendents  of  different  roads  are  required  to 
perform,  and  in  the  powers  which  they  are  permitted  to  exer- 
cise, that  no  definite  rule  as  to  the  precise  extent  of  their 
authority  can  be  safely  stated.  It  is  safe  to  say,  however,  that 
the  authority  of  such  an  officer  will  be  extended  by  implica- 
tion to  cover  a  very  broad  field  where  it  is  necessary  to 
protect  the  interests  of  innocent  parties  dealing  with  him,  but 
not  in  favor  of  persons  having  knowledge  of  the  real  extent  of 
his  powers  and  duties.  The  courts  can  not,  of  course,  invest 
him  with  authority,  but  they  can  adjudge  what,  under  the  facts 
of  the  particular  case,  is  the  authority  conferred  upon  him  by 
the  company.  The  nature  of  the  business  of  conducting  and 

1  Sacalaris  v.  Eureka,  etc.,  R.  Co.,       *Bowenv.  Mt.  Washington  R.  Co., 
18  Nev.  155.  62  N.  H.  502. 


§  299    EXECUTIVE    AND    MINISTERIAL  OFFICERS    AND  AGENTS.    405 

managing  a  railroad  is  a  matter  of  which  the  courts  take 
judicial  notice  in  a  general  way,  and  if  they  do  take  judicial 
notice  of  such  a  matter  they  must  of  necessity  take  notice  that 
some  general  ministerial  agent  is  required  who  can  actively 
supervise  and  manage  the  ordinary  details  of  the  operation  of 
the  road.1  We  donot,  however,  mean  to  be  understood  assaying 
that  courts  will  take  judicial  notice  of  the  scope  of  the  superin- 
tendent's authority  in  a  particular  case  or  where  it  is  asserted  to 
embrace  a  subject  not  clearly  within  the  general  scope  of  the 
authority  of  that  class  of  agents. 

§  299.  Intermediate  agents. — In  order  to  perform  its  duty 
to  the  public  and  properly  conduct  its  corporate  affairs  it  is 
necessary  that  a  railroad  company  should  have  general  implied 
power  to  appoint  intermediate  agents,  and  the  courts  recognize 
the  existence  of  this  power  and  hold  railroad  companies  re- 
sponsible for  the  acts  of  such  agents  when  performed  within 
the  scope  of  their  authority  or  within  the  line  of  their  duty. 
It  is  only,  however,  to  a  very  limited  extent  that  the  courts  can 
judicially  know  the  nature  of  the  authority  of  such  subordi- 
nate agents.  In  most  cases  the  nature  and  extent  of  their 
authority  is  to  be  determined  as  a  question  of  fact  from  the 
evidence  in  the  particular  case,  but,  as  we  believe,  the  courts 
may  in  some  cases  take  judicial  notice  of  the  general  and  ordi- 
nary authority  of  subordinate  agents.  We  have  elsewhere 
referred  to  cases  showing  the  nature  of  the  authority  of  sub- 
ordinate agents.2 

§  300.  Intermediate  agents— Agent  for  one  purpose  not  fer 
another. — It  may  happen  that  a  person  may  be  a  corporate 
agent  for  one  purpose  and  yet  not  for  another.  Thus,  a  fore- 

1  Courts  take  judicial  notice  of  the  Kan.  265,  s.  c.  26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

hazardous  nature  of  the  business  of  84 ;  Pacific  Railroad  Co.  v.  Thomas,  19 

operating  railway  trains,  and  of  the  Kan.  256;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Beecher,  24 

authority  of  a  superintendent  in  rela-  Kan.  228;  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Railroad 

tion  to  such  matters.     Union  Pacific  Co.  v.  Davis,  126  Ind.  99,  s.  c.  44  Am. 

R.  Co.  v.  Winterbotham,  52  Kan.  433,  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  459. 

s.  c.  59  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  75,  citing  z  Ante,  §§  220,  221,  222. 
Union  Pac.  Railway  Co.  v.  Beatty,  35 


406  THE    CORPORATION.  §  301 

man  may  be  an  agent  for  the  purpose  of  hiring  and  discharg- 
ing section  men,  but  as  to  work  on  the  track  be  a  mere  servant.1 
It  is  obvious  that  the  person  assuming  to  act  as  an  agent  is 
only  an  agent  when  performing  the  duties  of  an  agent,  and  in 
performing  other  duties  is  a  servant  or  employe,  although  he 
may  be  acting  in  all  he  does  under  a  contract  of  employment. 
The  acts  of  a  servant  or  employe  are  in  many  respects  essen- 
tially different  from  those  of  an  agent,  and  this  difference,  as 
we  shall  hereafter  show,  leads  to  important  results. 

§  301.   Intermediate  agents  and  servants  distinguished. — 

The  adjudged  cases  distinguish  between  subordinate  agents 
and  servants,  and  the  distinction  often  becomes  one  of  import- 
ance. It  is  very  difficult,  indeed  it  is  impossible,  in  the  pres- 
ent state  of  the  authorities,  to  accurately  discriminate  between 
agents  and  servants.  It  is,  perhaps,  safe  to  say  that  when  a 
duty  personal  to  the  master  is  intrusted  to  an  employe,  the  em- 
ploye is  as  to  that  duty  an  agent,  although  as  to  other  duties 
he  may  be  a  servant ;  if,  however,  the  duty  is  not  one  personal  to 
the  employer  the  relationship  between  employer  and  employe  is 
ordinarily  not  that  of  principal  and  agent,  but  is  that  of  mas- 
ter and  servant.  The  employer  may,  of  course,  by  custom  and 
usage,  confer  authority  upon  a  servant  beyond  that  appertain- 
ing to  such  relation,  but  ordinarily  a  servant  has  no  authority 
to  make  contracts  for  the  master. 

§  302.  Conductors.  —  The  authority  of  the  conductor  ordi- 
narily extends  to  the  control  of  the  movements  of  his  train,  and 
to.  the  immediate  direction  of  the  movements  of  the  em- 
ployes engaged  in  operating  the  train,  and  he  is,  to  a  great  extent, 
the  representative  of  the  company  in  such  dealings  as  it  may 
be  necessary  for  the  passengers  to  have  with  it  while  en  route. 

1  Justice  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,   130  connected  with  his    line    of   service 

Ind.  321.    We  do  not,  at  this  place,  under  his  contract  of    employment, 

enter  upon   a    consideration    of  the  but  elsewhere  consider  that  question, 

vexed  question  of  whether  the    au-  See  Muhlman  v.  Union  Pacific  Co., 

thority  to  hire  and  discharge,  consti-  2  L.  A.  R.  192,  and  notes;  Mealman 

tutes  the  person  clothed  with  that  v.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  37  Fed.  R.  189. 
authority,  an  agent  for  all  purposes 


§302    EXECUTIVE    AND    MINISTERIAL    OFFICERS  AND  AGENTS.    407 

Consequently  the  company  is  liable  to  passengers,  and,  in  some 
cases,  to  third  persons  if  he  fails  to  take  proper  precautions  to 
guard  against  injury  from  any  defects  in  cars,  engines,  or 
equipments,  which  are  discoverable,1  or  permits  employes  to 
move  the  cars  in  such  a  manner  as  to  cause  an  injury,8  or  is 
guilty  of  any  improper  or  unfair  conduct  toward  the  passen- 
gers in  his  charge.1  It  is  responsible  for  his  acts  done  in 
the  line  of  his  employment,  although  they  were  done  willfully4 
and  in  direct  opposition  to  the  instructions  and  orders  of  his 
employers.8  His  authority  does  not,  ordinarily,  extend  to 
making  contracts  on  behalf  of  the  company,  but  there  may  be 
cases  of  urgent  emergency  where  he  may  make  a  contract  for  the 
company.  He  is  to  administer  the  rules  of  the  company  rather 
than  make  contracts  for  it.  It  has  been  held  that,  acting 
under  a  general  authority,  he  may,  in  his  discretion,  relax  or 
apply  these  rules  within  reasonable  bounds,  according  to  cir- 
cumstances ;6  but  this  doctrine,  as  it  seems  to  us,  is  one  to  be 
cautiously  applied  and  kept  within  strict  limits,  for  there  is 
certainly  no  general  authority  to  alter  or  suspend  the  estab- 
lished rules  and  regulations  of  the  company.  The  establish- 
ment or  alteration  of  rules  and  regulations  is  not,  ordinarily ,  with- 
in the  authority  of  a  conductor,  since  it  is  his  duty  to  obey  and 
carry  into  effect  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  company.  As  we 
have  said,  the  conductor  has  no  general  authority  to  make  con- 
tracts on  behalf  of  the  company,  but  he  may  in  rare  cases  of 
necessity,  when  circumstances  demand  it,  bind  the  company 
by  such  contracts  as  are  clearly  necessary  to  enable  him  to  car- 
ry out  his  prescribed  duties.7  In  order  that  contracts  made  by 

*Mad  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barber,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  36  Wis.  657;  Jefferson- 

5  Ohio  St.  541, 67  Am.  Dec.  312.  Ordi-  ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers,  38  Ind.  116. 

narily  the  conductor  is,  according  to  *  Jefferson  ville  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers,  38 

the  weight  of  authority,  a  fellow-serv-  Ind  116;   Craker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

ant  of  other  employes  engaged  in  the  Co.,  36  Wis.  657. 

management  and  operation  of  trains.  5  Porter  v.  New  York  Central  R.  Co., 

2  Rauch  v.  Lloyd,  31  Pa.  St.  358.  34  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  353. 

8  As  where  he  exacts   illegal  fare.  6  O'Donnell  v.  Allegheny  Valley  R. 

Porter  v.  New  York  Central  R.  Co.?  Co.,  59  Pa.  St.  239. 

34  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  353.    Or  assaults  a  7Terre  Haute,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 

passenger.  Ramsdenv.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Murray,  98  Ind.  358;  GoS  v.  Toledo, 

Co.,  104  Mass.  117 ;  Craker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  28  111.  App.  529. 


408  THE    CORPORATION.  §  302 

him  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  company  they  must  be  made 
to  enable  him  to  perform  the  duties  required  of  him  and 
must  not  relate  to  collateral  matters  nor  be  outside  of  the  line 
of  the  duty  assigned  him.  Thus,  he  may,  where  other  provis- 
ion has  not  been  made,  employ  mechanics  to  repair  a  break 
of  the  cars  or  machinery  which  must  be  repaired  before  the 
train  can  proceed  to  its  destination,  and  may  engage  men  and 
teams  to  render  the  road-way  or  bridges  secure  for  the  passage 
of  his  train,  when  weakened  or  partially  swept  away  by  un- 
foreseen causes  ;  but  in  such  cases  the  authority  to  contract 
does  not  exist  unless  there  is  an  urgent  necessity  for  immediate 
action.  It  is  the  necessity  which  confers  authority,  not  sim- 
ply the  position  of  conductor.1  Doubtless  he  may,  in  case  of 
the  sudden  death  or  disability  of  the  engineer,  engage  a  compe- 
tent engineer  to  take  the  train  to  a  point  where  another  engi- 
neer in  the  employ  of  the  company  can  be  obtained,  if  such  em- 
ployment be  an  urgent  necessity  and  required  to  avoid  disaster 
or  serious  injury  to  the  company.  It  has  been  held  that  the 
conductor  has  authority,  when  the  regular  brakeman  is  sick 
or  absent,  and  the  proper  and  safe  management  of  the  train  so 
requires,  to  supply  the  place  of  the  sick  or  absent  brakeman , 
and  render  the  substitute  so  employed  an  employe  of  the  com- 
pany for  the  time  being  ;2  but  we  suppose  this  doctrine  can 
only  apply  in  very  rare  cases,  for,  as  a  general  rule,  a  conduc- 
tor has  no  authority  to  employ  agents  or  servants  for  the  com- 

*Terre  Haute,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Me-  ploy  ment  at  all,  either  with  or  without 

Murray,  98  Ind.  358.  authority.   We  suppose  that  the  right 

2  Sloan  v.  Central  Iowa  R.  Co.,  62  to  employ  a  brakeman  exists  only  in 

Iowa  728;   Georgia  Pacific  R.  Co.  v.  cases  of  urgent  necessity,  for  the  au- 

Propst,   83  Ala.  518,  85  Ala.  203,  90  thority  to  employ  agents  or  servants 

Ala.  1.     On  the  second  appeal  of  this  is  no  part  of  a  conductor's  general 

case  it  was  held  that  evidence  that  authority.    If  there  is  no  emergency 

the  plaintiff,  a  night  watchman,  was  there  is  no  authority  to  employ  serv- 

riding  to  his  home  on  the  train,  when,  ants,  and  it  is  only  in  very  rare  and 

one  of  the  brakemen  being  sick,  the  exceedingly  clear  cases  that  such  au- 

conductor  asked  plaintiff  to  make  a  thority  can  exist.     Church  v.  Chicago, 

coupling  for  him,  did  not  show  such  etc.,  Co.,  50  Minn.  218,  a.  c.  52  N.  W. 

a  necessity  as  conferred  upon  the  con-  R.  647 ;   Jewell  v.  Grand  Trunk  Rail- 

ductor  an   authority  to  employ  the  way,  55  N.  H.  84. 
brakeman,  nor  did  it  show  any  em- 


§  303    EXECUTIVE    AND    MINISTERIAL  OFFICERS    AND  AGENTS.    409 

v 

pany.  The  authority  of  the  conductor  to  enter  into  contracts 
for  the  company  is  created  by  the  necessity  for  the  exercise  of 
such  authority,  and  as  soon  as  the  emergency  is  past  the 
authority  terminates.1  In  one  of  the  decided  cases  it  seems  to 
be  held  that  a  conductor  may  bind  the  company  by  a  contract 
to  carry  a  passenger  to  a  particular  place  on  the  line  of  the 
road,2  and  if  the  case  is  to  be  understood  as  so  deciding  we 
think  it  must  be  regarded  as  unsound  ;  if,  however,  it  is  to  be 
regarded  as  deciding  that  the  place  was  one  at  which  the  con- 
ductor was  authorized  to  stop  the  train  if  he  so  elected,  then 
we  think  that  the  decision  correctly  declares  the  law.  In  our 
judgment  a  conductor  has  no  authority  to  stop  trains  at  places 
not  provided  for  by  the  rules  or  time  schedules  of  the  com- 
pany, unless  a  discretion  as  to  stopping  is  vested  in  him.  The 
safety  of  the  public,  as  well  as  the  interests  of  the  railroad 
company,  requires  that  stops  should  be  made  only  at  places 
authorized  by  the  company.  The  conductor  has  no  general 
authority  to  designate  the  places  where  the  trains  shall  stop, 
and  he  can  not  bind  the  company  by  a  contract  to  stop  at  a 
certain  place  unless  he  is  authorized  to  stop  at  that  place  by 
the  rules,  regulations  or  custom  of  the  company.  We  have  at 
this  place  merely  outlined  the  authority  and  duties  of  a  conduc- 
tor as  we  have  treated  of  his  duties  and  powers  with  regard  to 
passengers  in  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of  the  duties  and 
liabilities  of  a  railroad  company  as  a  carrier  of  passengers. 

§  303.  Station  agents. — It  is  held  that  the  courts  can  not 
take  judicial  notice  of  the  powers  of  a  station  agent,3  but  we 
suppose  they  may  in  a  very  general  way  take  notice  of  the  au- 
thority of  such  an  agent.  They  certainly  do  take  notice  that  he 
has  no  authority  to  change  the  rules  of  the  company  as  to  the 
places  where  trains  shall  stop  to  discharge  passengers.4  Proof 
of  his  general  authority  to  make  contracts  for  the  shipment  of 

Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Smith,  3Woodr.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 

121  Ind.  353.  Iowa  196. 

*  Hull  v.  East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  4  White  v.  Evansville,  etc.,R.Co.,  133 

Texas  619,  s.  c.  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  Ind.  480,  s.  c.  33  N.  E.  R.  273. 
221. 


410  THE    CORPORATION.  *  §  303 

freight  over  the  line  of  a  railroad  is  sufficient  evidence  from 
which  to  infer  his  authority  to  contract  with  reference  to  all 
the  necessary  and  ordinary  details  of  the  business.1  His  ad- 
missions and  declarations,  made  within  the  scope  of  his  author- 
ity, are,  of  course,  binding  upon  the  company,  like  those  of 
any  other  agent;  but  it  is  held  to  be  error  in  an  action  for  a 
penalty  for  delay  in  shipping  local  freight  to  admit  the  decla- 
rations of  a  station  agent  whose  agency  is  unconnected  with 
the  through  freight  business,  to  the  effect  that  the  company 
during  a  certain  season  used  most  of  its  cars  in  transporting 
through  freight.2  His  general  authority  being  established,  he 
will  be  held  to  possess  authority  to  bind  the  company  by  a  con- 
tract to  furnish  cars  by  a  certain  day,8  or  to  carry  the  freight 
to  its  destination  and  deliver  it  within  any  reasonable  time 
agreed  upon4  or  to  deMver  goods  at  an  unusual  place  upon  its 
own  line.5  Where  he  is  given  charge  of  the  depot  building 
and  station  grounds  he  may  make  reasonable  rules  for  the  regu- 
lation of  persons  having  business  to  transact  with  the  company, 

1  Blodgett  v.  Abbot,  72  Wis.  516,s.  c.  action,  at    least  where  the  action  is 

7  Am.  St.  R.  873,  40  N.  W.R.491.Wood  based  upon  a  contract  executed  by 

v.  Chicago,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Iowa  491;  such  station  agent  on  behalf  of    the 

See,  generally,  Mayalla.  Boston,  etc.,  company.  Ramsay  v.  Midland  R.  Co., 

Railroad,  19  N:  H.  122;  Illinois,  etc.,  (Ont.)  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  594. 

Co.  v.  Jonte,  13  111.  App.  424 ;  Brown  v.  2  Branch  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Louisville,  etc.,  Co.,  36  111.  App.  140;  88  N.  Car.  573. 

Merchants',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Joesting,  89  3Wood  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. ,68 

111.  152;  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bart-  Iowa  491;   Easton  v.  Dudley,  78  Tex. 

lett,  7  H.  &  N.  400;   Lewis  v.  Great  236, 14S.  W.583.  Provided  the  shipper 

Western,  etc.,   Co.,  5  H.   &  N.  867;  has  no  actual  knowledge  of  a  defect 

Squire  v.   New  York,    etc.,   Co.,    98  in  the  agent's  authority  which  pre- 

Mass.  239;    Congar  v.  Galena,   etc.,  vents  him  from  making  such  a  con- 

R.   Co.,    17  Wis.  477.     It  is  held  in  tract  that  shall  bind  the   company. 

Marsh  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  79  Iowa  Harrison  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  74 

332,  s.  c.  44  N.  W.  R.  562,  that  an  Mo.  364. 

agent  having  authority  to  make  spe-  *  Deming  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  48 

cial  rates  may  agree  to  give  a  rebate.  N.  H.  455. 

It  is  held  in  the  Province  of  Ontario,  5  Southern  Express  Co.  v.  McVeigh, 

that  a  station  agent  is  an  "officer"  20  Gratt  (Va.)  264;  Phillips  v.  North 

within  the  meaning  of  a  statute  pro-  Carolina  R.  Co.,  78  N.  C.  294 ,  Mann 

viding  that  "any  of  the  officers"  of  a  v.  Birchard,  40  Vt.  326;    Webber  v. 

body  corporate  may  be  examined  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  3  H.  &  C.  771. 
touching  the  matters  in  question  in  an 


§  303    EXECUTIVE   AND    MINISTERIAL  OFFICERS    AND  AGENTS.    411 


and  may  exclude  persons  who  refuse  to  conform  to  such  regula- 
tions, and  others  who  come  to  the  station  for  purposes  of  their 
own  not  connected  with  the  company's  business.1  And  station 
agents  will,  in  general,  be  held  to  have  such  additional  powers 
as  may  be  conferred  upon  them,  either  expressly  or  by  impli- 
cation from  the  usual  course  of  business.  A  station  agent  may 
bind  his  principal  within  the  limits  of  his  apparent  authority, 
even  though  that  authority  is  restricted  by  secret  instructions, 
which  are  unknown  to  the  other  contracting  party.*  The 
court  will  not,  however,  presume  that  the  agent  had  authority 
to  bind  the  company  by  contract  for  carriage  beyond  its  own 
lino,8  since  a  common  carrier  is  not  required  to  deliver  goods 
at  a  point  beyond  its  line.4  Where  a  station  agent  signed 


1  Commonwealth  v.  Power,  7  Met. 
(Mass.)  596. 

2  Wood  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68 
Iowa  491 ;  Pruitt  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  62  Mo.  527,  where  it  is  held  that 
notice  of  restrictions  upon  the  agent's 
authority  must  be  conveyed  to  the 
public  in  such  a  manner  as  to  author- 
ize the  inference  that  shippers  are  ap- 
prised of  them.   See,  also,  Harrisons. 
Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Mo.  App. 
332;  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Foster, 
104  Ind.  293,  s.  c.  54  Am.  R.  319,  4  N. 
E.  R.  20;  Brooke  v.  New  York,  etc., 
Co.,  108  Pa.  St.  529;  Johnson  v:  Cen- 
tral Vt.  R.  Co.,  56  Vt.  707,  s.  c.  19  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  169;    Southern    Ex- 
press Co.  v.  Womack,  1  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 
256.     In  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Bry- 
ant, 70  Miss.  665,  s.   c.  12  So.  R.  592, 
it  is  held  that  where  it  has  been  the 
custom  for  a  station  agent  to  receive 
notice  of  the  assignment  of  the  wages 
of  employes,  notice  to  such  agent  is 
notice  to  the  company.      See  Mem- 
phis, etc.,  Co.  v.  Koch,  28  Kan.  565, 
s.  c.  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  429.     As  to 
when  notice  to  station  agent  is  notice 
to  the  company,  see  Merrill  v.  Amer- 
ican, etc.,  Co.,  62  N.  H.  514;  Wells  v. 
American,  etc.,  Co.,    44    Wis.    342; 


Great  Western,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wheeler, 
20  Mich.  419. 

3  Cummins  v.  Dayton,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
(Ind.  Super.  Ct.,  Marion  Co.)  9  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  36;  Grover  &  Baker, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pacific  R.  Co.,  70 
Mo.  672. 

4  Burroughs  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  Co.,  100 
Mass.  26;  Wait  v.  Albany,   etc.,  Co., 
5  Lans.  475 ;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Morton,  61  Ind.  539,  574;  Cobb  v. 
Iowa  Central  R.   Co.,  38  Iowa  601; 
Piedmont  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Columbia,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  19  S.  C.  353 ;  People  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  55111.  95;  Grover  & 
Baker,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  70  Mo.  672;  Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
cox,    84    111.  239;   Oxlade    v.    North 
Eastern  R.  Co.,  15  C.  B.  (N.  S.)  680; 
Grover,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  70  Mo.  672.    See,  generally,  as  to 
authority  of  agents  authorized  to  make 
contracts  respecting  transportation  of 
passengers  and  goods,  Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Hill,  63  Tex.  381 ;  Missouri 
Pac.  Co.  v.  Finley,  38  Kan.  550,  16 
Pac.  R.  951 ;  Medbury  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  Co. ,26  Barb.  564;  Michigan,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Day,  20  111.  375;  Riley  ». 
New  York,  etc.,  R.Co.,34  Hun  97;Bor- 
den  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  Co.,  113  N.  C. 


412 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§303 


receipts  furnished  in  blank  by  a  shipper,  by  the  terms  of 
which  the  corporation  undertooK  to  forward  and  deliver  the 
goods  to  the  order  of  the  consignee  at  points  on  a  connecting 
line,  but  it  appeared  that  he  acted  without  special  authority 
and  without  the  knowledge  of  the  corporation  in  so  doing,  and 
that  the  agent  had  been  furnished  with  blank  forms  of  receipts 
by  the  company,  by  which  it  was  provided  that  in  case  of  loss 
or  damage  of  the  goods  the  corporation  only  should  be  respon- 
sible in  whose  actual  custody  the  goods  should  be  at  the  time, 
the  company  was  held  not  liable  for  a  loss  occurring  on  a  con- 
necting line.1  But  the  authority  of  a  station  agent  to  make 
contracts  for  the  carriage  of  goods  over  connecting  lines  may 
be  shown  by  evidence  that  such  was  the  usual  course  of  busi- 
ness,2 since  the  company  is  bound  by  the  acts  of  its  agents 
which  it  has  permitted  for  a  length  of  time  without  objection. 
There  is  no  doubt  of  the  authority  of  a  railroad  company 
to  enter  into  a  valid  contract  of  this  character.3  A  local  sta- 


570,  s.  c.  18  S.  E.  R.  392;  Angle  ». 
Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Iowa  555; 
Mulligan  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 
Dak.  315,  s.  c.  29  N.  W.  R.  659. 

1  Burroughs  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
100  Mass.  26. 

z  Grover  &  Baker,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  70  Mo.  672.  Where 
a  local  agent  of  a  railroad  company 
was  authorized  to  make  a  special  con- 
tract for  transporting  a  lot  of  corn 
from  Illinois  to  Boston,  but  had  no 
authority  to  contract  for  the  return  of 
a  part  of  the  freight  charged,  it  was 
held  that  the  company  should  not  be 
allowed,  after  having  availed  itself  of 
the  benefits  of  the  contract,  to  repu- 
diate an  agreement  for  the  return  of 
freight  charges  which  he  had  intro- 
duced into  the  contract.  Toledo, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  76  111.  67. 
Where  it  is  shown  that  a  station  agent 
was  in  the  habit  of  receiving  goods 
for  carriage  over  connecting  lines,  and 
was  in  possession  of  the  company's 


stamp  to  be  used  upon  receipts, 
which  he  issued  for  such  goods,  and 
that  the  company  took  possession  of 
the  goods  and  caused  them  to  be 
shipped,  with,  at  least,  a  presumptive 
knowledge  of  the  terms  of  the  receipt 
given,  the  agent  will  be  presumed  to 
have  authority  to  contract  for  the 
shipment  of  goods  over  a  connecting 
line.  Hansen  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
73  Wis.  346. 

3  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarthy,  96 
TJ.  S.  258;  Feital  v.  Middlesex  R.  Co., 
109  Mass.  398;  Milnor  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  N.  Y.  363;  Morse  v. 
Brainerd,  41  Vt.  550;  Nashua  Lock 
Co.  v.  Worcester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  N.' 
H.  339;  Perkins  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  47  Me.  573;  Wheeler  v.  San  Fran- 
cisco, etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Cal.  46;  Candee 
v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  21  Wis.  582; 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  54 
Pa.  St.  77;  Stewart  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Trans. 
Co.,  17  Minn.  372 ;  Cincinnati  R.  Co.  t>. 
Pontius,  19  Ohio  St.  221;  Wilby  v. 


§303    EXECUTIVE    AND    MINISTERIAL    OFFICERS  AND  AGENTS.    413 

tion  agent  has  no  authority,  generally,  to  contract  to  furnish 
oars  to  shippers  at  stations  other  than  that  at  which  he  is 
stationed,1  since  his  authority,  real  or  apparent,  extends  only 
to  the  control  of  the  company's  business  at  his  own  station.8 
He  has  no  such  authority  over  the  company's  trains  as  will 
enable  him  to  make  a  binding  contract  for  the  carriage  of 
freight  on  a  passenger  train.8  It  is  no  part  of  his  duties  to 
assign  seats  to  passengers  upon  a  train,  hence  the  company  is 
not  bound  by  directions  given  by  a  station  agent  to  a  passen- 
ger to  ride  in  a  dangerous  place  outside  the  car.*  He  can  not 
make  a  binding  contract  with  the  company  on  his  own  behalf 
without  giving  the  company  an  opportunity  to  ratify  or  dis- 
affirm it  after  being  put  in  possession  of  the  fact  of  his  inter- 
est.5 So,  he  can  not  bind  the  company  by  a  contract  for  the 
services  of  an  assistant  to  perform  a  part  of  the  duties  of  his 
office  without  express  authority,  since  such  a  contract,  by  les- 
sening the  duties  devolving  upon  him,  would  indirectly  bene- 
fit the  agent  himself.6  Upon  the  same  principle,  the  railroad 
company  can  not  be  held  liable  for  the  failure  of  its  station 
agent  to  perform  duties  which  he  undertakes  in  pursuance  of 
his  employment  by  a  third  person  as  an  agent  for  the  purchase 
and  shipment  of  goods.  The  law  does  not  favor  double 
agencies.7  If  he  ships  his  own  goods  at  a  higher  rate 
than  is  allowed  by  law,  he  can  not  maintain  an  action  to 
recover  the  overcharges  paid,  since  he  himself  acted  as  the  in- 
West  Cornwall  R.  Co.,  2  Hurl.  &  N.  of  July  celebration,  and  the  court  held 
703.  But  see  Converse  v.  Norwich,  that,  his  interests  in  the  matter  being 
•etc.,  Trans.  Co.,  33  Conn.  166.  adverse  to  those  of  the  company,  he 

1  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Stultz,  31  was  bound,  by  reason  of  his  fiduciary 
Kan.  752.  relation  toward  the  company,  to  dis- 

2Voorheesi?.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  close  all  material  facts  which  would 
71  Iowa  735.  influence  it  in  making  the  contract, 

3  Elkins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3    including  the  fact  that  it  was  made 
Fost.  (N.  H.)  275.  for  his  own  benefit,  and  his  failure  to 

4  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miles,     do  so  would  prevent  him  from  enforc- 
40  Ark.  298.  ing  the  contract. 

5Pegram  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R  Co.,  6  Willis  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72 

84    N.   Car.   696,   where    the  station  Mich.  160. 

agent  negotiated  for  an  excursion  train  7  Sumner  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

to  be  run  for  his  benefit  to  a  Fourth  78  N.  C.  289. 


414  THE    CORPORATION.  §  SOS 

strument  by  which  the  wrong  was  done  and  was,  therefore,  a 
party  to  the  wrong  of  which  he  complains.1  Where  the  station 
agent  performs  an  act  that  is  beyond  the  power  of  the  .railroad 
corporation  itself,  the  corporation  is  not  necessarily  bound 
thereby.  It  has  even  been  held  (erroneously,  as  we  think) 
where  a  station  agent  caused  the  arrest  of  a  shipper  for 
refusing  to  pay  the  return  charges  for  a  horse  that  the 
company  was  not  liable  to  an  action  for  false  imprison- 
ment, since  the  company  had  no  authority  to  arrest  for  non- 
payment of  charges  for  carriage,  and  could  not  be  held  to 
have  conferred  such  authority  upon  the  agent.2  While  the 
railroad  company  is,  ordinarijy,  liable  to  third  persons  for 
the  fraudulent  conduct  of  the  station  agent  within  the  line  of 
his  employment,  it  is  not  so  liable  to  persons  having  knowl- 
edge of  the  fraud.  Accordingly,  if  a  station  agent  issues  a 
bill  of  lading  for  goods  not  placed  in  his  possession  and  deliv- 
ers it  to  a  person  acting  in  collusion  with  him,  the  railroad  is 
not  bound.  It  is  held  by  many  of  the  courts  that  as  a  bill  of 
lading  is  not  a  negotiable  instrument  a  fraudulent  bill  is  void 
even  in  the  hands  of  an  innocent  third  person  who  has  been 
induced  to  advance  money  upon  the  faith  of  it.3  But  a  num- 

1  Steever  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co.,  loss,  and  so  fraud  perpetrated  through 

62  Iowa  371,  construing  Chapter  68,  the  device  of  a  false  bill  of  lading  may 

Acts  1874.  work  injury  to  an  innocent  party, 

2Poulton  v.  London,  etc.,R.  Co.,  L.  which  can  not  be  redressed  by  a 

R.  2  Q.  B.  534.  But  see  Gulf  R.  Co.  v.  change  of  victims."  Baltimore,  etc., 

James,  73  Tex.  12,  10  S.  W.  744,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkens,  44  Md.  11 ;  Stone 

where  the  general  manager  made  an  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Brad.  (111.) 

arrest  not  authorized  by  the  charter,  48.  See  Grant  v.  Norway,  2  Eng.  L.  & 

and  the  company  was  held  liable.  Eq.  Rep.  337;  Fellows  v.  Steamer  R.W. 

And  if  the  agent  had  authority  to  Powell,  16  La.  Ann.  316;  Dean  v.  King, 

make  arrests  under  any  circumstances,  22  Ohio  St.  118 ;  Louisiana  Nat.  Bank 

the  company  may  be  held  liable  where  v.  Laveille,  52  Mo.  380;  Lake  Shore, 

he  used  his  power  without  justifica-  etc.,  Co.  v.  Foster,  104  Ind.  293,  s.  c.  54 

tion.  Goff  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  Am.  R.  319 ;  National  Bank  v.  Chicago, 

30  L.  Jour.  Q.  B.  148.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Minn.  224;  Sioux  City, 

8  Friedlander  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  First  National  Bank,  10 

130  U.  S.  416,  in  which  Fuller,  C.  J.,  Neb.556.  In  Bank  of  N.Y.,etc.,w.Amer- 

speaking  for  the  court,  says :  "  The  ican,  etc.,  Co.,  143  N.  Y.  559,  s.  c.  38  N. 

law  can  punish  roguery,  but  can  not  E.  R.  713,  it  is  held  that  a  by-law  of  a 

always  protect  the  purchaser  from  corporation  authorizing  an  officer  to 


§  303    EXECUTIVE    AND    MINISTERIAL    OFFICERS  AND  AGENTS.    415 


ber  of  courts  hold  the  railroad  company  liable  in  such  a  case,  upon 
the  ground  that  it  is  the  natural  and  necessary  expectation  of  a 
carrier  issuing  bills  of  lading  that  they  will  pass  freely  from 
one  to  another  and  advances  be  made  upon  their  faith,  that 
the  carrier  has  no  right  to  believe,  and  never  does  believe, 
that  their  effect  is  limited  to  the  person  to  whom  they  are  first 
and  directly  issued,1  and  that  it  is  estopped  to  deny  the  facts 
set  out  in  a  bill  of  lading  issued  by  its  accredited  agent  to  the 
injury  of  one  who  has  been  misled  thereby.*  There  is  reason 


sign  warehouse  receipts  does  not  con- 
fer upon  him  authority  to  sign  a  re- 
ceipt for  his  own  property. 

1  Bank  of  Bataviav.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  106  N.Y.  195;  Armours.  Mich- 
igan Cent.  R.  Co.,  65  N.  Y.  Ill,  s.  c.  22 
Am.  R.  603;  Wichita  Savings  Bankc. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Kan.  519. 
In  this  latter  case  the  court  says: 
"The  custom  of  grain  dealers  is  to 
buy  of  the  producer  his  wheat, 
corn,  barley,  etc.,  then  deliver  the 
same  to  the  railroad  company  for 
shipment  to  market.  The  railroad 
company  issues  to  the  shipper  its  bill 
of  lading.  The  shipper  takes  his  bill 
of  lading  to  a  bank,  draws  a  draft 
upon  his  commission  merchant  or  con- 
signee against  the  shipment,  and  at- 
taches his  bill  of  lading  to  the  draft. 
Upon  the  faith  of  the  bill  of  lading 
and  without  further  inquiry  the  bank 
cashes  the  draft,  and  the  money  is 
thus  obtained  to  pay  for  the  grain 
purchased,  or  to  purchase  other  ship- 
ments. In  this  way  the  dealer  real- 
izes at  once  the  greater  value  of  his 
consignments,  and  need  not  wait  for 
the  returns  of  the  sale  of  his  grain  to 
obtain  money  to  make  other  pur- 
chases. In  this  way  the  dealer  with 
a  small  capital  may  buy  and  ship  ex- 
tensively ;  and  while  having  a  capital 
of  a  few  hundred  dollars  only,  may 
buy  for  cash  and  ship  grain  valued  at 
many  thousands.  This  mode  of  trans- 


acting business  is  greatly  advantageous 
both  to  the  shipper  and  the  producer. 
It  gives  the  shipper  who  is  prudent 
and  posted  as  to  the  markets  almost 
unlimited  opportunities  for  the  pur- 
chase and  shipment  of  grain,  and 
furnishes  a  cash  market  for  the  pro- 
ducer at  his  own  door.  It  enables  the 
capitalist  and  banker  to  obtain  fair 
rates  of  interest  for  the  money  he  has 
to  loan,  and  insures  him,  in  the  way 
of  bills  of  lading,  excellent  security. 
It  also  furnishes  additional  business 
to  railroad  companies,  as  it  faciliates 
and  increases  shipments  to  the  mar- 
kets. A  mode  of  doing  business  so 
beneficial  to  so  many  classes  ought  to 
receive  the  favoring  recognition  of 
the  courts  to  aid  its  continuance." 
See,  also,  Brooke  v.  New  York,  etc., 
Co.,  108  Pa.  St.  529;  Dean  v.  Driggs, 
137  N.  Y.  274. 

2  Brooke  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
108  Pa.  St.  529;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Lamed,  103  111.  293;  Coventry  ». 
Great  Eastern  R.Co.,L.  R.  11 Q.  B.  Div. 
776.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  First 
Nat.  Bank,  10  Neb.  556,  where  the 
leading  cases  holding  the  contrary  are 
very  fully  reviewed.  In  this  case, 
Maxwell,  C.  J.,  speaking  for  the 
court,  says:  "All  the  testimony 
shows  that  the  bills  of  lading  in  con- 
troversy were  issued  by  an  authorized 
agent  of  the  railroad  company,  and' 
that  he  not  only  had  authority  to  issue 


416 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§  303 


for  the  doctrine  declared  in  the  cases  last  referred  to,  for  the 
act  of  the  station  agent  in  such  cases  in  issuing  the  bill  of 
lading  must  cause  loss  either  to  his  employer  or  to  some  third 
person,  and  as  the  employer  "trusted  most  it  must  suffer  most." 
The  maxim  that,  "where  one  of  two  innocent  persons  must 
suffer  loss  by  the  fraud  of  a  third  person,  he  who  put  it  in 
the  power  of  the  third  to  commit  the  fraud  must  bear  the 
loss"  seems  applicable  to  such  cases.  Analogous  cases — those 
where  warehouse  receipts  were  issued — give  support  to  the 
decisions  under  immediate  mention.1 


such  bills,  but  it  was  one  of  the  duties 
imposed  upon  him.  As  against  an 
innocent  purchaser  of  the  bills,  it 
will  not  do  to  say  that  the  agent  had 
authority  to  issue  bills  of  lading  duly 
signed,  only  in  cases  where  shipments 
were  made,  and  no  authority  where 
shipments  were  not  made.  The  com- 
pany itself  has  invested  its  own  agent 
with  the  authority  to  issue  bills  of 
lading,  and  when  duly  issued  they  are 
not  the  bills  of  the  agent,  but  of  the 
railroad  company.  The  representation, 
therefore,  thus  made  in  the  bills  that  the 
company  has  received  a  certain  quantity 
of  grain  for  shipment,  is  a  representa- 
tion to  any  one  who,  in  good  faith  rely- 
ing thereon,  sees  fit  to  make  advances  on 
the  same.  If  these  representations  are 
false,  who  should  bear  the  loss?  The 
party  who  appointed,  placed  confi- 
dence in,  and  gave  authority  to  make 


the  bills,  or  the  one  that  in  good  faith, 
relying  thereon,  purchased  or  ad- 
vanced money  on  the  same?  *  *  * 
The  case  presents  every  element  nec- 
essary to  constitute  an  estoppel  in 
pais,  a  representation  made  with  full 
knowledge  that  it  might  be  acted 
upon,  and  subsequent  action  in  re- 
liance thereon,  by  which  the  defend- 
ants in  error  would  lose  the  amount 
advanced  if  the  representation  is  not 
made  good.  This  principle  was  en- 
tirely overlooked  in  Grant  v.  Norway, 
and  the  cases  following  it." 

1  Babcock  v.  People's  Bank,  118  Ind. 
212 ;  Preston  v.  Witherspoon,  109  Ind. 
457;  Planter's  etc.,  Co.  v.  Merchants' 
etc.,  Bank,  78  Ga.  574;  Neil  v.  Hill,  1 
Wool.  (U.  S.  C.  C.)  96;  Whitlock  v. 
Hay,  58  N.  Y.  484;  Stewart  v.  Phenix 
Ins.  Co.,  9  Lea,  104 ;  Cowdrey  v.  Van- 
derburgh,  101  U.  S.  572. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


DIVIDENDS. 

§304.  Rights  of  stockholders— Divi-     §312. 
dends. 

305.  When    dividend    belongs     to        313. 

stockholder — Assignment. 

306.  To  whom  dividend  should  be        314. 

paid. 

307.  Rights  of  life  tenant  and  re-        315. 

mainderman — A  pportion- 
ment  of  dividends. 

308.  Duties  of  life  tenant— Trans-        316. 

fers. 

309.  Dividend  is  not  property  of  the        317. 

corporation — Rights  of  cred- 
itors and  stockholders.  318. 

310.  Dividend  is  irrevocable — Ac-        319. 

tions  concerning.  320. 

311.  Demand — Necessity  and  effect        321. 

of. 


Declaration  of  dividend  dis- 
cretionary with  directors. 

Power  to  borrow  money  or  de- 
clare stock  dividend. 

Remedies  for  abuse  of  discre- 
tion. 

Limitations  upon  authority  to 
declare  a  dividend — Suits  to 
reclaim. 

Dividends  should  be  paid  out 
of  the  profits. 

Enjoining  payment  of  divi- 
dends. 

Personal  liability  of  directors. 

Dividends  payable  in  scrip. 

Stock  dividends. 

Dividends  payable  without  dis- 
crimination. 


§  304.  Rights  of  stockholders — Dividends. —  A  stockholder 
has  no  legal  right  to  the  property  or  undistributed  profits  of 
the  corporation  j1  he  has  merely  a  right  to  participate,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  in  the  management  of  the  company  and  to  share 
in  the  distribution  of  whatever  property  may  remain  after 
payment  of  its  debts  upon  dissolution,2  together  with  the  fur- 
ther right,  which  constitutes  the  principal  inducement  to  be- 
come a  shareholder,  of  sharing  in  the  distribution,  which  is 
made  at  longer  or  shorter  intervals  of  time  in  all  prosperous 
companies,  of  the  profits  arising  from  the  business  which  the 

1  Jones  v.  Terre  Haute  R.  Co.,  57  N.  98  Mass.  462;  Commercial  Fire  Ins. 
Y.  196;  Burroughs  v.  N.  C.  R.  R.  Co.,  Co.  v.  Board,  99  Ala.  1,  s.  c.  42  Am. 
67  N.  C.  376 ;  Lockhart  v.  Van  Als-  State  R.  17. 

tyne,  31   Mich.   76,   78;   Goodwin   v.        z  Burrall  v.  Bushwick  R.  Co.,  75  N. 
Hardy,  57  Me.  143 ;  Grangers.  Bassett,    Y.  211,  216. 
27  (417) 


418 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§305 


corporation  is  organized  to  transact.1  When  a  corporate  profit 
has  been  ascertained,  declared,  ordered  and  set  aside  by  the 
proper  corporate  authorities  to  be  paid  to  the  stockholders  on 
demand  or  at  a  fixed  time,  it  is  termed  a  dividend.2  A  resolu- 
tion ascertaining  the  amount  of  the  corporate  profits,  and  de- 
claring them  payable  to  the  stockholders,  is  a  declaration  of  a 
dividend,  even  though  it  leaves  the  time  of  payment  to  be 
fixed  afterward  by  the  directors.3 

§  305.   When  dividend  belongs  to  stockholder — Assignment. 

— The  dividend  belongs  to  the  holder  of  the  shares  at  the  time 
it  is  declared,4  and  so  soon  as  it  is  due  it  becomes  his  absolute 
property.5  If  the  dividend  be  made  payable  on  a  day  subse- 


1  Forbes  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 
Woods.  (U.  S.)  323,  331 ;  Plimpton  v. 
Bigelow,  93  N.  Y.  592,  599. 

2Cha£fee  v.  Rutland  R.  Co.,  55  Vt. 
110;  Lockhart  v.  Van  Alstyne,  31 
Mich.  76;  Webbv.  Earle,  L.  R.  20  Eq. 
556 ;  Hyatt  v.  Allen,  56  N.  Y.  553.  "A 
dividend  is  that  portion  of  the  profits 
and  surplus  funds  of  the  corporation 
which  has  been  actually  set  apart  by 
a  valid  resolution  of  the  board  of  di- 
rectors, or  by  the  shareholders  at  a 
corporate  meeting,  for  distribution 
among  the  shareholders  according  to 
their  respective  interests,  in  such  a 
sense  as  to  become  segregated  from 
the  property  of  the  corporation,  and 
to  become  the  property  of  the  share- 
holders distributively."  2  Thomp. 
Corp.,  §  2126,  citing  King».  Paterson, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  29  N.  J.  L.  82. 

•March  v.  Eastern  R.  R.  Co.,  43  N. 
H.  515 ;  King  v.  Paterson,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
29  N.  J.  Law,  82  and  504;  Simpson  v. 
Moore,  30  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  637 ;  Foote, 
Appellant,  22  Pick.  (Mass.)  299; 
Earp's  Appeal,  28  Pa.  St.  368;  De 
Gendre  v.  Kent,  L.  R.  4  Eq.  Gas.  283. 
But  where  the  time  of  payment  is  not 
fixed,  it  has  been  held  that  a  bill  in 
equity  is  the  appropriate  and  only 


remedy.  Scott  v.  Eagle,  etc.,  Co.,  7 
Paige  (N.  Y.)  198;  Pratt  v.  Pratt, 
Read  &  Co.,  33  Conn.  446. 

4  Wright  v.  Tuckett,  1  Johns.  &  H. 
(Eng.  Ch.)  266;  Bright  a.Lord,  51  Ind. 
272;  Hopper  v.  Sage,  112  N.  Y.  530; 
Boardman  t'.Lake  Shore, etc.,  R.Co.,84r 
N.  Y.  157, 178.  All  dividends  declared 
previous  to  the  death  of  the  stockhold- 
er, and  remaining  unpaid,  go  to  his  ad- 
ministrator, even  though  not  yet  pay- 
able. In  re  Kernochan,  104  N.  Y.  618 ; 
DeGendre  v.  Kent,  L.  R.  4  Eq.  283. 

5Jermain  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  91  N.  Y.  483;  King  v.  Paterson, 
etc.,  R.Co.,29 N.  J.  L.  82  and  504 ;  Kep- 
pel's  Adm'r  v.  Petersburg  R.  Co., 
Chase's  Dec.  (U.  S.)  167 ;  Scott  v.  Cen- 
tral R.  Co.  of  Ga.,  52  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
45 ;  1  Beach  Priv.  Corp.,  §  599.  Where, 
however,  the  fact  that  a  dividend  has 
been  voted  by  directors  is  not  made 
public,  or  communicated  to  the  stock- 
holders, and  no  fund  is  set  apart  for 
payment,  the  vote  may  be  rescinded. 
Ford  v.  East  Hampton  Rubber-Thread 
Co.,  158  Mass.  84,  s.  c.  32  N.  E.  R. 
1036.  A  potential  right  to  a  dividend 
is  not  a  debt  until  the  dividend  is  de- 
clared. Lockhart  v.  Van  Alstyne,  31 
Mich.  76,  s.  c.  18  Am.  R.  156;  lie  Lon- 


§  306 


DIVIDENDS. 


419 


quent  to  that  on  which  it  is  declared,  the  stockholder  may,  be- 
tween the  time  it  is  declared  and  the  time  it  becomes  payable, 
assign  and  transfer  either  the  stock1  or  the  dividend8  without 
affecting  his  title  to  the  other,  although  a  devise  of  the  divi- 
dends without  qualification  has  been  held  to  carry  with  it  the 
stocks  themselves.8  The  fact  that  a  dividend  was  earned  be- 
fore a  transferee  purchased  his  stock  will  not  affect  his  title  to 
dividends  declared  after  such  purchase.4  He  is  entitled  to  all 
dividends  declared  while  he  owns  it.8 

§  306.  To  whom  dividend  should  be  paid.  —  The  general 
rule  is  that  in  cases  of  periodical  payments  due  at  intervals,  and 
not  falling  due  from  day  to  day,  there  can  be  no  apportionment.6 
Owning  an  option  to  purchase  stock  does  not  entitle  the  vendee 
to  dividends  declared  before  he  has  closed  the  bargain  and 
while  he  still  has  the  right  to  either  purchase  or  refuse  the 
stock,7  although  an  absolute  purchase  of  stock  to  be  delivered 
at  the  seller's  option  will  entitle  the  purchaser  to  all  dividends 


don,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Eq.  519;  Stev- 
ens v.  South  Devon,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  9 
Hare  313.  It  then  becomes  a  debt 
due  from  the  corporation.  Wheeler 
v.  Northwestern,  etc.,  Co.,  39  Fed.  R. 
347. 

1  Wright  v.  Tuckett,  1  Johns.  &  H. 
(Eng.  Ch.)  266 ;  Hill  a.Newichawanick 
Co.,71N.Y.593 ;  Wheeler  t>.Northwest- 
ern,etc.,Co.,39Fed.R.347;  City  of  Ohio 
v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Ohio  St. 
489.  Contra,  Burroughs  v.  North  Car- 
olina R.  Co.,  67  N.  C.  376.  In  Ken- 
nedy v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  115  N.  C.  223, 
20  S.  E.  R.  375,  it  was  held  that  where 
a  widow,  to  whom  dividends  were  be- 
queathed during  her  life  or  widow- 
hood, with  remainder  over  to  her 
daughter,  consented  to  the  transfer  of 
the  certificate  of  stock  to  the  daughter, 
she  waived  all  claim  to  the  dividend. 

8Brundage  v.  Brundage,  60  N.  Y. 
544;  Black  v.  Homersham,  L.  R.  4 
Exch.  Div.  24 ;  Curry  v.  Woodward, 


44  Ala.  305.  See,  also,  Cook  v.  Mon- 
roe, 45  Neb.  349,  63  N.  W.  R.  800,  s.  c. 
11  Nat.  Corp.  R.  5. 

3  Collier  v.  Collier,  3  Ohio  St.  369. 

*  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Papot,  59 
Ga.  342;  Ryan  v.  Leavenworth,  etc., 
Co.,  21  Kan.  365,  403 ;  Jermain  v. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  N.  Y. 
483;  March  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  43  N. 
H.  515. 

5  Bailey  v.   Railroad  Co.,  22  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  604,  637;  March  v.  Eastern  R. 
Co.,  43  N.  H.  515;  Jones  v.  Terre 
Haute,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  57  N.  Y.   196; 
Goodwin  v.   Hardy,  57  Me.  143.    If 
he  acquires  it  by  devise  he  takes  all 
dividends  declared  after  the  death  of 
his  testator.   Phelps  v.  Farmers',  etc., 
Bank,  26  Conn.  269. 

6  Clapp  u.  Astor,  2  Edw.   Ch.   (N. 
Y.)  379. 

7  Bright  v.  Lord,  51  Ind.  272,  s.  c. 
19  Am.  R.  732. 


420  THE    CORPORATION.  §  306 

declared  after  entering  into  the  original  contract  of  purchase.1 
And  where  an  offer  to  sell  shares  is  accepted  before  revocation, 
it  has  been  held  that  the  acceptor  may  claim  all  dividends 
declared  after  the  date  of  the  offer,2  for  the  bargain  is  presumed 
to  have  been  made  with  reference  to  the  value  of  the  shares  at 
the  time  the  offer  was  made.  The  corporation  may  generally 
pay  the  dividend  to  the  person  in  whose  name  the  stock  is  reg- 
istered upon  the  books  of  the  company3  without  inquiry,4  and 
it  will  be  protected  even  though  he  has  transferred  the  shares.5 
But  where  the  corporation  has  due  notice  of  a  transfer,  it 
should  pay  the  money  only  to  the  transferee,6  and  it  may 
properly  do  so,  even  though  he  has  not  yet  been  registered  as 
a  stockholder.7  If  a  stockholder  dies,  his  administrator  is  the 
proper  party  to  receive  dividends  on  his  stock,8  for  dividends 
declared  before,  though  payable  after  the  owner's  death,  belong 
to  the  estate,  even  as  against  the  devisees  of  the  stock.9  His 
heirs,  it  is  said,  can  only  claim  the  dividends  after  they  have 
procured  the  shares  to  be  transferred  to  themselves.10  Where 
the  corporation  closed  its  transfer  books  some  days  before  the 
declaration  of  a  dividend,  parties  who  applied  for  and  were 
refused  registry  while  the  books  remained  closed  were  held 
entitled  to  the  dividend  when  declared."  If  the  corporation 


v.  White,   45  N.  Y.   822;  6  Jones  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Black  v.  Homersham,  L.  R.  4  Exch.  57  N.  Y.  196,  205.     Robinson  r.  Na- 

Div.   24.     See,  also,  Phinizy  v.  Mur-  tional  Bank,  95  N.  Y.  637,  where  the 

ray,  83  Ga.  747,  s.   c.  20  Am.  St.  R.  corporation  had  improperly  refused  to 

342.  register  a  transfer,. 

2  Harris  v.  Stevens,  7  N.  H.  454.  But  7  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
see  Hopper  v.  Sage,  112  N.  Y.  530.  §  540.  See,  also,  Gemmell  v.  Davis,  75 

3  Brisbane  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Md.  546,  s.  c.  23  Atl.  R.  1032,  32  Am. 
94  N.  Y.  204;  Cook  v.  Monroe,  (Neb.)  St.  R.  412. 

63  N.  W.  R.  800,  11  Nat.  Corp.  R.  5;  8  Brisbane  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robbins,  35  94  N.  Y.  204. 

Ohio  St.  483.  9De  Gendre  v.   Kent,  L.  R.  4  Eq. 

4  Jones  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc..  R.  Co.,  283. 

29  Barb.   (N.   Y.)    353;  Northrop  v.  10  State  t>.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Newton,   etc.,   Turnp.   Co.,  3  Conn.  30  La.  Ann.  308. 

544.  u  Jones  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.  R.  Co., 

5  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robbins,  57  N.  Y.  196,   205;    Robinson  v.  Na- 
35  Ohio  St.  483;  Bell  v.  Lafferty,   1  tional  Bank,  95  N.  Y.  637.   Where  the 
Pennypacker  (Pa.  Sup.  Ct.)  454.  corporation  is   authorized  by  statute 


§  307  DIVIDENDS.  421 

should  pay  a  dividend  to  a  person  as  a  stockholder,  although 
he  may  have  wrongfully  held  the  stock,  one  claiming  to  be  the 
real  owner  of  the  stock,  but  not  an  admitted  stockholder,  can 
not  establish  his  right  thereto  in  the  first  instance,  it  seems,  by 
an  action  against  the  stockholder  to  recover  such  dividend,  as 
for  money  had  and  received.  His  action  to  recover  the  divi- 
dend could  only  be  maintained  against  the  corporation,  if  it 
could  be  maintained  at  all,  and  he  can  not  follow  the  assets 
into  the  hands  of  others  without  first  establishing  his  rights  as 
a  creditor  of  the  corporation.1 

§307.  Rights  of  life  tenant  and  remainderman  —  Appor- 
tionment of  dividends. — An  ordinary  cash  dividend  declared 
during  the  existence  of  the  life  tenancy  goes,  presumptively 
at  least,  to  the  life  tenant;2  but  where  stock  is  held  in  trust  for 
a  life  tenant  with  remainder  over,  the  rule  has  been  laid  down 
that  all  dividends  declared  from  profits  earned  during  the 
tenancy  belong  to  the  life  tenant,8  while  extraordinary  divi- 
dends amounting  only  to  a  distribution  of  a  portion  of  the  in- 
vested capital,4  or  a  distribution  of  profits  earned  or  accumu- 

or  by  charter  to  close  its  books  under  2  Richardson  v.  Richardson,  75  Me. 
such  circumstances,  the  holding  570,  s.  c.  46  Am.  R.  428 ;  Millen  v. 
would,  perhaps,  be  different.  If  the  Guerrard,  67  Ga.  284 ;  Bates  v.  Mac- 
corporation  refuses  to  transfer  stock  Kinley,  31  Beav.  280;  2Thomp.  Corp., 
to  a  purchaser  upon  application  regu-  §§2193,  2201.  See,  also,  "The  rule  in 
larly  made,  it  has  been  held  that  he  Minot's  Case,"  by  Judge  Corliss,  in 
may  maintain  a  suit  against  it  for  a  33  Alb.  L.  Jour.  106. 
dividend  due  on  his  stock,  without  3  Earp's  Appeal,  28  Pa.  St.  368 ;  Bid^ 
first  compelling  a  transfer  of  stock  to  die's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.  278;  Oliver's 
him  by  a  proceeding  in  equity.  Hill  Estate,  136  Pa.  St.  43,  s.  c.  20  Am. 
r>.  Atoka,  etc.,  Co.,  (Mo.  Sup.)  21  S.  St.  R.  894.  If  the  last  preceding  div- 
W.  R.  508.  This  case  was  afterwards  idend  was  made  at  a  regular  and  rea- 
reversed,  however,  by  the  court  in  sonable  time,  before  a  cash  dividend 
bane,  upon  other  grounds.  The  de-  declared  after  the  life  estate  arose, 
cision  reversing  it  is  found  in  124  Mo.  it  will  be  given  to  the  life  tenant,  re- 
153,  s.  c.  25  S.  W.  R.  926.  gardless  of  the  time  when  it  was 
1  Peckham  v.  Van  Wagenen,  83  N.  earned.  Richardson  v.  Richardson, 
Y.  40,  distinguishing  LeRoy  v.  Globe  75  Me.  570,  s.  c.  46  Am.  R.  428;  Jer- 
Ins.  Co.,  2  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  657,  and  main  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91 
In  re  Le  Blanc,  75  N.  Y.  598.  See,  how-  N.  Y.  483 ;  Barclay  r .  Wainewright,  14 
ever,  Cook  v.  Monroe,  45  Neb.  349,  63  Ves.  66. 
N.  W.  R.  800,  11  Nat.  Corp.  R.  5.  *  Vinton's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.  434; 


422 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§307 


lated  before  the  tenancy  arose,1  belong  to  the  remainderman. 
This  rule  is  followed,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  in  most  of  the 
states,2 and  can  be  objected  to  only  because  of  the  difficulty  in 
applying  it.3  In  Massachusetts,*  Georgia,5  Rhode  Island,6  and 
the  District  of  Columbia,7  the  courts  decline  to  look  beyond 
the  action  of  the  directors  in  declaring  the  dividend,  to  ascer- 
tain who  is  entitled  to  it,  but  hold,  in  general,  that  a  dividend 
payable  in  money  shall  be  regarded  as  income,  and  given  to 


Heard  v.  Eldredge,  109  Mass.  258,  s.  c. 
12  Am.  R.  687 ;  Gifford  v.  Thompson, 
115  Mass.  478 ;  Wheeler  v.  Perry,  18 
N.  H.  307. 

1  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Dovey,  64  Pa. 
St.  260;  Moss's  Appeal,  83  Pa.  St.  264; 
Smith's  Estate,  140  Pa.  St.  344,  s.  c. 
23  Am.  St.  R.  237. 

2  See  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockhold- 
ers^ 554  ;Van  Doren  v.  Olden,  19  N.  J. 
Eq.  176,  s.  c.  97  Am.  Dec.  650;  In  re 
Kernochan,  104  N.  Y.  618;  Peirce  v. 
Burrough,  58  N.  H.  302;  Kite's  Ex'rs 
v.  Kite's  Devisees,  2  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J. 
(Ky.)  568;   Kite  v.  Kite,  93  Ky.  257, 
20  S.  W.  R.  778,  s.  c.  19  L.  R.  A.  173; 
Gilkey  v.  Paine,  80  Me.  319,  s.  c.  14 
Atl.  R.  205 ;  Smith's  Estate,  140  Pa. 
St.  344,  s.  c.  23  Am.  St.  R.  237;  Cobb 
v.  Fant,  36  S.  Car.  1,  14  S.  E.  R.  959. 
The  rule  seems  to  be  somewhat  un- 
settled in  New  York.    Compare  Gold- 
smith v.  Swift,  25  Hun  201;  In    re 
Warren,  11  N.  Y.  Supp.  787;  Clarkson 
v.  Clarkson,  18  Barb.  646;  Simpson  v. 
Moore,  30  Barb.  637 ;  Riggs  v.  Cragg,  89 
N.  Y.  479,  and  In  re  Kernochan,  104 
N.  Y.  618. 

8.See  Earp's  Appeal,  28  Pa.  St.  368. 
In  33  Alb.  L.  Jour.  427,  Judge  Corliss 
lays  down  the  following  rules  upon 
this  subject:  "1.  If  the  dividend  is 
made  up  of  profits,  the  dividend  goes 
to  the  life  tenant,  irrespective  of  the 
form  in  which  it  is  declared.  2.  The 
life  tenant  is  entitled  to  all  dividends, 
whether  in  cash  or  in  stock  declared 


during  the  existence  of  his  interest, 
whether  they  consist  of  profits  which 
have  accrued  subsequently  to  the 
vesting  of  the  life  estate,  or  in  part  of 
earnings  of  the  corporation  which  had 
accumulated  at  the  time  of  the  devo- 
lution upon  the  life  tenant  of  his  in- 
terest in  the  property.  3.  That  in  so 
far  as  any  dividend  consists  of  money, 
derived  from  an  increase  in  the  value 
of  the  corporate  property,  or  is  'de- 
rived from  any  source  other  than  the 
net  earnings  of  the  company,  the  life 
tenant  can  claim  no  interest  therein. 
4.  That  not  only  is  it  beyond  the 
power  of  the  corporation  to  bind  the 
life  tenant  by  dividing  net  earnings 
in  the  form  of  capital  stock,  but  the 
life  tenant  can  always  show  the  true 
nature  and  source  of  the  dividend,  in 
spite  of  any  act  or  declaration  to  the 
contrary ;  and  that  on  the  other  hand 
the  remainderman  may  prove  that  a 
dividend  which  apparently  belongs  to 
the  life  tenant  is  in  fact  the  property 
of  the  remainderman." 

4  Minot  v.  Paine,  99  Mass.  101 ;  Da- 
land  v.  Williams,  101  Mass.  571 ;  New 
England  Trust  Co.  v.  Eaton,  140  Mass. 
532.  But  see  Davis  v.  Jackson,  152 
Mass.  58,  s.  c.  25  N.  E.  R.  21. 

5Millen  v.  Guerrard,  67  Ga.  284, 
construing  Code  Ga.,  §  2256. 

6  Parker  v.  Mason,  8  R.  I.  427;  Pe- 
tition of  Brown,  14  R.  I.  371. 

7  Gibbons  v.  Mahon,  4  Mackey  130, 
s.  c.  54  Am.  R.  262. 


§  307  DIVIDENDS.  423 

the  life  tenant,  while  a  dividend  payable  in  stock  shall  be 
regarded  as  capital  and  given  to  the  remainderman,1  since  it 
is  thought  unwise  to  attempt  to  ascertain  how  the  corporation 
came  by  the  funds  out  of  which  either  cash  or  stock  dividends 
are  declared,2  and  since  a  stock  dividend  does  not,  as  a  rule, 
increase  the  interest  of  the  shareholders  in  the  property  of  a 
corporation,  but  merely  dilutes  their  shares  and  is  only  a  new 
evidence  of  their  interests.8  For  this  reason  it  is  held  that 
such  a  dividend  generally  constitutes  capital  rather  than  in- 
come, and  goes  to  the  remainderman.4  It  has  also  been  held 
that  new  shares  of  preferred  stock  issued  in  double  the  amount 
of  the  old  shares,  but  at  one-half  the  rate  of  interest,  in  com- 
promise of  claims  of  the  holders  for  back  and  unpaid  divi- 
dends, constitute  capital  and  not  income  as  between  the  life 
tenant  and  remainderman.6  A  strict  adherence  to  this  rule 
would  so  clearly  be  productive  of  hardship  and  injustice  that 
some  modifications  have  been  engrafted  upon  it  in  Massachu- 
setts, where  it  was  first  announced,  and  it  is  held  that  the 
court  will  take  into  consideration  the  whole  character  of  the 
property  and  the  transaction,  with  due  regard  to  all  the  facts 
preceding,  attending,  and  resulting  from  the  declaration  of  the 
dividend,  in  order  to  determine  whether  the  dividend  right- 
fully belongs  to  the  owner  of  the  stock  or  to  the  owner  of  the 
income.6  Accordingly,  it  is  held  that  a  dividend  payable  in 
stock  purchased  with  the  surplus  earnings  of  the  corporation 
belongs  absolutely  to  the  life  tenant,7  and  that  a  cash  dividend 
of  forty  per  cent.,  for  the  payment  of  which  no  fund  is*  pro- 
vided, but  which  is  declared  to  be  receivable  in  payment 
for  shares  of  stock  issued  under  a  power  to  increase  the 
capital  stock,  is  virtually  a  stock  dividend,  and  must  go 
to  the  remainderman,8  as  must  also  the  compensation  paid 

1  Minot  v.  Paine,  99  Mass.  101.  t>.  Smith,  17  R.  I.  28,  s.  c.  19  Atl.  R. 

2  Boston,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Common-    1081. 

wealth,  100  Mass.  399.  5  Mills  v.  Britton,  64  Conn.  4,  24  L. 

8 Gibbons  v.  Mahon,  136  U.  S.  549.  R.  A.  536. 

*  Terry  v.  Eagle  Lock  Co.,  47  Conn.  6  Daland  v.  Williams,  101  Mass.  571  ; 

141;    Spooner  v.   Phillips,  62  Conn.  Rand  v.  Hubbell,  115  Mass.  461. 

62,  s.  c.   16  L.    R.  A.  461,  and  note;  7Lelandv.  Hayden,  102  Mass.  542. 

Millen  v.Guerrard,  67  Ga.  292 ;  Greene  8  Daland  v.  AVilliams,  101  Mass.  571 . 


424  THE    CORPORATION.  §  307 

to  the  corporation  for  a  part  of  its  real  estate  taken  by  right  of 
eminent  domain,  and  distributed  to  the  stockholders  as  a  cash 
dividend.1  In  England,  the  courts  originally  followed  the  rule 
that  regular  cash  dividends  belong  to  the  life  tenant  as  income, 
while  extraordinary  dividends,  or  bonuses,  belong  to  the  re- 
mainderman,2 but  the  tendency  at  the  present  time  seems  to  be 
to  hold  the  action  of  the  corporation  conclusive,  so  that,  if  it 
declares  even  an  extraordinary  dividend  during  the  existence 
of  the  life  tenancy,  it  goes  to  the  life  tenant,  and  if  it  treats  the 
earnings  as  capital  they  will  not  go  to  the  life  tenant.3  A 
bonus,  however,  which  is  paid  from  profits  that  have  been 
fraudulently  retained  to  the  prejudice  of  the  rights  of  the  life 
tenant,  will  be  given  to  him  as  income  deferred.4  The  rules  to 
which  we  have  referred  are  those  announced  by  the  courts  in 
their  endeavor  to  accomplish  justice  in  the  absence  of  any 
statute  authorizing  an  apportionment,  and  in  the  absence  of 
any  clearly  expressed  intention  on  the  part  of  the  grantor  or 
testator.  Where  the  intent  of  the  grantor  or  testator  is  clearly 
apparent,  it  will  control,  and  the  courts  will  be  guided  by  it.5 
In  case  the  life  tenant  dies  before  a  dividend  is  declared,  the 
general  rule  is  that  it  can  not  be  apportioned,  but  belongs 
wholly  to  the  remainderman.6  But  in  England7  and  in  several 
states  in  this  country,8  dividends  are  made  apportionable  by 

1  Heard  v.  Eldredge,  109  Mass.  258.  174;  Clarkson  v.  Clarkson,  18  Barb. 

2Brander ~  v.  Brander,  4  Vesey  800 ;  (N.  Y.)  646;  Millen  v.   Guerrard,  67 

Paris  v.   Paris,    10    Vesey,   Jr.,   185;  Ga.   284;  Thomson's   Appeal,  89  Pa. 

Irving  v.  Houstoun,   4  Paton  Scotch  St.  36;  Gibbons  v.  Mahon,  136  TJ.  S. 

H.  of  L.   521;  Murray  v.  Glasse,   17  549;  Bushee  v.  Freeborn,  11  R.  I.  149. 

Jur.  816.  6  King  v.  Follett,  3  Vt.  385 ;  Granger 

3  Bouch  v.  Sproule,  L.R.  12  App.  Cas.  v.  Bassett,  98  Mass.  462 ;  Brundage  v. 

385,  397 ;  In  re  Barton's  Trust,  L.  R.  Brundage,  60  N.  Y.  544,  551 ;  Pearly 

5  Eq.  238;  Price  v.  Anderson,  15  Sim.  v.  Smith,  3  Atk.  260  (1745)  ;  Schole- 

473;  Ellis  v.  Barfield,  64  L.  T.  R.  625.  field  v.  Redfern,  2  Drew.  &  Sm.  173; 

But  see  Sugden  v.  Alsbury,  63  L.  T.  Quinn  v.  Madigan,  65  N.  H.  8,  s.  c.  17 

R.  576.  Atl.  R.  976.     But  compare  Johnson  ». 

*Maclaren  v.  Stainton,  L.  R.  11  Eq.  Bridgewater,      etc.,      Co.,    14     Gray 

382;  Dale  v.   Hayes,  40  L.  J.  Chan.  (Mass.)  274. 

244;    Edmondson  v.  Crosthwaite,   34  733  and  34  Viet.  Ch.  35,  §2;  Beavan 

Beav.  30.  v.  Beavan,  53  L.  T.  Rep.  245. 

5  In  re  Bouch,  L.  R.  29  Chan.  Div.  8  Stimson's  Am.  Law  (1886),  §  2027. 
635 ;  Reed  v.  Head,  6  Allen  (Mass.) 


§  308  DIVIDENDS.  425 

statute,  while  in  one  or  two  states  there  is  a  tendency  to  hold 
dividends  apportionable  at  common  law.1  The  worth  or  value 
of  a  privilege  accorded  to  shareholders  of  taking  new  shares 
upon  an  increase  of  the  capital  stock,  belongs  to  the  remain- 
derman,2 but  the  income  from  the  money  received  upon  the 
sale  of  such  a  privilege,  or  from  the  stock  which  is  taken  by. 
the  trustee  under  such  a  privilege  for  the  benefit  of  the  trust, 
belongs,  it  seems,  to  the  life  tenant.3 

§  308.  Duties  of  life  tenant  —  Transfers. —  The  calls  which 
are  made  during  the  continuance  of  his  estate  must,  generally, 
be  paid  by  the  life  tenant,*  who  must  also  keep  down  taxes  on 
the  stock.5  He  is  not  entitled  to  have  the  stock  transferred  to 
him  on  the  corporate  books,6  and  the  corporation  may  be  held 
liable  to  the  remainderman  for  enabling  the  life  tenant  to  dis- 
pose of  the  shares  to  his  injury.7  But  the  life  tenant  may 
hold  the  administrator  permitting  a  transfer8  or  the  corpora- 
tion making  it9  (where  it  has  notice  of  the  trust)  liable  for 
his  interest  in  shares  transferred  in  fraud  of  his  rights. 

§  309.  Dividend  is  not  property  of  the  corporation — Rights 
of  creditors  and  stockholders. — From  the  time  a  dividend  be- 
comes due  it  ceases  to  be  a  part  of  the  property  of  the  corpo- 

1  Ex  parts,  Rutledge,  1  Harper's  Eq.  Stockholders,  §  559,  and  cases  cited 

(S.  C.)  65,  s.  c.  14  Am.  Dec.  696;  Wil-  in  preceding  note, 

son's  Appeal,   108  Pa.  St.  344.    See,  *  Be  Box's  Trusts,  9  L.  T.  (N.  S.) 

also,  Smith's  Estate,  140  Pa.  St.  344,  372.   But  the  testator's  estate  is  liable 

s.  c.  23  Am.  St.  R.  237.  for  a  call  which  becomes  due  the  day 

2 Atkins .  v.   Albree,  94  Mass.   359;  after  his  death..  Emery  v.   Wason, 

Brinley  v.  Grou,  50  Conn.  66,  s.  c.  47  107  Mass.  507. 

Am.  R.  618 ;  Biddle's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  5  Citizens'  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Lott,  45 

St.  278;  Goldsmith  v.  Swift,  25  Hun  Ala.  185;  Webb  v.  Town  of  Burlkig- 

(N.    Y.)    201;  Sanders  v.    Bromley,  ton,  28  Vt.  188. 

55  L.     T.    R.    (N.    S.)    145;    In   re  6  Collier  v.  Collier,  3  Ohio  St.  369; 

Kernochan,  104   N.   Y.  618;    Hite  v.  State  v.  Robinson,  57  Md.  486. 

Kite,  93  Ky.  257,  20  S.  W.  R.  878,  s.  c.-  7  Caulkins  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  Co.,  85 

19  L.  R.  A.  173.     But  see  Wiltbank's  Tenn.  683,  s.  c.  4  S.  W.  R.  287. 

Appeal,  64  Pa.  St.  256,  s.  c.  3  Am.  R.  8  Keeney  v.  Globe  Mill  Co.,  39  Conn. 

585.  145. 

8  Moss's  Appeal,  83  Pa.  St.  264,  s.  c.  9  Stewart  v.  Firemen's  Ins.  Co.,  53 

24  Am.  R.  164;  1  Cook  on  Stock  and  Md.  564. 


426  THE    CORPORATION.  §  310 

ration.1  The  creditors  of  the  corporation  can  not  claim  it  in 
preference  to  the  stockholder,2  even  though  the  corporation 
may  have  become  insolvent  after  the  money  was  in  good  faith 
set  apart  with  which  to  pay  it,  but  before  it  was  actually  paid.3 
Where  a  sufficient  surplus  is  on  hand  with  which  to  pay  the 
dividend  at  the  time  it  is  declared,  but  before  it  is  due  this 
surplus  is  swept  away  by  fraud  of  one  of  the  officers,  or  by 
other  unforeseen  circumstances,  it  has  been  held  that  the  cor- 
poration may  be  restrained  from  paying  dividends  out  of  its 
other  funds.4  And  where  no  specific  fund  is  set  apart  for  the 
payment  of  dividends,  a  shareholder  who  has  not  claimed  or 
received  his  money  before  the  corporation  becomes  insolvent, 
has,  it  seems,  but  a  claim  against  the  corporation,  to  be 
enforced  like  those  of  other  creditors.8  A  specific  fund  de- 
posited in  bank  for  the  payment  of  dividends  which  have 
been  lawfully  declared,  can  not  be  reclaimed  by  the  corpora- 
tion or  by  a  receiver,6  but  can  be  used  only  for  that  purpose, 
though  it  will  be  and  remain  at  the  risk  of  the  corporation  un- 
til a  reasonable  time  after  notice  is  given  to  the  stockholder.7 
If  the  bank  fails  after  such  a  reasonable  time  has  elapsed,  the 
loss  will  fall  upon  the  stockholder.8 

§  310.   Dividend   is    irrevocable — Actions   concerning. — A 

dividend  once  legally  declared  can  not  be  revoked,9  unless, 

1  But  until  the  dividend  is  declared,  Beers  v.   Bridgeport  Spring  Co.,   42 

corporate  profits  belong  to  the  corpo-  Conn.   17.    The  stockholder  may  fol- 

ration  and  may  be  seized  by  its  cred-  low  the  fund. 

itors.     Curry  v.  Woodward,   44  Ala.  7  King  v.  Paterson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

305 ;  Hyatt  v.   Allen,  56  N.  Y.  553 ;  N.  J.  L.  82  and  504. 

Rand  v.  Hubbell,  115  Mass.  461,  474.  8King  v.  Paterson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

2.  Van  Dyck  v.  McQuade,  86  N.  Y.  N.  J.  L.  82  and  504. 

38.  9  Beers  v.  Bridgeport  Spring  Co.,  42 

8  As  where  a  great  fire  rendered  an  Conn.  17.     See,  also,  Armant  v.  New 

insurance    company    insolvent.     Le  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co..  41  La.  Ann. 

Roy  v.  Globe  Ins.  Co.,  2  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  1020,  s.  c.  7  So.  R.  35.     But  it  has  been 

Y.)  657.  held  that  where  dividends  have  been 

4  Fawcett  v.  Laurie,  1  Dr.  &  Sm.  192.  improperly  and  unlawfully  paid  they 

6Lownet>.  American  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  may  be  reclaimed.  Lexington,  etc., Co. 

6  Paige  (N.  Y.)  482;  Curry  v.  Wood-  v.  Page,   17  B.  Mon.    (Ky.)  412,  s.  c. 

ward,  44  Ala.  305.  66  Am.  Dec.  165;  Slayden  v.  Seip,  25 

6  Matter  of  Le  Blanc,   14  Hun  8;  Mo.  App.  439,  446.  See,also,McKusick 


§310 


DIVIDENDS. 


427 


perhaps,  where  no  fund  has  been  set  apart,  and  the  declara- 
tion is  rescinded  before  it  is  made  public,  and  before  the  time 
fixed  for  the  payment  of  the  dividend.1  It  becomes  a  debt  due 
from  the  corporation  which  may  be  enforced  by  action  at  law,2 
like  any  other  debt.  But  only  the  owner  of  the  stock  can 
maintain  an  action  for  this  cause.  Mere  possession  qf  the  cer- 
tificate, or  even  a  special  property  therein,  is  not  always  enough.8 
Such  an  action  should,  ordinarily,  be  brought  against  the  cor- 
poration as  such,  and  not  against  the  corporate  officers,4  and 
should  be  preceded  by  a  demand  for  payment.6  But  a  stock- 
holder can  not,  as  a  rule  at  least,  sue  for  profits  until  a  divi- 
dend has  been  declared,6  even  though  the  dividends  have  been 
guaranteed  to  the  corporation  by  another  corporation  which 
has  leased  the  road.7  The  mere  fact  that  profits  may  have 


v.  Seymour,  etc.,  Co.,  48  Minn.  172,  s.  c. 
50  N.  W.  R.  1116.  And  the  right  to  re- 
claim a  dividend,  paid  by  an  insolvent 
corporation,  passes  to  its  assignee  if 
the  terms  of  the  assignment  are  suf- 
ficiently comprehensive.  Main  v. 
Mills,  6  Biss.  (U.  S.)  98;  Lexington, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Page,  17  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 
412 ;  s.  c.  66  Am.  Dec.  165. 

1  Ford  v.  Easthampton,etc.,Co.,158 
Mass.  84,  s.  c.  32  N.  E.  R.  1036. 

2Coey  v.  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Irish 
R.,  2  C.  L.  112;  King  v.  Paterson, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  N.  J.  L.  504;  West 
Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  77 
Pa.  St.  321 ;  City  of  Ohio  v.  Cleveland, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Ohio  St.  489;  State  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Gill  (Md.) 
363;  Jones  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  57  N.  Y.  196;  Keppel's  Adm'r  v. 
Petersburg  R.  Co.,  Chase's  Dec.  (U. 
S.)  167;  Dalton  v.  Midland  Counties 
R.  Co.,  13  C.  B.  474.  But  see  Fawcett 
v.  Laurie,  1  Dr.  &  Sm.  192,  as  to  the 
case  of  a  loss  of  all  the  profits  after  the 
dividend  is  declared  and  before  it  is 
paid. 

8  Dow  v.  Gould,  etc.,  Min.  Co.,  31 
Cal.  629.  See,  also,  Berford  v.  New 


York  Iron  Mine,  56  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
R.  236. 

4  French  v.  Fuller.  23  Pick.  (Mass.) 
108 ;  Smith  v.  Poor,  40  Me.  415,  s.  c.  63 
Am. Dec.  672.  But  where  the  treasurer 
retained  dividends  under  claim  that 
he  was  the  owner  of  the  shares,  an  ac- 
tion against  him  individually  was  sus- 
tained.   Williams  v,  Fullerton,  20  Vt. 
346.     But  see  Peckham  v.  Van  Wag- 
enen,  83  N.  Y.  40. 

5  State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 
Gill  (Md.)     363;   King  v.  Paterson, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  N.  J.  L.  504;  Bank  of 
Louisville  v.  Gray,  84  Ky.  565 ;  Scott 
v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  of  Ga.,  52  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  45,  where  a  letter  of  inquiry 
was  held  an  insufficient  demand.   The 
suit  has  been  held  a  sufficient  de- 
mand of  itself.     Keppel's  Adm'r    v. 
Petersburg  R.  Co.,  Chase's  Dec.  (U. 
S.)  167;  Robinson  v.  National   Bank, 
etc..  95  N.  Y.  637. 

6Beveridge  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  112  N.  Y.  1. 

7  Flagg  v.  Manhattan  Ry.Co.,10  Fed. 
R.  413,  s.  c.  21  Am.  Law.  Reg.  (U.  S.) 
775;  Beveridge  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
R.  Co.,  112  N.  Y.  1 ;  Harkness  v.  Man- 


428 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§311 


arisen  from  the  transaction  of  the  corporate  business  gives 
him  no  absolute  right  to  an  immediate  distribution  thereof  in 
the  way  of  dividends.1  If  suits  be  brought  by  different  parties 
to  recover  the  same  dividend,  the  corporation  may  require 
them  to  interplead.2  The  corporation  can  not  defend  against 
a  suit  for  such  a  dividend,  on  the  ground  that  it  had  no  legal 
authority  to  declare  a  dividend,  where  dividends  have  been 
paid  to  a  majority  of  the  stockholders  and  are  retained  by 
them.3  But  where  the  corporation  has  a  lien  on  the  shares  for 
a  debt  due  it  from  the  stockholder,  it  may  set  up  the  debt  by 
way  of  set-off  or  counter-claim.4 

§  311.  Demand — Necessity  and  effect  of. — Interest  can  only 
be  recovered  from  the  time  of  a  demand  and  refusal  to  pay  the 
dividend  after  it  has  been  declared  and  becomes  due,5  and  the 


hattan  R.  R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
174.  And  it  has  been  held  that 
an  agreement  to  pay  a  shareholder  a 
certain  specified  dividend  each  year  is 
ultra  vires  and  can  not  be  enforced. 
Elevator  Co.  v .  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  85  Tenn.  703.  But  see  Taft  v. 
Hartford,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  8  R.  I.  310, 
s.  c.  5  Am.  R.  575.  and  ante,  §§  81,  82. 

1  Beveridge  v.  New  York  El.  R.  R. 
Co.,  112 N.Y.I  ;Phelpst?.  Farmers', etc., 
Bank,  26  Conn.  269;  Minot  v.   Paine, 
99  Mass.  101.    See,   also,   Gordon  v. 
Richmond,  etc.,   R.    R.   Co.,   78  Va. 
501. 

2  Salisbury  Mills  v.  Townsend,  109 
Mass.  115. 

3  Stoddard    v.    Shetucket    Foundry 
Co.,  34  Conn.  542.     And  where  the 
minutes  of  the  meeting,  at  which  the 
dividend  was  alleged  to  have  been  de- 
clared, showed  that  a  resolution  de- 
claring a  dividend  was   offered  and 
seconded,  but  failed  to  show  its  adop- 
tion, it  was  held  competent  to  prove 
that  the  dividend  was  really  declared 
by  proof  that  each  officer  of  the  com- 
pany had  acted  on  the  assumption 
that  the  resolution  had  been  adopted, 


and  that,  in  accordance  therewith, 
every  stockholder,  with  the  exception 
of  plaintiff,  had  received  his  pro  rata 
share  of  the  dividend.  Southwestern, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  57  Ark.  355. 

4  King  v.  Paterson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 
N.  J.  L.  504.  It  is  held  that  alien  upon 
dividends  may  still  exist  after  the  lien 
upon  shares  is  taken  away  by  statute. 
Hagar  v.  Union  Nat.  Bank,  63  Me. 
509.  It  is  held  that  no  such  lien  can  be 
claimed  upon  dividends  due  the  estate 
of  a  deceased  shareholder.  Merchants' 
Bank  v.  Shouse,  102 Pa.  St.  488;  Brent 
v.  Bank,  etc.,  2  Cranch  C.  C.  (TJ.  S) 
517.  Nor  can  a  set-off  be  claimed 
where  the  shares  have  been  assigned, 
with  the  knowledge  of  the  corpora- 
tion, before  the  declaration  of  the  div- 
idend. Gemmell  v.  Davis,  75  Md. 
546,  s.  c.  23  Atl.  R.  1032,  32  Am.  St. 
R.  412. 

5Keppels'  Adm'r  v.  Petersburg  R. 
Co.,  Chase's  Dec.  (U.S.)  167;  Board- 
man  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 
N.  Y.  157,  187;  State  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Gill  (Md.)  363,  387; 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cowell, 
28  Pa.  St.  329.  A  different  rule  is  ap- 


312 


DIVIDENDS. 


429 


statute  of  limitation  will  only  run  from  that  time.1  So,  it  has 
been  held  in  Louisiana  that  prescription  will  not  run  against 
a  person  who  is  ignorant  of  his  right  to  dividends,  except 
from  the  date  when  he  learns  of  his  supposed  claim  and  makes 
a  demand,  since  dividends  are  payable  only  on  demand,  and 
can  not  be  said  to  be  due  until  demanded.8  A  demand  is  suf- 
ficient if  made  upon  the  bank  or  person  through  whom  the 
dividend  is  payable.* 

§  312.   Declaration  of  dividend  discretionary  with  directors. 

— In  general,  the  determination  of  the  question  whether  a 
dividend  shall  be  declared  rests  in  the  discretion  of  the 
directors,4  and  they  may  invest  the  profits  to  properly  extend 
or  develop*  the  business,5  or  to  provide  for  the  payment  of 


plied  to  dividends  on  preferred  stock 
not  paid  when  due.  See  Boardman 
I?.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  N.  Y. 
157.  And  it  has  been  said  that  in  New 
York  interest  is  not  dependent  on  de- 
mand. Prouty  v.  Michigan  Southern, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Hun  (N.  Y.)  655,  657; 
Adams  v.  Fort  Plain  Bank,  36  N.  Y. 
255. 

1  State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 
Gill  (Md.)  363;  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Cowell,  28  Pa.  St.  329,  s.  c. 
70  Am.  Dec.  128. 

2Armant  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  1020,  s.  c.  7  So.  R.  35. 
This  was  a  case  in  which  a  company, 
on  re-organization,  was  granted  a  new 
charter  providing  that  dividends  not 
claimed  within  three  years  should  be 
forfeited,  and  an  old  stockholder  who 
did  not  know  of  his  rights  nor  of  the 
re-organization  was  held  not  to  be  af- 
fected by  this  provision,  until,  being 
apprised  of  his  rights  and  liabilities, 
he  asserted  his  claim  to  dividends  by 
making  a  demand. 

3  King  v.  Paterson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 
N.  J.  Law  504. 

4Howell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  51 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  378 ;  Ely  v.  Sprague, 


Clarke  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  351 ;  Barnard  v. 
Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Allen  (Mass.) 
512;  Chaffee  v.  Rutland  R.  Co.,  55 
Vt.  110;  Field  v.  Lamson,  etc.,  Co., 
162  Mass.  388, 38  N.  E.  R.  1126, 27  L.  R. 
A.  136;  Browne  v.  Monmouthshire  R., 
etc.,  Co.,  13  Beav.  32;  McLean  v. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Co.,  159  Pa.  St.  112, 
s.  c.  28  Atl.  R.  211;  State  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Gill  (Md.)  363; 
Hunter  v.  Roberts,  83  Mich.  63,  s.  c. 
47  N.  W.  R.  131,  9  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J. 
90,  31  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  349. 
The  discretion  of  the  directors  in  con- 
trolling the  policy  of  the  corporation 
as  to  the  payment  of  cash  dividends, 
if  honestly  exercised,  will  not  be  in- 
terfered with  by  the  courts.  Zeller- 
bach  v.  Allenberg,  99  Cal.  57 ;  Excel- 
sior, etc.,  Co.  v.  Pierce,  90  Cal.  131,  a. 
c.  27  Pae.  Rep.  44.  But  this  discretion 
may  be  limited  by  law  or  contract. 
Park  v.  Grant  Locomotive  Works,  40 
N.  J.  Eq.  114,  s.  c.  3  Atl.  Rep.  162. 
Compare  American  Wire  Nail  Co.  v. 
Gedge,  (Ky.)  29  S.  W.  R.  353. 

5  Pratt  v.  Pratt,  33  Conn.  446;  Dur- 
fee  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  5 
Allen  (Mass.)  230.  Where  a  dividend 
has  been  declared  and  partly  paid, 


430-  THE    CORPORATION.  §  313 

future  indebtedness,  subject  only  to  the  rule  that  they  must 
act  in  good  faith  and  within  the  limits  of  the  corporate 
powers.1  In  England,  however,  they  are  required  by  statute 
to  report  the  condition  of  the  company  to  the  stockholders  and 
to  be  guided  by  their  determination  as  to  when  a  dividend 
shall  be  declared.*  Some  authorities  hold  that  the  company 
should  increase  its  capital  before  extending  its  business,  and 
that  the  directors,  by  taking  its  earnings  for  the  latter  pur- 
pose, commit  a  gross  violation  of  duty  ;  and  that  in  case  the 
earnings  have  been  so  used  by  them  they  should  increase  the  capi- 
tal stock  and  issue  a  stock  dividend,8  or  borrow  as  much  money  as 
has  been  used  in  improvements  to  replace  the  profits  which 
have  been  improperly  diverted. 

§  313.   Power  to  borrow  money  or  declare  stock  dividend. 

— It  is  the  general  rule  that  the  company,  where  it  has  used 
profits  for  improvements,  may  lawfully  borrow  an  equivalent 
sum  of  money  with  which  to  pay  a  dividend,*  or  it  may,  when  it 
has  authority  to  increase  its  capital  stock,  declare  a  stock 
dividend.5  The  corporation  may,  in  general,  it  is  said,  borrow 

the  corporation  can  not  defeat  the  City  of  Belfast,  77  Me.  445;  Lord  v. 
payment  of  the  rest  by  investing  Brooks,  52  N.  H.  72;  March  v.  East- 
the  remainder  of  the  profits  in  per-  ern,  Ry.  Co.;  43  N.  H.  515.  This  rule 
manent  improvements.  Beers  v.  is  adhered  to  very  strictly  where  hold- 
Bridgeport  Spring  Co.,  42  Conn.  17;  ers  of  common  stock  seek  to  have  a 
Miller  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co.,  24  dividend  declared,  but  where  hold- 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  312.  But  it  has  been  ers  of  preferred  stock  seek  to  enforce 
held  that  a  dividend  may  be  declared  their  rights,  the  courts  sometimes  de- 
for  a  fiscal  year,  subsequent  to  that  in  part  very  far  from  this  rule  in  their  ef- 
which  the  profits  were  earned.  Mills  forts  to  assist  them. 
v.  Northern  R.  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  28  Vic.  Ch.  16,  §  120. 
App.  Cas.  621.  3  Hoole  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L. 

1Karnes  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  R.  3  Ch.  App.  Cas.  262. 
4  Abb.   Prac.   (N.  Y.)  N.  S.  107,  the  *  Mills  v.  Northern  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  L. 
court  saying:     "The  court  can   not  R.  5  Chan.  App.  621. 
undertake  to  say  judicially  that  the  5  City  of  Ohio  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 
future  business  of  the  corporation  will  Co.,  6  Ohio  St.  489 ;  Williams  v.  West- 
be  prosperous ;  nor  has  it  any  right  to  ern  Union  Tel.   Co.,   93  N.  Y.  162; 
postpone  the  rights  and  claims  of  credi-  Howell  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51 
tors  to  future  earnings  and  accumula-  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  378;   Boston,   etc.,   R. 
tions,  even  if  it  could  be  certain  they  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  100  Mass.  399; 
would  accrue."  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gordon's  Ex.  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 


§314 


DIVIDENDS. 


431 


money  to  pay  a  dividend  when  a  fair  estimate  of  its  assets  and 
liabilities  shows  an  excess  of  assets  equal  to  the  amount  of  the 
proposed  dividend,1  since  the  profits  of  the  corporation  for  the 
purpose  of  declaring  a  dividend  may  fairly  be  estimated  to 
consist  in  the  excess  of  its  cash  and  other  property  on  hand 
over  its  liabilities.2 

§  314.  Remedies  for  abuse  of  discretion. — The  usual  reme- 
dy for  an  abuse  of  discretion  in  using  the  profits  and  failing 
to  declare  dividends  is  by  electing  other  directors,8  and  the 
court  will  take  into  account  the  fact  that  not  only  this  course, 
but  also  that  of  disposing  of  his  shares,  is  open  to  an 
aggrieved  shareholder.4  But  still  a  court  of  equity  will  exer- 
cise a  supervisory  power  in  this  matter,  and  may,  at  the  in- 
stance of  any  shareholder,  compel  the  proper  authorities  to 
declare  and  pay  the  dividend,  in  cases  where  there  is  a  clear 
abuse  of  power  in  refusing  to  do  so.5  This  power  is  most 
Co.,  78  Va.  501;  Commonwealths.  Hare,  313 ;  Brown  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R. 


Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Pa.  St.  83; 
State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Gill 
(Md.)  363.  Such  a  dividend,  it  is 
said,  may  be  revoked  at  any  time  be- 
fore certificates  are  issued.  Terry  v. 
Eagle  Lock  Co.,  47  Conn.  141.  In 
England  such  a  dividend  is  held  to  be 
ultra  vires,  and  in  some  of  the  states 
it  is  prohibited  by  constitutional  pro- 
vision. Hoole  v.  Great  Western  R. 
Co.,  L.  R.  3  Ch.  App.  262. 

1  Stringer's  Case,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  475. 

2  Hubbard  v.   Weare,  79  Iowa  678, 
s.  c.  44  N.  W.  915;  Miller  v.  Bradish, 
69  Iowa  278. 

3Jermain  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  91  N.  Y.  483;  Karnes  v.  Roches- 
ter, etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y)  N. 
S.  107;  Chaffee  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  R. 
Co.,  55  Vt.  110;  Barnard  v.  Vermont, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Allen  (Mass.)  512; 
Brown  v.  Monmouthshire,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  13  Beav.  32,  s.  c.  15  Jur.  475. 

4  Barry  v.  Merchants'  Exchange 
Co.,  1  Sandf.  Chan.  (N.  Y.)  280. 

6  Stevens  v.  South  Devon  R.  Co.,  9 


Co.,  27  Hun  (N.  Y.)  342;  Boardman 
v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  84  N.  Y. 
157;  Hiscock  v.  Lacy,  30  N.  Y.  Supp. 
860.  But  not  where  the  stockholder 
waits  until  after  the  corporation  has 
become  insolvent  before  bringing  his 
suit.  Scott  v.  Eagle  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  7 
Paige  (N.  Y.)  198.  And  it  is  held  in 
Massachusetts  that  no  equitable  relief 
can  be  granted  against  a  foreign  cor- 
poration having  neither  officers  nor 
place  of  business  in  that  state  for  a 
failure  to  declare  and  pay  dividends 
according  to  the  stipulations  of  their 
certificates  of  stock.  Williston  v. 
Michigan  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 
Allen  (Mass.)  400.  In  determining 
the  question  the  object  of  the  corpora- 
tion and  the  condition  of  its  affairs 
will  be  considered.  Fougeray  v.  Cord, 
50  N.  J.  Eq.  185,  s.  c.  24  Atl.  R.  499. 
Ordinarily,  however,  the  directors  can 
not  be  compelled,  by  mandamus,  to 
pay  a  dividend.  People  v.  Central, 
etc.,  Co.,  41  Mich.  166. 


432  THE    CORPORATION.  §  315 

often  invoked  by  the  holders  of  preferred  shares,  when  the 
action  of  the  directors  threatens  to  rob  them  of  their  preference. 
Thus,  in  a  recent  case,1  it  appeared  that  by  the  terms  of  the 
subscription  contract  the  holders  of  preferred  stock  in  the 
defendant  company  were  entitled  to  a  dividend  from  net  profits 
each  year  during  which  they  were  earned,  but  not  to  cumula- 
tive dividends,  and  that  the  arrearages  of  one  year  were  not 
payable  out  of  the  earnings  of  subsequent  years.  It  was  held 
that  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  directors  to  accumulate 
money  for  the  payment  of  the  funded  indebtedness,  by  refus- 
ing to  pay  any  dividends  on  preferred  stock  through  a  long 
term  of  years,  after  which  the  income  from  the  road  might 
be  expected  to  be  great  enough  to  pay  to  the  holders  of  common 
stock  the  same  dividends  that  holders  of  preferred  stock  would 
be  entitled  to  receive,  was  unjustifiable  and  a  violation  by  the 
directors  of  their  legal  duty,  and  the  court  ordered  the  pay- 
ment of  a  dividend  to  the  preferred  shareholders  out  of  the 
income  for  the  current  year,  after  the  corporate  expenses  and 
interest  on  the  funded  debt  had  been  paid.2  But  one  who  is 
not  a  stockholder  can  not  obtain  a  decree  compelling  the  cor- 
poration to  declare  and  pay  such  dividends  as  shall  appear 
upon  an  accounting  to  have  been  earned.8 

§315.  Limitations  upon  authority  to  declare  a  dividend — 
Suits  to  reclaim. — There  are  also  many  limitations  upon  the  legal 
authority  of  the  directors  to  declare  a  dividend.  In  Virginia, 
it  is  held  that  directors  who  have  failed  to  declare  dividends 
at  the  time  fixed  by  the  charter  can  not  declare  one  for  each 
of  a  number  of  years  and  so  reduce  the  size  of  the  dividends.4 

1Hazeltine  v.  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  3Berford  v.  New  York  Iron  Mine, 

79  Me.  411.  56  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  R.  236. 

2  See,  also,  Richardson  v.  Vermont,  *  Gordon  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  44  Vt.  613 ;  West  Ches-  78  Va.  501.  In  this  case  the  common 

ter,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  77  Pa.  shareholders  claimed  the  right  to  have 

St.  321 ;  Nickals  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  such  dividends  paid  to  them  as  would 

R.  Co.,  15  Fed.  R.  575,  and  compare  equal  the  dividends  received  by  the 

Williston  v.  Michigan  Southern  R.  R.  preferred  shareholders  for  a  series  of 

Co.,  13  Allen  (Mass.)  400;  Belfast,  twelve  years  past,  before  any  further 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Belfast,  77  Me.  445.  payments  were  made  to  the  preferred 

shareholders. 


§  315 


DIVIDENDS. 


433 


A  valid  dividend  can  in  no  case  be  declared  and  paid  when 
the  corporation  is  insolvent,1  but  can  only  be  lawfully  declared 
when  sufficient  net  profits  have  been  earned  to  pay  it.  And  if 
payment  of  the  dividend  will  consume  any  portion  of  the  capi- 
tal stock  of  the  company,  such  dividend  may  be  held  fraudu- 
lent and  void/  and,  if  paid,  so  much  of  the  capital  as  was 
consumed  in  the  payment  may  be  recovered  back8  by  suit  in 
equity4  brought  by  any  corporate  creditor  who  holds  a  judgment 
against  the  corporation  upon  which  an  execution  has  been  re- 
turned unsatisfied.5  So,  a  receiver  may  recover  money  paid  as  a 
dividend  while  the  company  was  insolvent.6  And  it  has  been  held 
that  the  directors  themselves  may  reclaim  dividends  which  have 
been  illegally  declared  under  a  misapprehension  of  the  right  to  de- 
clare them,  and  which  have  been  paid  to  the  shareholders.'  The 
stockholder  is  bound  to  take  notice  of  the  condition  of  the  corpora- 
iton,8  and  it  has  been  held  that  his  private  property  may  be  reached 


1  Dividends  paid  when  the  company 
is  insolvent  may  be  recovered  back 
from  the  stockholders.  Osgood  v.  Lay- 
tin,  3  Keyes  (N.  Y.)  521 ;  Slayden  v. 
Seip,  etc.,  Co.,  25  Mo.  App.  439. 

2Chaffee  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co. ,55 
Vt.  110;  Elkins  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  233;  Pittsburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  County  of  Allegheny,  63  Pa. 
St.  126;  Carpenter  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  5  Abb.  Prac.  (N.  Y.)  277; 
Lockhart  ».  Van  Alstyne,  31  Mich. 
76.  But  see  Verner  v.  General,  etc., 
Trust  (L.  R.  1894),  2  Ch.  239. 

8  Railroad  Company  v.  Howard,  7 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  392;  Johnson  v.  Laflin, 
5  Dill  (U.  S.)  65,  85,  note;  Hastings 
v.  Drew,  76  N.  Y.  9 ;  McKusick  v. 
Seymour,  etc.,  Co.,  48  Minn.  172,  s.  c. 
50  N.  W.  R.  1116;  Heman  v.  Britton, 
88  Mo.  549;  Story's  Eq.  Juris.  (13th 
eel.),  §  1252.  The  corporation  should 
be  made  a  party  to  the  bill.  First 
Nat.  Bk.,  etc.,  v.  Smith,  6  Fed.  R.  215. 

*  The  creditor  should  file  a  bill  in 

CORP.  28 


the  nature  of  a  creditor's  bill  in  favor 
of  himself  and  all  other  creditors  that 
may  choose  to  come  in  and  share  the 
expense  of  the  suit.  Hastings  v.  Drew, 
76  N.  Y.  9 ;  Bank  of  St.  Mary's  v.  St. 
John,  25  Ala.  566;  First  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Smith,  6  Fed.  R.  215. 

5  Cook  on  Stock  and  Stockholders, 
§548.    But  creditors  of  an  insolvent 
corporation    can   not,  ordinarily,  re- 
quire the  stockholders  to  surrender 
dividends  paid  by  it  when  it  was  sol- 
vent.    Reid  v.  Eatonton  Co.,  40  Ga. 
98;  In  re  Mercantile,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  4 
Ch.  475;  Main  v.  Mills,  6  Biss.  (U.  S.) 
98. 

6  Osgood  B.  Layton,  3  Keyes  (N.  Y.) 
521.     Compare    Van    Duyck    v.   Mc- 
Quade,  86  N.  Y.  45. 

7  Lexington,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Page,  17  B. 
Mon.  (Ky.)  412,  s.  c.66Am.  Dec.  165. 
This  decision,  however,  seems  ques- 
tionable. 

8  Peterson  v.  Illinois,   etc.,   Co.,   (> 
Bradw.  (111.)  257;  Clapp  v.  Peterson, 


434  THE    CORPORATION.  §  316 

in  such  an  action  by  the  creditors,1  even  though  he  was  in  reality 
ignorant  of  the  fact  that  payment  of  his  dividend  would  impair 
the  capital  stock.  The  statute  of  limitations  will  run  from  the  time 
the  dividend  is  declared  in  favor  of  a  shareholder  who  receives 
such  a  dividend  in  good  faith  and  without  actual  notice.2  If 
compelled  to  pay  more  than  his  equitable  proportion  of  such  a 
debt,  the  stockholder  may  enforce  contribution  by  his  associ- 
ates ;3  and  a  stockholder  who  became  possessed  of  his  shares 
after  such  a  dividend  was  paid  can  not  be  held  liable  in  such 
a  suit.4 

§  316.   Dividends  should  be  paid  out  of  the  profits.  —  The 

rule  is  often  stated  as  requiring  all  dividends  to  be  paid  out  of 
the  net  profits  of  the  company,  and  this  rule  is  generally  cor- 
rect when  net  profits  are  interpreted  to  mean  that  portion  of 
the  income  which  remains  after  the  deduction  of  all  proper 
charges  and  outlays,5  including  interest,  and  the  like.6  But  the 
corporation  is  not  required  to  be  absolutely  free  from  debt  be- 
fore paying  dividends  ;7  indeed,  a  contrary  rule  would  prevent 
almost  every  railroad  in  the  country  from  paying  dividends.8 

104  111.  26;  Osgood  v.  Laytin,  48  Barb.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nickals,  119 

(N.  Y.)  463 ;  Bank  of  St.  Mary's  v.  St.  TJ.  S.  296.     The  net  profits  have  been 

John,  25  Ala.  566.  held  to  be  the  income  remaining  after 

1  Bartholomew  v.  Bentley,  15  Ohio  the  payment  of  operating  expenses, 
659.    As    to    the    stockholder's    lia-  and  before  the  payment  of  interest, 
bility  in  a  proceeding  by  creditor's  Corry  v.  Londonderry,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 
bills  to  reach  dividends  paid  after  the  Beav.  263.     But  it  is  doubted  if  inter- 
corporation  was  insolvent  or  in  con-  est  on  debentures  can  be  charged  to 
templation  of  insolvency,  see  Railroad  capital,  and  the  fund  for  the  payment 
Co.  v.  Howard,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  392;  of  dividends  thereby  increased.  Blox- 
Pacific  R.  Co.  v.  Cutting,  Jr.,  27  Fed.  am  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  3  Ch. 
R.  638;  Hastings  v.  Drew,  76  N.  Y.  9;  App.  Gas.  337,  344,  350. 

Heman  v.  Britton,  88  Mo.  549;  Lex-  6See  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tennes- 

ington,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Page,  17  B.  see,  153  U.  S.  486,  s.  c.  14  Sup.  Ct.  R. 

Mon.  (Ky.)  412.  968.    Except  in  cases  where  a  portion 

2  Lexington,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Page,  of  the  capital  is  distributed  upon  a  re- 
17  B.  Mon.  412,  s.  c.  66  Am.  Dec.  165.  duction  of  capital  stock.  See  Strong  p. 

3  Bartlett  v.  Drew,  57  N.  Y.  587.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  N.   Y.  426. 

4  Hurlbut  v.  Tayler,  62  Wis.  607.  7  Mills  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L. 
5 St.  John  v.  Erie  R.   Co.,  22  Wall.     R.  5  Ch.  App.  Cas.  621. 

(U.  S.)  136;  Millers.  Bradish,  69  8  In  support  of  the  text  see,  also, 
Iowa  278,  s.c.  28  N.  W.  594.  See,  also,  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belfast,  77  Me. 


§  317  DIVIDENDS.  435 

The  debts  which  the  company  is  authorized  to  carry  while  pay- 
ing dividends  are  funded  debts,  and  others  of  that  class. 
Debts  owing  to  contractors,  and  money  due  to  bankers  and 
others  for  advances  made  to  aid  in  building  the  road,  must  be 
defrayed  before  dividends  are  declared,1  though  these  debts  mayr 
in  the  discretion  of  the  directors,  be  converted  into  funded  in- 
debtedness where  this  is  practicable.2  But  dividends  must 
ordinarily  be  paid  only  out  of  earnings,*  and,  unless  the  contrary 
is  provided  by  charter  or  by  statute,  so,  as  a  general  rule,  must 
interest  upon  stock  when  it  is  allowe'd.*  Consequently,  it  is  un- 
lawful for  a  company  which  has  not  yet  earned  any  income  to 
declare  a  dividend"  upon  its  ordinary  stock  out  of  a  sum  of  money 
paid  to  it  as  penalty  and  interest  by  the  contractors,  upon  a 
failure  to  complete  the  company's  lines  according  to  agreement.5 
An  absolute  agreement  to  pay  interest  upon  stock,  where  it 
is  not  expressly  authorized  by  statute,  has  been  held  void,6 
although  it  is  perfectly  competent  in  this  country  for  a  rail- 
road company  to  contract  that  it  will,  whenever  the  surplus 
earnings  shall  enable  it  to  do  so  out  of  such  earnings,  pay  in- 
terest on  the  stock  subscriptions  for  the  time  the  road  is  build- 
ing and  until  it  is  ready  for  operation.7 

§  317.  Enjoining  payment  of  dividends. — An  injunction  will 
not  issue  at  the  instance  of  corporate  creditors  to  restrain  acts 
tending  to  decrease  the  corporate  assets  where  it  is  not  shown 

445 ;  Hazeltine  v.  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Mich.  100;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 

79  Me.  411 ;  Miller  v.  Bradish,  69  Iowa  Allegheny  Co.,  63  Pa.  St.  126;  Pains- 

278,  s.  c.  28  N.  W.  594.  ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  King,  17  Ohio  St. 

1  Wood's  R.  Law,  168.  534;  Troy,    etc.,  R.  Co.    v.   Tibbitts, 

2  Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belfast,  77  18  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  297.    But  see  ante, 
Me.  445,  s.  c.  23  Am.  &  E.  R.  Cas.  736,  §  86. 

740.  'Richardson  v.  Vermont,  etc.,  R. 

8  Bloxham  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  Co.,  44  Vt.  613;  Cunningham  v.  Ver- 

L.  R.  3  Ch.  App.  Cas.  337.  mont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Gray  (Mass.) 

4  Macdougall  v.  Jersey,  etc.,  Co.,  2  411;  McLaughlin  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R. 
Hem.  &M.  528;  Salisbury  r.Metropol-  Co.,  8  Mich.   100;   City  of  Ohio    r. 
itan  R.  Co.,  38  L.  J.  Ch.  249.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Ohio  St.  489 ; 

5  Bloxham  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  Evansville,   etc.,    R.   Co.  v.   City   of 
L.  R.  3  Ch.  App.  Cas.  337.  Evansville,  15  Ind.  395. 

6 McLaughlin  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co., 


436  THE    CORPORATION.  §  317 

that  the  remaining  assets  will  be  insufficient  to  meet  the  cor- 
porate liabilities.1  And  another  company  claiming  the  right 
of  distress  for  non-payment  of  toll  charges  can  not  obtain  an 
injunction  to  restrain  the  payment  of  dividends.2  The  fact 
that  there  is  not  cash  actually  on  hand  or  at  the  banker's  to 
pay  the  proposed  dividend  in  full,3  or  that  certain  immaterial 
errors  in  calculation  are  contained  in  an  account  honestly 
made  out  and  published  in  good  faith,4  is  not  sufficient  to 
justify  the  granting  of  an  injunction.  And  a  court  of  equity 
will  not  restrain  the  payment  of  a  dividend  merely  upon  the 
ground  that  the  directors  have  acted  in  violation  of  their 
duties  to  the  public.5  An  injunction  will  not  be  granted,  it 
seems,  to  restrain  payment  of  a  dividend  already  declared 
without  a  stronger  showing  than  is  required  to  restrain  the 
declaration  of  the  dividend,6  though  the  fact  that  dividends 
have  been  declared  is  by  no  means  conclusive  of  the  fact  that 
they  must  be  paid.  It  is  generally  held  that  the  court  will 
not,  in  a  suit  brought  by  a  single  shareholder,  to  which  the 
other  shareholders  are  not  made  parties,  restrain  the  payment 
of  dividends  which  have  been  regularly  declared,  since  it  can 
not,  in  their  absence,  interfere  with  the  legal  right  which  the 
stockholders  have  acquired  to  such  dividends.7  But  a  stock- 
holder may  file  a  bill  on  behalf  of  himself  and  others  to  en- 
join the  threatened  declaration  of  a  dividend  out  of  the  capi- 
tal stock.8  It  must  be  shown  that  a  fraud  is  being  perpetrated 

1  Mills  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  7  Fawcet  v.  Laurie,  1  Drew  &  S.  192 ; 

R.  5  Chan.  621;  Lee  v.  Neuchatel,  Carlisle  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  1 

etc.,  Co.,  58  L.  T.  R.  553.  But  see  Macn.  &  G.  689;  Carpenter  v.  New 

Williams  v.  Boice,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  364.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Abb.  Pr.  277. 

*  South  Yorkshire  R.  Co.  v.  Great  8  2  Beach  on  Private  Corporations, 

Northern  R.  Co.,  9  Exch.  55.  §607;  Carlisle  v.  Southeastern  Ry. 

8  Stringer's  Case,  L.  R.  4  Chan.  475.  Co.,  1   Macn.  &  G.  689,  14  Jur.  515; 

4  Yool  r.  Great  Western  R.  Co.',  20  Fawcet  v.  Laurie,   1   Drew  &  S.  192; 
L.  T.  R.  (N.  S.)  74.  Macdougall   v.   Jersey,    etc.,    Co.,   2 

5  Browne  v.  Monmouthshire  R.,  etc.,  Hem.  &  M.  528;   Bloxam  v.   Metro- 
Co.,  13  Beav.   32;  Stevens  v.  South  politan  R.  R.  Co.,  L.   R.  3  Ch.  337; 
Devon  R.  Co.,  9  Hare  313.  Salisbury   v.   Metropolitan    Ry.   Co., 

6  Carpenter  r.  New  York,  etc.,  R.Co.,  38  L.   J.   Ch.    249;   Painsville,    etc., 
o  Abb.  Prac.  (N.  Y.)  277;  Carlisle  v.  R.    Co.    v.   King,  17  Ohio    St.    534; 
Southeastern   R.   Co.,   1   Macn.  &  G.  Carpenter  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  R. 
689.  Co.,   5    Abb.   Pr.   (N.  Y.)  277.     See, 


<§  318  DIVIDENDS.  437 

upon  citizens  of  the  state  in  which  the  suit  is  brought,  before 
its  courts  will  enjoin  the  declaration  of  a  dividend  by  a  corpo- 
ration of  another  state.1  But  it  has  been  held  that  the  court  will 
not  refuse  to  restrain  the  corporation  from  paying  a  dividend 
to  the  common  shareholders  to  the  injury  of  resident  holders 
of  preferred  shares  upon  which  dividends  have  not  been  paid, 
•even  though  the  defendant  corporation  has  its  domicile  in 
another  state.8 

§  318.  Personal  liability  of  directors. — In  addition  to  their 
liability  as  stockholders,  the  directors  have  been  held  person- 
ally liable  to  refund  dividends  paid  out  of  the  capital  stock,1 
at  least  where  they  have  acted  willfully  and  knowingly,*  and 
they  have  been  denied  recourse  upon  the  stockholders  who 
took  the  dividends  in  good  faith.5  It  has  been  said  that, 
*'  Where  directors  order  dividends  to  be  paid  where  no  profits 
liave  been  made,  without  expressly  saying  so,  a  gross  fraud  is 
practiced,  and  the  directors  are  not  only  civilly  liable  to  those 
whom  they  have  deceived  and  injured,  but  are  guilty  of  con- 
spiracy, for  which  they  are  liable  to  be  prosecuted  and  pun- 
ished."6 But  the  better  rule  would  seem  to  be  that  they  are  not 
liable  beyond  their  liability  as  stockholders,  where  they  have 

also,  March  v.  Eastern  R.  R.  Co.,  40  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  236,  4  N.  Y.  Supp. 

N.  H.  548,  s.  c.  77  Am.  Dec.  732.    But  836. 

the  bill  must  show  that  injury  will  re-  2  Prouty  v.  Michigan  Southern,  etc., 

suit  from  the  illegal  act.    Chaffee  v.  R.  Co.,  1   Hun  (N.  Y.)  655.    But  see 

Rutland  R.  R.  Co.,  55  Vt.  110;  Car-  Williston  v.  Michigan  Southern,  etc., 

lisle  v.  Southeastern  Ry.  Co.,  supra.  R.  Co.,  13  Allen  (Mass.)  400. 

An  injunction  has  also  been  granted  3  Gratz  v.  Redd,  4  B.  Mon.   (Ky.) 

to  restrain  the  payment  of  a  dividend  178,   194;  Hill  v.  Frazier,  22  Pa.  St. 

•out  of  earnings  necessary  to  repair  320.    See,  also,  Evans  v.  Coventry,  25 

the  road.     Davidson  v.  Gillies,  1  Am.  L.  J.  Ch.  489,  8  De  Gex,  M.  &  G.  835 ; 

&Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  595,  note.  See,  also,  In  re  National  Funds,  etc.,  Co.,  L.  R. 

Dent  v.   London,   etc.,  Co.,  L.  R.  16  10  Ch.  Div.  118. 

Ch.  Div.  344,  s.  c.   1  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  4Burnes  v.  Pennell,  2  H.  L.  Cas. 

R.  Cas.  592.  497,  513. 

1  Howell    v.   Chicago  etc.,  R.   Co.,  6  In  re  Exchange  Banking  Co.,   L. 

51   Barb.     (N.    Y.)  378.      See,    also,  R.  21  Chan.  Div.  519. 

AVilliston     v.     Michigan     Southern,  6  Lord  Campbell  in  Burnes  v.  Pen- 

etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  13  Allen  (Mass.)  400;  nell,  2  H.  L.  Cas.  497,  513. 
Berford   ».  New  York,  etc.,   Co.,   56 


438  THE    CORPORATION.  §  318 

acted  in  good  faith  ;*  or,  if  they  are  held  liable,  they  may,  per- 
haps, recover  what  they  have  paid  in  an  action  against  the 
stockholders.*  A  suit  to  enforce  this  liability  has  been  held  to- 
be  properly  brought  by  a  non-participating  stockholder.8  But  a 
stockholder  seeking  to  hold  the  directors  personally  liable  for 
damages  which  he  has  sustained  by  reason  of  their  fraud  and 
mismanagement,  should  bring  his  suit  in  a  court  of  equity.* 
At  law,  in  the  absence  of  special  statute,  the  directors  are  re- 
sponsible only  to  the  corporation.5  It  is,  however,  provided 
by  statute  in  many  of  the  states  that  the  directors  declaring 
and  paying  any  dividend  which  impairs  the  capital  stock  shall 
be  individually  liable  for  the  corporate  debts,6  or  for  some 
other  stated  penalty,  such  as  double  damages,  fine  or  imprison- 
ment. It  has  been  held  that  where  recovery  is  had  from  a  di- 
rector as  a  wrong-doer  under  such  a  statute,7  he  can  have  no 
right  of  subrogation  as  against  the  corporation.8  And  a  claim 
based  on  such  a  statute9  against  a  director  who  has  acted  in- 
good  faith,  may,  it  seems,  be  barred  by  laches." 

1  Excelsior  Pet.  Co.  v.  Lacey,  63  N.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  566;  Sears  v.  Hotch-- 

Y.  422.  kiss,  25  Conn.  171. 

2 Salisbury  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  "Smith  v.  Poor,  40  Me.  415;  Evans- 

22  L.  T.  R.  (N.  S.)  839.  v.  Brandon,  53  Tex.  56;  Allen  v.  Cur- 

8  Salisbury  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  tis,  26  Conn.  456.     And,  of  course,  a 

22 L.  T.  R.  (N.  S.)  839.     In  Lexington,  stockholder  who  has  received  a  di vi- 

etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bridges,  7  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  dend    wrongfully    and    illegally    de- 

556,  559,  it  is  suggested  that  such  a  clared  will  not  be  allowed  to  maintain 

suit  would  be  more  properly  brought  an  action  for  his  own  benefit,  from 

by  the  stockholders,  or  by  the  corpo-  the  directors  who  illegally  declared 

ration,  and  the  court  doubts  if  the  di-  it,  on  the  theory  of  a  breach  of  trust, 

rectors  can  be  held  liable  to  the  cor-  Wallace  v.  Lincoln  Savings  Bank,  8^ 

porate  creditors,  but  it  may  well  be  Tenn.  630,  s.  c.  24  Am.  St.  R.  625. 

doubted  if  the  stockholders  retaining  6  Stimson's  Am.  Stat.(1892),  §§  8161 , 

their  dividends  could  have  any  stand-  8236,   8634.     See  Companies'   Act  of 

ing  in  a  court  of  equity  to  prosecute  1862  (Eng.),  §  165. 

such  a  suit,  and  the  creditors  would  7  Pennsylvania  Act  of  7th  of  April- 

seem  to  have  the  strongest  claim  in  1849,  §  9. 

equity  to  some  remedy  for  an  impair-  8  Hill  v.  Frazier,  22  Pa.  St.  320. 

ment  of  the  fund  upon  the  faith  of  9  Eng.  Companies' Act  of  1862,  §  ir>o. 

which  the  debts  are  created.  10  In  re  Mammoth  Copperopolis,  etc., 

« Smith  v.   Hurd,   12  Met.  (Mass.)  50  L.  J.  Chan.  11. 
371;   Bishop  v.   Houghton,   1  E.   D. 


$  31i)  DIVIDENDS.  439 

§319.  Dividends  payable  in  scrip. —  Dividends  are  fre- 
quently made  payable  in  "scrip"  or  certificates  which  confer 
upon  the  holder  certain  rights,  which  are  set  out  in  the  certifi- 
cates themselves.  This  plan  is  adopted  when  the  profits  of 
the  company  are  in  the  shape  of  property  which  has  yet  to  be 
sold,  or  when  the  profits  are  being  used  in  making  improve- 
ments to  be  represented  by  a  stock  dividend,  which  is  to  be  de- 
clared at  some  time  in  the  future.  The  certificates  are  made 
redeemable  in  money,  stock,  bonds,  or  property,  either  at  a 
fixed  time  or  at  the  option  of  the  corporation l  or  of  the  holder,* 
and,  being  negotiable,  enable  the  stockholders  who  wish  to  do 
so,  to  realize  at  once  upon  the  dividend.  Sometimes  these  cer- 
tificates so  far  partake  of  the  nature  of  certificates  of  stock  as 
to  entitle  the  holder  to  dividends.3  But  the  issue  of  such  cer- 
tificates is  not  a  distribution  of  the  surplus  from  which  the 
corporation  expects  to  pay  them,  and  does  not  transfer  the 
title  to  that  surplus  to  the  holders  of  certificates.*  The  com- 
pany may,  however,  distribute  the  property  of  which  its  sur- 
plus income  consists  among  its  stockholders  in  the  form  of  a 
dividend,  where  it  is  susceptible  of  a  ratable  distribution  ;5  or 
it  may  declare  a  dividend  payable  in  bonds  which  represent 
earnings  used  for  the  improvement  of  the  road.6 

§  320.  Stock  dividends. — If  the  earnings  of  the  company 
have  been  devoted  to  the  purchase  of  shares  of  stock  made 
under  legislative  authority,  the  shares  so  purchased  may  be 
distributed  to  the  stockholders  in  the  form  of  a  stock  dividend,7 
unless  such  dividends  are  prohibited  by  statute.  A  stock 

1  Brown  v.  Lehigh,  etc.,  Co.,  49  Pa.  83;  Bailey  v.  Railroad  Co.,  22  Wall. 

St.  270.  (U.S.)  604. 

2Chaffeeo.  Rutland  R.  Co.,  55  Vt.  5 Scott  w.   Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  52 

110;  State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  45,  where  the  dividends 

6  Gill  (Md.)  363;  Brundage  v.  Brund-  were  paid  in  Confederate  money, 

age,  1  Th.  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  82,  affirmed,  60  8  Wood  v.  Lary,  47  Hun   (N.  Y.) 

N.  Y.  544.  550;  State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

3  Bailey  v.  Railroad  Co.,  22  Wall.  Gill  (Md.)  363. 

(IT.  S.)  604.  7  Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 

*  People  v.  Board  of  Assessors,  76  Co.,  142  Mass.  146,  s.  c.  7N.E.R.  716. 

N.  Y.  202,  16  Hun  196 ;  Commonwealth  But  the  stockholders  have  no  right  to 

v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  74  Pa.  St.  claim  a  pro  rata  share  of  such  stock 


440 


THE    CORPORATION. 


320 


dividend  has  been  defined  as  "the  issue  by  a  corporation,  as  a 
dividend,  of  new  shares  which  have  been  paid  up  by  the 
transfer  from  the  surplus  or  profit  and  loss  account  to  the 
account  representing  capital  stock  of  a  sum  equal  to  their  par 
value."1  The  effect  of  such  a  dividend  is,  it  seems,  simply  to 
change  the  form  of  the  investment  of  the  stockholders  by  in- 
creasing the  number  of  shares  and  thereby  diminishing  the 
value  of  each  without  affecting  the  solvency  of  the  corpora- 
tion or  altering  the  aggregate  value  of  the  shares  or  interests 
of  the"  stockholders.2  It  may,  therefore,  be  made  not  only 
where  old  shares  have  been  purchased  by  the  corporation,  but 
also  where  the  corporation  is  authorized  to  increase  its  stock 
and  issue  new  shares  and  a  surplus  has  been  earned,  so  that 
the  new  stock  represents  and  has  back  of  it  so  much  additional 
capital  or  property  which  the  directors  might  have  distributed 
among  the  stockholders  or  retained  for  future  use.8  Insomuch 
as  the  stock  dividend  consisting  of  new  shares  virtually  takes 
the  place  of  a  cash  dividend,  each  shareholder  is,  ordinarily, 
entitled  to  share  therein  to  the  same  extent  as  if  it  were  paid 
in  cash,  and  all  should,  therefore,  be  given  an  equal  oppor- 
tunity to  take  their  proportionate  shares  of  the  new  stock  in 
the  first  instance.4  But  it  is  said  that  stockholders  in  railroads 


until  it  is  ordered  to  be  divided  among 
them.  Wiltbank's  Appeal,  64  Pa.  St. 
256 ;  St.  John  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  lOBlatch. 
(U.  S.)  271 ;  Bradley  v.  Holdsworth,  3 
M.  &  W.  422. 

14 'Stock  Dividends  and  their  Re- 
straint,"? Am. Bar  Assn.  R.  268;  note 
to  Gordon's  Exrs.  v.  Richmond,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  78  Va.  501,  22  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  R.  Cas.  33,  48. 

2  Williams  v.  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co,,  93  N.  Y.  162;  Howell  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  51  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  378; 
Terry  v.  Eagle  Lock  Co.,  47  Conn. 
141 ;  Gibbons  v.  Mahan,  136  U.  S.  549, 
s.  c.  10  Sup.  Ct.  R.  1057. 

8  Morawetz  on  Private  Corporations, 
§§452,  453;  Rand  v.  Hubbell,  115 
Mass.  461 ;  Commonwealth  ».  Pitts- 


burg,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  74  Pa.  St.  83; 
Kenton  Furnace,  etc.,  Co.^.McAlpin, 
5  Fed.  R.  737. 

4  Morawetz  on  Private  Corporations, 
§§454,  455;  Jones  v.  Morrison,  31 
Minn.  140;  Jones  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc., 
R.  R.  Co.,  57  N.  Y.  196;  Dousman  v  . 
Wisconsin,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  40  Wis. 
418.  It  has  been  held  that  the  cor- 
poration may  give  the  stockholders 
the  privilege  of  taking  new  stock, 
when  the  capital  stock  is  increased,  at 
par,  or  less  than  par,  although  it  may 
be  worth  more.  Moss's  Appeal,  83 
Pa.  St.  264;  Wiltbank's  Appeal,  64  Pa. 
St.  256.  As  to  the  rights  of  holders  of 
preferred  stock,  see  Gordon's  Exrs.  v. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Va.  501,  s. 
c.  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  33;  Phil- 


§  321  DIVIDENDS.  441 

and  other  corporations,  whose  powers  and  duties  are  defined 
by  statute,  have  no  right  to  claim  shares  of  new  stock,  upon 
any  terms,  in  preference  to  others  desiring  to  become  owners 
of  such  stock,  unless  this  privilege  is  expressly  conferred  up- 
on them  in  some  manner  equivalent  to  a  declaration  of  a  divi- 
dend.1 In  our  opinion,  however,  there  is  no  good  reason  for 
distinguishing  between  railroad  companies  and  other  corpora- 
tions whose  stockholders  have  been  held  to  have  the  first  right 
to  take  the  new  shares,  unless  there  is  something  requiring  it 
in  the  charter,  statute,  or  by-laws  of  the  particular  corpora- 
tion.8 And  when  the  capital  stock  of  a  company  has  been 
lawfully  reduced,  the  property  thus  deducted  from  the  capital 
may  be  distributed  as  a  dividend.3  Where  no  special  provision 
is  made  to  the  contrary,  a  dividend  is  presumed  to  be  payable 
in  cash,  and  in  lawful  or  current  money.4  And  a  company 
can  not  show  that  a  dividend  was  payable  only  in  bank  bills 
passing  at  a  discount,  if  it  has  not  distinctly  said  so  in  the 
resolution  declaring  it.5 

§  321.  Dividends  payable  without  discrimination. — A  divi- 
dend must  be  payable  equally  to  all  stockholders  of  the  same 
class,  and  the  directors  can  not  discriminate  either  as  to  the 
proportional  size  of  the  dividends 6  or  as  to  the  manner  or  time 

lips  v.  Eastern  R.  R.  Co.,  138  Mass.  Y.  548;  Scott  v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co., 

122.  52  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  45,  where  the  income 

1 1  Wood  on  Railroads,  §  72 ;  Miller  of  the  corporation  was  Confederate 

».  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  Barb.  (N.  money  only,  but  the  legal  effect  of  the 

Y.)  312;  Curry  v.  Scott,  54  Pa.  St.  270;  resolution  was  held  to  be  that  the 

Ohio  Ins.  Co.    v.  Nunnemacher,   15  dividends    were    payable    in    lawful 

Ind.  294.  money  of  the  United  States. 

21  Rorer  on  Railroads,  208;  Gray  v.  6Ehle  v.  Chittenango  Bank,  24  X. 
Portland  Bank,  3  Mass.  364 ;  Cunning-  Y.  548,  where  the  dividend  was  de- 
ham's  Appeal,  108  Pa.  St.  546;  Reese  clared  to  be  payable  in  "New  York 
v.  Bank  of  Montgomery  Co.,  31  Pa.  state  currency.' ' 
St.  78;  State,  exrel.  Page,  v.  Smith,  48  6  Ryder  v.  Alton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  111. 
Vt.  266;  Eidman  v.  Bowman,  58  111.  516;  Painesville,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
444.  King,  17  Ohio  St.  534;  Howell  v.  Chi- 

3  Strong  v.   Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

93  N.  Y.  426,  435 ;  Parker  v.  Mason,  8  378 ;  Hale  v.  Republican  Riv.  Bridge 

R.I.  427.  Co.,  8   Kan.  466;  State  v.  Baltimore, 

4Ehle  v.  Chittenango  Bank,  24  N.  etc.,R.  Co.,6  Gill  (Md.)  363  ;Jackson's 


442 


THE    CORPORATION. 


§321 


of  payment/  or  as  to  the  medium  of  payment,  as  by  paying  a 
part  of  the  stockholders  in  gold  and  forcing  the  others  to 
accept  depreciated  paper  at  its  face  value,2  because  a  portion  of 
the  stock  is  unpaid,8  or  because  certain  stockholders  own  a 
greater  number  of  shares  than  others,4  or  because  the  stock 
held  by  part  of  the  stockholders  was  issued  after  that  held  by 
others,  even  though  it  was  not  issued  until  after  the  dividend 
was  earned,  provided  it  was  issued  before  the  dividend  was 
declared.5  The  stockholders  may  restrain  an  unequal  or  un- 
fair distribution  of  the  profits  of  the  company  by  bill  in 
equity,6  or  they  may,  perhaps,  sue  at  law  as  for  a  breach  of  the 
implied  contract  to  distribute  the  profits  ratably.7 


Admrs.  v.  Newark  Plank  Eoad  Co.,  31 
N.  J.  Law  277 ;  Atlantic,  etc.,  Tel.  Co. 
v.  Commonwealth,  3  Brewst.  (Pa.) 
366;  Harrison  v.  Mexican  R.  Co.,  L. 
R.  19  Eq.  358;  Coey  v.  Belfast,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Irish  R.),  2  C.  L.  112;  March 
D.  Eastern  R.  R.  Co.,  43  N.  H.  515. 

1  State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 
Gill  (Md.)  363;  Jones  v.  Terre  Haute, 
€tc.,  R.  Co.,  57  N.  Y.  196. 

2  State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 
Gill   (Md.)  363;   Keppel's  Admr.   v. 
Petersburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Chase's  Dec. 
(U.  S.)  167. 

3  Oakbank,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Crum,  L.  R.  8 
App.  Cases  65;  Reese  v.  Bank,  etc.,  31 
Pa.  St.  78.     But  'the  dividend  so  de- 
clared may  generally  be  applied  by 
the  corporation  toward  extinguishing 
the  shareholder's  indebtedness  for  his 
stock.     King  v.  Paterson,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
29  N.  J.  L.  504.      That  it  may  be  so 


applied  by  agreement,   see  Ken  ton, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  McAlpin,  5  Fed.  R.  737. 

4  State  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 
Gill  (Md.)  363 ;  Jones  v.  Terre  Haute, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  57  N.  Y.  196. 

5  Jones  v.  Terre  Haute  R.  Co.,  57  N. 
Y.  196;  Jeimain  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  91  N.  Y.  483;  Phelps  v.  Farm- 
ers', etc..  Bank,  26  Conn.  269. 

6  Luling  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Ins.  Co., 
45  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  510.     In  case  of  a 
fraudulent  over-issue  of  stock,   pay- 
ment of  dividends  may  be  enjoined 
until  it  is  ascertained  who  are  the 
true  holders  of  genuine  stock.  Under- 
wood v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 
How.  Prac.  537.     See,  also,  Burnes  v. 
Pennell,  2  H  L.  Cas.  497 ;  Painesville, 
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.   King,  17  Ohio  St. 
534. 

7  Such  an  action  was  sustained  in 
New  Jersey.  Jackson's  Adm'r  v. New- 
ark Plank-Road  Co.,  31  N.  J.  Law  277. 


END  OF  VOLUME  I 


0 


ojm 


HIIHHB 


